Computers and software aren't enough for learning in schools
What universities often find, however, is that they spend too much money on equipment and too little on training. The result is that valuable equipment is left idle because teachers do not necessarily know how to use it, and therefore cannot pass the information on to students. Teachers end up with more stuff, but little extra knowledge.
We turned to consulting firm McKinsey & Co. to study the issue. They looked at how institutions can best spend the money; what proportion should go to equipment and training; and, in general, how the schools can get the best return on their investment.
McKinsey did a lot of good work, researching existing efforts in a variety of schools and other institutions. They came up with carefully hedged results, but the overall findings were clear: The best results come when you spend substantially, about a third, on training teachers. The rest should go - one third each - to software and equipment (personal computers and wiring) and to services, including online connections, maintenance and technical support. Details vary, but the overall proportions are right.
Unfortunately, in many cases schools overspend on equipment and then find out that it doesn't get used. Teachers don't know how to use it, and they're reluctant to ask for help from the obvious experts - their pupils. When things break down, there's no one to fix them.
After all, equipment vendors want to get as much of the budget as possible, and so they tend to downplay the importance of training. That happens in businesses too, but years of experience have taught businesses what schools have yet to find out.
In business, the market works. In schools, there's less of a culture of both competition and sharing of information. When a company is successful, its public relations operation makes sure people know.
Likewise, vendors often publicize corporate success stories, but they are less likely to do the same in education, since the market is less lucrative and success stories are harder to determine because they lack clear measurements.
And the internet's value goes well beyond what it can do for teachers and children in classrooms, which still depends more on the quality and enthusiasm of the teachers than on the tools they use.
Parents can also use e-mail to keep in touch with schools, and teachers can learn from other teachers' experiences, sharing them through e-mail or discussion groups. Here too the government has a role beyond merely buying the equipment. Sharing information with other teachers sounds nice, but it's just one more chore for busy people. Schools may have to set aside explicit time and money for teachers to spend communicating with other teachers, much like they allocate time and money to training and other activities. Some teachers will communicate among themselves and set up web sites out of sheer enthusiasm, but most will need encouragement - or at least some relief from their other duties.
The internet could profoundly change the structure of the education system. This may be more than the government is bargaining for, but it's what the internet is all about. The internet can support an information marketplace that would encourage teachers to share their good and bad experiences, and give parents a place to find out how their children's schools are doing.
If it dares, the government can foster the concept that schools should have their own web sites, and that there should be independent third-party web sites that rate schools, much like they might rate restaurants, computer products or politicians. The best forces for better education are not the officials who manage the system, but its consumers - the parents and the children who use it. While there is not (in state schools) a financial market encouraging better schools, there can be a market that gives parents the information they need to press their schools to do a better job.
All this may sound like somewhat diffuse advice - or a warning more than encouragement - but that's the point. The internet is not just one more pedagogical tool, but a powerful technology that could turn the school system into a market of schools that improve through trial and error and feedback even as they continue to live on state funding. Education is one of the state's most important tasks - and it's time to let it benefit from the same technology that everyone acknowledges will make business more efficient in the years ahead.
Kids don't need to be "taught" the internet - they seem to be learning to use it by themselves. They need to be taught how to think by teachers, not by machines. But the education system needs the feedback loops that the internet can foster.
We turned to consulting firm McKinsey & Co. to study the issue. They looked at how institutions can best spend the money; what proportion should go to equipment and training; and, in general, how the schools can get the best return on their investment.
McKinsey did a lot of good work, researching existing efforts in a variety of schools and other institutions. They came up with carefully hedged results, but the overall findings were clear: The best results come when you spend substantially, about a third, on training teachers. The rest should go - one third each - to software and equipment (personal computers and wiring) and to services, including online connections, maintenance and technical support. Details vary, but the overall proportions are right.
Unfortunately, in many cases schools overspend on equipment and then find out that it doesn't get used. Teachers don't know how to use it, and they're reluctant to ask for help from the obvious experts - their pupils. When things break down, there's no one to fix them.
After all, equipment vendors want to get as much of the budget as possible, and so they tend to downplay the importance of training. That happens in businesses too, but years of experience have taught businesses what schools have yet to find out.
In business, the market works. In schools, there's less of a culture of both competition and sharing of information. When a company is successful, its public relations operation makes sure people know.
Likewise, vendors often publicize corporate success stories, but they are less likely to do the same in education, since the market is less lucrative and success stories are harder to determine because they lack clear measurements.
And the internet's value goes well beyond what it can do for teachers and children in classrooms, which still depends more on the quality and enthusiasm of the teachers than on the tools they use.
Parents can also use e-mail to keep in touch with schools, and teachers can learn from other teachers' experiences, sharing them through e-mail or discussion groups. Here too the government has a role beyond merely buying the equipment. Sharing information with other teachers sounds nice, but it's just one more chore for busy people. Schools may have to set aside explicit time and money for teachers to spend communicating with other teachers, much like they allocate time and money to training and other activities. Some teachers will communicate among themselves and set up web sites out of sheer enthusiasm, but most will need encouragement - or at least some relief from their other duties.
The internet could profoundly change the structure of the education system. This may be more than the government is bargaining for, but it's what the internet is all about. The internet can support an information marketplace that would encourage teachers to share their good and bad experiences, and give parents a place to find out how their children's schools are doing.
If it dares, the government can foster the concept that schools should have their own web sites, and that there should be independent third-party web sites that rate schools, much like they might rate restaurants, computer products or politicians. The best forces for better education are not the officials who manage the system, but its consumers - the parents and the children who use it. While there is not (in state schools) a financial market encouraging better schools, there can be a market that gives parents the information they need to press their schools to do a better job.
All this may sound like somewhat diffuse advice - or a warning more than encouragement - but that's the point. The internet is not just one more pedagogical tool, but a powerful technology that could turn the school system into a market of schools that improve through trial and error and feedback even as they continue to live on state funding. Education is one of the state's most important tasks - and it's time to let it benefit from the same technology that everyone acknowledges will make business more efficient in the years ahead.
Kids don't need to be "taught" the internet - they seem to be learning to use it by themselves. They need to be taught how to think by teachers, not by machines. But the education system needs the feedback loops that the internet can foster.
