Filling Their Packs

John Dewey said, "Education is not preparation for life. Education is life."

     There are few professions where you can see the impact of your work so vividly. There aren't many jobs where hero, friend and mentor are part of the job description. There are few careers that have such a lasting impact on an entire generation.

     I like teaching. I like learning about teaching. And I especially like reading others' teaching philosophies. I love it when teachers select analogies that explain, instruct and inspire. , such as, "teaching is like lighting a bonfire," or "teaching is like giving students wings"

     For me, teaching is a little like stuffing a backpack. You know the ones I mean, the heavy-duty, oversize backpacks that students shoulder down the halls of our schools. In these metaphorical backpacks, students carry with them the knowledge and skills they will need for their journey through life. When students enter our classrooms, their backpacks have already been partially filled by families, life experiences and other instructors. The backpacks are deep and sometimes it's hard to see what they are carrying in there.

     Through our teaching, we attempt to place items in our student's backpacks. All children do not arrive to school with a backpack full of the same experiences, nor are they all equally full. When students first enter our classrooms we must determine what is in the backpack and begin filling from there. We add the foundations of language, reading, mathematics, the mechanics of writing and skill development. We pack in sharing and caring, character development, listening skills. Art, music and physical wellness are placed in the pack as well.

     By this time, the students' backpacks are pretty full, but we're not done yet. Our next job is to expand their backpacks so that more will fit in them. We do this by asking them to analyze, question and think.

     As children grow and mature, we ask them to look at what is in their backpacks and apply the items to real world situations. Sometimes, we can actually see their backpacks grow in class as they experience new ways of thinking about an issue. And sometimes students have to discard something from the bottom of their backpacks that has lain there, unexamined, for many years to make room for a new idea.

     The good thing about stuffing a backpack is that it's a lot of fun! We also know that as soon as students are out of our sight, they dump things out of the backpack to lighten the load. With these characteristics in mind, we can't just force items into the backpack. We have to get students to want to carry our backpack stuffers around. So we try new things in teaching. What do students discard? How can we get items to stick around longer in the backpack? Will this exercise expand that backpack or not? Mistakes are okay, because we can always try again. In addition, we find that the students might not notice how heavy the backpack has become if the stuffing process is interesting and even entertaining.

     As our students prepare to graduate, they leave us, their backpacks full. Our sincere desire is that they journey farther than we have, see more, and achieve more. And somewhere along the way, they'll pull something out of their backpacks and think of a teacher who placed it there.

Schools across the country bring iPads to the classroom | McClatchy

Schools across the country bring iPads to the classroom | McClatchy

Nostesia

This edition of Focus on the Future features an article by Jamie Vollmer, reproduced with permission.  Enjoy!

Nostesia

By Jamie Robert Vollmer

Millions of Americans argue, often vehemently, that today’s schools are dreadful compared to the temples of learning that existed in our golden past. In their view, we all would be better off if schools could just be the way they used to be.

These people are suffering from a debilitating mental condition that I have named nostesia: a hallucinogenic mixture of 50% nostalgia and 50% amnesia that distorts rational thinking. 

I have created the following equation to quantify the severity of an individual’s delusion:

A x O = NQ

A represents a person’s age. O is number of years he or she has been out of school. Multiply these together and you get NQ - the Nostesia Quotient. The higher a person’s NQ, the more advanced the disease and the less likely the person will respond to reasoned argument.

Mitigating factors exist that can reduce a person’s NQ. Aggravating conditions exist that can increase it. If, for example a person works in a school, or actively volunteers, we can divide his or her total NQ by 2. On the other hand, if the person is running for political office, multiply by 5.

One of my earliest exposures to nostesia came during a talk I gave in western Nebraska. I had just reviewed public education’s history of achievements, and listed the challenges that lay ahead, when a big fellow stood up and said, “You know, I listened to all your talk, and as far as I’m concerned if schools could just be the way they used to be around here, everything would be all right” 

“Yes sir,” I said. “What year would that be?”

“1953. Those were the really good schools.”

“The dropout rate in Nebraska in the early fifties was fifty percent,” I said. “In fact, in those days dropout counseling consisted of principals encouraging certain kids to drop out.”

“No,” said an elderly woman in the front row, “you have to go back to 1939 for the really good schools.” 

“Ma’am,” I said, “the dropout rate in the 1930s was 80%. Today, your schools have that number down to single or low double digits.”

Immediately, the big man proclaimed, “Oh, that’s not true. Everybody I graduated with graduated!”

Priceless.

Of course, the nostesia pandemic is not new. Each succeeding generation of young people is regarded by their elders as academically challenged. Written expressions of doubt and disapproval regarding “these kids today” and “these schools today” go back as far as Plato. My brothers and sisters in the magnificent boomer generation are no different. The same people who once said, “Never trust anyone over thirty,” now insist that today’s young people don’t know as much or work as hard as we did when we were young.

Every nostesiac has his or her rationale. Some are convinced that schools in the past were better because everybody got a job. They forget that most of those jobs - now gone - required little more than a strong back and a willingness to work. Some people are alarmed because “these kids today” don’t know the same things that they know, especially historical facts that they consider essential to being a good American. These adults forget that most of what they know they learned after they got out of school. They also fail to see that it’s not possible for today’s students to learn everything their parents and grandparents learned plus everything that has happened since—especially in a school year that has not added a minute in decades. Some nostesiacs parrot the dreary assessment of public schools offered by media pundits; they don’t want to admit that they have been duped by people on the radio they trust. Some adults cling to the fantasy because they refuse to believe they’ve been surpassed by new generations of kids. This is especially pronounced among the college educated. Finally, there are those who are CAVE people: Citizens Against Virtually Everything. No amount of reasoned discourse will eradicate their disease. It’s genetic.

Nostesia can be cured, but it must be aggressively treated. The most effective treatment includes direct exposure to students and teachers in schools—the more interactive the better—coupled with regular, powerful doses of good news about our schools

I have found that the best way to break the spell is to provide a little context.

Today, one of the hot button issues of the “back-to-the-past” contingent is the seemingly large number of college freshmen who require remediation. This subject receives a lot of press, and is offered as positive proof of failing schools. In this context, I offer the following quote. It appeared in the Los Angeles Times attributed to Professor Theodore M. Greene of Princeton University.

I know of no college or university in the country that doesn’t have to offer most or all of its freshmen courses in remedial English, beginning mathematics, beginning science and beginning foreign languages. Consequently, we give two or three years of college [courses] and the rest is high school work.

Most people agree that this is a perfect example of the declining quality of our schools. The problem with the argument, however, is that Professor Greene uttered this statement about the poor quality of high school graduates in March 1946. And when he spoke, he became part of a long line of complainants. Thirty-eight years prior, a 1908 Carnegie report discovered that large percentages of America’s high school graduates were being admitted to elite colleges with “conditions,” i.e., in need of remediation. Further back, in 1900, when only the top 2 percent of high school graduates went on to college (compared to 62 percent today), 378 of America’s 450 colleges reported that incoming freshman needed remedial work. Eighty-four percent!

There never was a time when remediation of a significant percentage of new students was not required.

A curious thing about the people afflicted with nostesia is that when they are cornered on one issue they quickly skate to the next. For example, high on their list of complaints is the rank ignorance that “these kids today” display regarding the most basic points of American history and geography. This really rattles people. Listen to the audience nervously laugh and groan as Jay Leno wanders the streets of L.A asking pedestrians seemingly simple questions concerning past and current events. It is a funny bit, but it is not new.

In 1943, The New York Times and Columbia University did their own version of “Jay-walking.” The results were just as pathetic. A large percentage of the people questioned could not identify the names of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, or Theodore Roosevelt. Only 6 percent could identify the thirteen original colonies. Abraham Lincoln was identified as our first president, and he was said to have “emaciated the slaves.” When asked to identify the great American poet, Walt Whitman, hundreds said he was a bandleader, apparently confusing him with the jazz musician, Paul Whiteman. Their understanding of geography was equally thin. Most had no idea what America or the world looked like and could not correctly place our major cities on a map.

On its surface, this 1943 exercise does much to refute the notion that previous generations of Americans were more knowledgeable, especially about the “important stuff.” Look below the surface, however, and it gets worse. The interviewees were not a random sample of Americans. They were all college freshmen, America’s finest high school graduates. The Times and Columbia had not just exposed cultural illiterates, but elite cultural illiterates.

Nostesiacs howl in protest when I tell them this. They refuse to accept it, and one word makes it easy to see why. Television. We are daily exposed to a frightening array of fatuous, vain, half-naked specimens of America’s youth. How easy it is to unfavorably compare this horde with the clean-cut, well-mannered TV kids of yesteryear. But the comparison is false. Until quite recently, only a certain kind of young people were allowed to talk on TV: the ones who were taught how. Adults carefully scripted every line spoken by the kids in the old sitcoms. The only young people speaking extemporaneously on TV were the teens on Bandstand (“I like the words but not the lyrics.”), or those who wore jackets, ties, and dresses on the General Electric College Bowl. (Oh, those thirty point bonus questions!) Absent were the muddled freshmen quizzed by the Times and ordinary kids from the neighborhood. Now, their modern counterparts display their “brilliance” on reality shows and Jerry Springer’s stage fifteen times a day. This might be a statement on the sorry state of television, but it says nothing about the relative strength of our schools.

Every issue nostesiacs are likely to raise can be placed in historical context. Whether social promotion, lack of discipline, basic literacy, or dropout rates, there is ample evidence that it was no better in the past. No matter how far back I look, I can find no evidence of the golden era when we were “a nation of learners.” Nor can I find a time when parents were better educated than their children.

There is no doubt that America’s schools need to change to better serve the needs of the time, but not by going backwards. The vast majority of public schools are doing a better job now of educating America’s youth than they have ever done before. 

The Importance of Reading to Your Child

According to Mem Fox, author of Reading Magic, "If parents understood the huge educational benefit and intense happiness brought about by reading aloud to their children, and if every parent—and every adult caring for a child—read aloud a minimum of three stories a day to the children in their lives, we could probably wipe out illiteracy within one generation." This is a pretty bold statement, but one that many Early Childhood professionals firmly believe in. Reading to a child can and should begin as soon after birth as possible, as it will help with brain development, speech skills, as well as simply bonding with the child, which will help in other developmental areas as well.

It may seem to some, that infants will not benefit from being read aloud to. Many experts on the subject will disagree. Most people don’t realize that when a child is born, only twenty-five percent of the brain in developed, and the rest develops within the first year of life. This is an extremely crucial time in a child’s life where reading aloud and simply talking to the child will help tremendously with brain development along with their speaking skills. "The sense of dislocation and confusion that occurs when kids and parents don’t connect disturbs children long after childhood is over," (Reading Magic pg. 21).

In his book The Read-Aloud Handbook, Jim Trelease gives several examples to emphasis the belief that there is a literacy problem in the United States. One such example follows:

"Every workday afternoon a courier shows up at the door of the fifth largest insurance company in America, New York Life. There he is handed a satchel of insurance claims, which he drives to JFK Airport. The satchel is then loaded aboard an Aer Lingus jet and flown to Dublin, Ireland, where American insurance claims will be processed by other people in another county. Why? Because New York Life cannot find enough young people in the metropolitan area, between the ages of twenty and thirty, who know how to read, write, and think clearly and critically enough to process insurance claims. Ireland has them."

There is a simple solution to this problem, read aloud to your children every day, even when they are old enough to read to themselves. "The more you read, the better you get at it; the better you get at it, the more you like it; and the more you like it, the more you do it." (The Read Aloud Handbook, pg. 4). Reading aloud should be fun, exciting and pleasurable for both the person reading and the child being read to, if it’s not, the child will not want to be read to and consequently not like to read later in life.

There are several do’s and don’ts when reading aloud to children, but he most important thing to do is to begin reading to infants, as soon as they are born!! Use rhyming book, such as Mother Goose rhymes and songs to help with language development. "Rhymers will be readers." (Reading Magic, pg. 85) There are many more do's than don't, the biggest "do" is do read to your children.

A few don’ts to follow when reading to your children include, don’t read books you don’t enjoy yourself. Have fun reading and make it a special time for both of you. Use books that are age appropriate for the child and make sure you have read the book prior to reading it aloud to be sure of it’s contents. Using books that the child doesn’t understand can turn them off of books for good.

Most parents begin working with their children by teaching them their letters first, then they move onto words and then the stories. According to Mem Fox this is exactly opposite of they way it should be done. If a parent reads aloud to their child early and often then the letters and words will naturally come into the child’s world.

One very important aspect of reading aloud to children is to discuss what’s being read to them. This helps the child to not only learn to read the words on the page, but to understand what they are reading, or being read to. A child can learn the words and read them from a book, but if they don’t understand what they are reading, then they are not reading.

According to Mem Fox there are three secrets of reading: being able to make the print mean something; understanding the language; and our knowledge. The more a person knows about life, the easier it will be to learn to read. One thing to keep in mind when working with older children; if the child is having trouble pronouncing a word, don’t have them try to sound it out, just tell them what it is and move on with the story. If the child worries too much about what certain words are they will forget about what they are reading. If they aren't comprehending the story, they really aren't reading.

If an older child is having trouble reading a particular book, it may be that it’s just too difficult for them. Suggesting nicely that maybe you could read some of it aloud to them might be a good idea. If the child is struggling with reading a book that is a bit out of their reading level, it very well might turn them off of reading forever. That is not what we want to happen!

Some simple things that parents can do to ensure their children become readers are to first and foremost, read to them. Second have books readily available around the house and take them to the library as often as possible. Make reading fun and make sure it’s done often. "Whatever happens in the world of school, continuing to read aloud to our children at home should solve most reading problems and will always be a lifeline to their happiness, their literacy, and their future." (Reading Magic, pg. 152).

Being the Parent of a Student-Athlete

From my 25 years in education, most of it spent as a teacher/coach, I have come to understand an unspoken language with coaches when they uttered one word: "Parents."
It speaks volumes. I know what the coach was thinking. We share an identical image from my years on the high school coaching scene: wackos in the stands screaming at officials or stalking outside locker-room doors ready to confront the coach.

Then I became one.

A parent that is.

The guy in the stands with a child in uniform. It didn't happen overnight, of course. There were countless youth games played, thousands of miles driven and untold drive-thrus visited from the time my children were 5 years old through my son's senior year. T-Ball, baseball, softball, volleyball, football, track, golf, wrestling, cheerleading, at some point in their growing up years, they did it all.

They learned a lot, and of course, so did I.

Here are the 10 biggest lessons I learned from being the parent of a student-athlete

No. 1. Have no expectations, for your child or the coach. If you go into the season thinking "This kid is going to be a star," you have just set your child, the coaches and yourself up for failure.

Trophies won from ages 5 to 15 don't mean a thing. What he or she did in middle school or on the freshman and junior varsity teams is almost as unimportant. So many kids who are young all-stars will fade away. Even among the seemingly "sure bets", some will lose interest, quit, peak early, become ineligible, the list goes on.

Conversely, for the little ones, puberty is like a magic bean. It takes them to unexpected places. I'm 6' 1'.  My wife is 5'9".  My son grew to be 6'2" and my daughter is 5 foot nothing.  Both found their niche. They found what they liked, what they excelled at, and they worked hard at those activities. Interestingly, neither picked what I probably would have predicted for them when they were first starting out.  It was astonishing to watch the transformation, and you will be amazed at the kids who weren't stars at early ages who stick with it and become valuable varsity performers.

No. 2. Give your child some space. Let her enjoy her successful moments and figure out how to deal with defeat, failure and disappointment. Don't get too wrapped up in the wins and losses. Your job is to make sure your child does not get too high after a win or too low after a loss.

No. 3. Try to have an objective view of your child's ability and build on his or her strengths. Don't tear him down by telling him what he did wrong unless the child comes looking for constructive criticism. Most of the time, the kid knows it better than you.

No. 4. Let your child make decisions that matter, with one caveat. When he or she considers quitting -- and most athletes have that moment -- make the child understand quitting is not the first option, especially once the season has begun. Dealing with adversity and persevering are important lessons.

No. 5. Grades really are the most important thing. The chances that he or she will get a college sports scholarship are almost nil, and even if the stars align and that happens, the kid still has to have good grades.

No. 6. Don't ignore injuries or signs of extreme mental and physical fatigue. If he or she is hurting, find out what it is. Playing injured can hurt the team and your child's long-term health.

No. 7. Let your child fight his or her own battles with the coach, especially with regard to the No. 1 complaint: playing time. Your kid has to learn how to deal with adults. It's part of growing up. He or she will have to confront professors and bosses, and this is a good place to learn. If it's another issue and you find it necessary to get involved, always wait a day to talk to the coach. Let your emotions subside and think clearly about the point you want to make. If you suspect there is hazing or abuse taking place, report it to the athletic director or principal immediately.

No. 8. Support the team and be a good fan. Volunteer, and don't wait to be asked. Attend booster club meetings. Get to know the other parents. Make your own positive experience in the stands, no matter what is going on below.

When you're at the game or event, cheer for everyone on your kid's team, not just your own. Don't be the jerk in the stands, the one yelling at the coach, your team, the other team, and mostly the officials. You are embarrassing your school, your child and yourself. If you don't have anything good to say, sit down and shut up. If you're not enjoying yourself, stay home. You won't be missed.

No. 9. Understand these are competitive sports. Once they are in high school, it's no longer Little League where every kid gets to play. There's going to be disappointment, heartache, unfairness and injuries. Unless it ends in a state championship, it will end in defeat. Your child is going to make mistakes. The coach will yell at him or her. That's what they do. Let it happen. He or she is not a baby anymore.

No. 10. Enjoy the ride. It will go by fast. Hug your child when it's over.

Iowa Blueprint for Reform in Education

Link to a description of the reform:  http://www.iowasenaterepublicans.com/index.php?option=com_lyftenbloggie&view=entry&category=blogs&id=36%3Aiowas-education-reform-blueprint&Itemid=18#bookmarks

Link to a replay of this morning's chat (this is in text form):  http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2011/10/03/9-a-m-live-coverage-gov-branstad-unveils-iowa-education-reform-plan/


Here is my synopsis from this morning's press conference unveiling the blueprint for education reform in Iowa:

1.  Increase teacher salaries
2.  Change the structure of how teachers are paid to a four-tiered career ladder system.
3.  High stakes literacy tests at 3rd grade
4.  End-of-course exams and graduation testing for high school.
5.  Create competition through charter schools and competitive innovation grants.
6.  Create a system where teachers can work and learn together.

The goal to put a high quality teacher in every classroom, and a high quality principal in each building. Also, restrict those who go into to teaching to only the best and brightest.

My interpretation is not overly favorable right now.

Paying teacher more will make them better teachers?  I'm not opposed to paying teachers more.  I think in general, they should get a higher starting salary, but paying more without other changes will have little impact on the classroom.  I also know that part of the purpose is to attract quality candidates to become teachers.  Might work, but look at the states that have higher salaries than Iowa. Most of them also have a GREATER TEACHER SHORTAGE!

Pay teachers differently.  I agree that the 4X4 salary schedule, as it exists now, is archaic at best.  Teachers advance because we take a class and/or we advance because we lived to see another year. What Dr. Glass and Gov. Brandstad fail to acknowledge is that under current bargaining laws (i.e. Chapter 20) salary is a MANDATORY topic of bargaining.  The salary schedule has to be bargained locally during negotiations, so really it is within the power of each district to set up any salary schedule they want. Which begs the question that if there is something better out there, why hasn't it surfaced through the negotiation process? If you recall, the current 4X4 schedule actually originated from the Des Moines school district a number of years ago. Doesn't mention how this is supposed to directly impact instructional practices.

High-stakes testing.  If a third grade student doesn't test proficient on the literacy tests, they don't move on automatically.  They have to go through remediation (i.e. summer school).  This makes the assumption that all children acquire literacy skills at the same time, when we know through research that this is not true. That's not to say that we need to improve our practice of teaching reading in the primary grades.  We do, and we should. No mention of instructional practices.

More high-stakes testing.  End-of-course exams is not new reform, it's part of the Iowa Core (now know as the Common Core). Hey, but if they want to take credit.... The graduation exam is actually a re-hashed notion as well. Look to other states that have put this in place.  Cheating is an issue (by students and teachers). There have been lawsuits filed.  There are examples of errors in grading the tests and students being retained unnecessarily.  There is no indication in the blueprint on how special education falls into the plan for exit exams.  This one is going to require a great deal of thought and planning. Still no mention of instructional practices.

Competition for funding.  Charter schools. Charter schools in Iowa are public schools that operate outside of Chapter 12 requirements with permission from the DE.  Believe it or not, you can do this now in Iowa without being a charter school through the waiver laws that are in place. So really, in Iowa, we have the ability to establish alternative educational tracts for students if we so choose. If this is so, why don't we see more of it? Because the current philosophy behind a comprehensive K-12 system is one people buy into, in practice it works when the correct instructional practices are implemented.  The other part of the competition piece is having school compete for innovation funds through a grant process.  So, innovation is going to be in the sole hands of grant readers, rather than experts in educational practices.   I guarantee that this will lead to shallow innovations like interactive whiteboards, one-to-one laptop initiatives, and the like.  Again, never directly addressing instructional practices.

The question came up in the chat on how these reforms will be funded?  The response from the Governor was that more resources will have to go to education in the state budget.  Currently, 58% of the State of Iowa's budget is currently going to education. Again, I doubt throwing money at the problem is the correct course of action.  I would gladly accept more, but I think we need to cut back on some of the categorical funding and allow local control on how the funding is used. As with the salary issue, look at the states simply spending more on education and you will see two things. Most of them perform at a level below Iowa, and most of them have or had severe budget crisis. Requiring research-based instructional practices would cost the state no more money.  There would be some professional development required and that funding stream is already in place.

Both the Governor and Dr. Glass talked about creating a system where teachers can work together and learn together.  In this current day, professional learning communities are more the norm. These are groups of teachers learning and working together, reviewing student achievement data, and working to improve teaching and learning.  This exists already in many, if not most, schools. This leads me to a question, "Have the people working on this reform spent any significant time observing schools prior to addressing the so-called problems?"

It was also mentioned that teachers should have a voice in curriculum development and hiring.  Curriculum development has been, almost soley in the hands of the teachers since we started writing standards and benchmarks back in the late 80's early 90's and this practice hasn't changed much.  Currently, teachers are working hard on curriculum alignment with the Common Core.  I guess I don't know who Dr. Glass or Gov. Brandstad thinks has been doing this work.  As far as hiring goes, Although it was never directly stated, I take this to mean the hiring of teachers and administrators.  It is common practice for teachers to serve on interview teams for hiring administrators. In many schools, teachers sit on interview teams when hiring teachers as well, Again, this is a local decision, but this would be far from major reform.

My interpretation? What they are purposing is "change" not "reform."   To truly reform education, you need to implement research-based instructional practices consistently and with fidelity. Teachers need to be trained in what those effective strategies look like and how to develop lessons using them.  Principals need to be trained to look DOWN at the student tasks, what the students are actually doing in the classroom.  These are the things that will improve instruction, improve student learning, and ultimately, student achievement.  My suggestion to Dr. Glass and Governor Branstad will be to stop just rearranging the deck chairs and start building a better boat. Focus on training teachers and principals in the most effective instructional strategies and expecting some accountability on how they are being used consistently.  The other stuff is all window dressing and won't get us to where we truly need to be.

Why Integrate Technology into the Classrooms?

Technology is ubiquitous, touching almost every part of our lives, our communities, our homes. Yet most schools lag far behind when it comes to integrating technology into classroom learning. Many are just beginning to explore the true potential tech offers for teaching and learning. Properly used, technology will help students acquire the skills they need to survive in a complex, highly technological knowledge-based economy.

Integrating technology into classroom instruction means more than teaching basic computer skills and software programs in a separate computer class. Effective tech integration must happen across the curriculum in ways that research shows deepen and enhance the learning process. In particular, it must support four key components of learning: active engagement, participation in groups, frequent interaction and feedback, and connection to real-world experts. Effective technology integration is achieved when the use of technology is routine and transparent and when technology supports curricular goals.

Many people believe that technology-enabled project learning is the ultimate in classroom instruction. Learning through projects while equipped with technology tools allows students to be intellectually challenged while providing them with a realistic snapshot of what the modern office looks like. Through projects, students acquire and refine their analysis and problem-solving skills as they work individually and in teams to find, process, and synthesize information they've found online.

The myriad resources of the online world also provide each classroom with more interesting, diverse, and current learning materials. The Web connects students to experts in the real world and provides numerous opportunities for expressing understanding through images, sound, and text.

New tech tools for visualizing and modeling, especially in the sciences, offer students ways to experiment and observe phenomenon and to view results in graphic ways that aid in understanding. And, as an added benefit, with technology tools and a project-learning approach, students are more likely to stay engaged and on task, reducing behavioral problems in the classroom.

Technology  changes the way teachers teach, offering educators effective ways to reach different types of learners and assess student understanding through multiple means. It also enhances the relationship between teacher and student. When technology is effectively integrated into subject areas, teachers grow into roles of adviser, content expert, and coach. Technology helps make teaching and learning more meaningful and fun.