The main points for the revolution, as seen from here (Mid July 2009):
An understanding that the mission of K12 education in the 21st and possibly the 22nd centuries, is to produce graduates who are able and inclined to learn throughout their lives. Without it, the education system is almost irrelevant to the real life outside of it
A high degree of freedom of choice of subjects to be taught, methods, emphases, etc. This freedom should be visible at many levels: state, region, community, school, teacher, pupil. This is the way to create positive engagement and commitment of all stakeholders in the schooling system. This is the only way to enable the education system to cater to the various expectations of different parts of society, and to respond to the rapid changes in society and its needs
Clear, minimalist and strict regulation, to enforce basic requirements of the schools active within the aforementioned freedom of choice. Just like the regulation for food selling in most countries being quite minimalist: "You can't sell poisonous food", and at the same time very strict - anyone actually selling poisonous food stands to be severely punished
Peer teaching: Pupils can teach pupils, and everybody gains: The learning pupil enjoys a much better teachers/students ratio; The teaching student practices a useful skill and gains better understanding of the subject-matter; The professional teacher has more time and available attention for observing individual pupils and enabling them to advance where they need and are able to
Beyond these main points, there are a few important more technical concerns
Ongoing research can enable different schools to learn from each other's experience. 21st century reality keeps introducing new facts, trends, needs (perceived and real), professions (E.g., life coach), opportunities (E.g., Internet) and dangers (E.g., global warming), and does it at a very rapid pace. We need to teach what we never studied. Nobody know how to teach these new subjects (E.g., dealing with the information glut), so we must experiment and share the results we get
Well established feedback mechanisms, providing each stakeholder with a clear indication of how they are doing in relation to what they are trying to do. Without feedback, working in open-loop, any improvement is either coincidental, or based on the heroism of the few. Either way, without systematic feedback, improvement is very limited
Effective communication between all the parts of the system. Information tends to get lost. In a complex human endeavor such as education, there is a lot of information at stake. Letting it be fall through the cracks and be lost, forces us to work with less knowledge than we could have. Mistakes will be made anyway, but it's a shame to make mistakes we don't need to make
The main points listed above: The mission, choice, regulation and peer-teaching, are concerns with how we need to act. The technical concerns: research, feedback and communication, are concerned with ways to generate and use detailed knowledge about how these actions seem to work, and keep us in touch with reality. Many more points can be listed: Dozens. Hundreds. But if we do that, the details will mask the big picture. And the big picture is not all that complex in itself. We just got used to think it was
Some thoughts on the main points you've raised:
ReplyDeletea. Relevance to real life - that would imply focusing on skills and self-development rather than knowledge, no? (Not that there's anything wrong with that)
b. Freedom of choice - couldn't agree more, particularly where the teachers are concerned. For instance, in personal experience, literature teachers have been consistently displeased with the curriculum.
However, the danger this involves is, religious indoctrination creeping into the educational establishment (Creationist theory etc.).
c. Regulation - regulatory bodies love numbers. We've been conditioned to "measure" and "compare" people using Psychotechnic/Psychometric/IQ exam results. Parents are also a major part in a short term pursuit of grades (for Uni/college entrance or plain bragging rights). A loose curriculum is difficult to "measure" "accurately" and could ultimately yield even greater influence to such fallacies as the Psychometric exam, or school "reputation".
d. Peer teaching - Amen to that!
I would also add to the resource pool, current Uni/college students. Surely these intelligent folks could do better service to their society rather than working part time at a tele-marketing job, for the roughly the same meager pay. Particularly in the languages and sciences departments, where the curriculum is already determined and easily repeatable.
As for some of the minor points raised, I believe the easiest way to provide communication between schools, teachers and students, is to make sure as much of the curriculum as possible, is available online. That should override the pride element getting in the way between teachers/schools.
Furthermore, in my honest opinion, the curriculum should be open sourced as much as possible, we need to pay actual teachers rather than the authors of books. Should a certain book be immensely useful, the school's library can offer it.
Short note: I agree
ReplyDeleteLong note: See below
a. Self-development: With freedom of choice comes the option of creating a school and sending the kids to a school that emphasizes one's favorite brand of self-development. I am likely to send my kids to such a school, but not everybody thinks school is the right venue. Also, in building the infrastructure for a universally "right" establishment, I try to keep away from out-of-consensus issues such as moral values, and self-development is dangerously far from the consensus. Regarding skills - definitely. Much more than mere knowledge
b. ... and how well can a displeased teacher teach? Not as well as a pleased one.
Danger of indoctrination: Frightening, but we are already there. In my schooling years I was successfully indoctrinated into a specific view history. Also - and here I digress into philosophy - who is to say what’s “bad” indoctrination? If there are tens of millions of Americans who believe in Creationism, I don’t have a direct phone line to any God who tells me whether it’s a good idea to believe in that. But I have my limits, too. I don’t think any society should tolerate a school that teaches robbing your neighbors. This is where the minimalist and strict regulation should kick in.
c. Regulation: Yes, the regulatory body would have to deal with complexities beyond measuring what’s easy to measure.
d. Peer-teaching: Now I am going to do a backflip: I downgraded this idea from “Basic Pillar” to “a personal schooling idea.” I personally like it, but it doesn’t need to be a part of the “system.” Same with the students - I like it, and may send my (grand) kids to a school who does that, but it’s not a requirement. Some people believe teaching must be done by highly trained professionals. Who am I to say they are absolutely wrong? See that missing phone line mentioned above.
Availability on line: Maybe this should go under the “research” or “sharing knowledge” ideas that were further developed later.