The Most Daring Education Reform of All

I just got done reading a terrific, thought provoking essay by Diana Senechal in the latest American Educator magazine. I urge everyone to give it a read.

Here is one paragraph from the article:

The classroom that the 21st-century-skills proponents envision-a place where students are collaborating, creating, and critiquing- may not be as promising as it seems. A video by the George Lucas Educational Foundation shows middle school students comparing two magazine photos in light of gender roles; other students filming a poetry project; third-graders watching a nature film and learning how the film was made; fourth-graders making animated short videos; seventh-graders analyzing newspaper photos of the war in Iraq; and other lessons and activities. These examples are supposed to show what students should be doing in class: discussing important issues, analyzing the information around them, and creating things. Near the end of the video, the narrator comments: "As courses and projects featuring elements of media literacy find their way into more and more classrooms, writing English might become just one of several forms of expression, along with graphics, cinema, and music, to be taught in a basic course called communication". This is where the losses begin.

The article dives deep into the realm of what is needed for all of our students. It's not just about the skill's that are being taught. We are not here to meet the "demands of the day" but of all time. Teaching one how to blog, how to edit video, and the like, do not make for better learners. Indeed, the fact that teaching these skills necessarily takes time away from core subjects means there is less of a focus on what it is that can truly make students successful.

The article goes on:

When the frenzy over 21st century skills passes—and it will—students will see that their opportunities depend largely on their knowledge. Many will graduate with blogging experience, but those who can write a strong essay on a Supreme Court case will be better prepared to enter the fields of history, law, or journalism. Many will have online science portfolios, but those who have studied calculus, read parts of Newton’s Principia, and can prove Kepler’s second law (for example) will be much better prepared to study physics at an advanced level. …The ability to make a YouTube video or podcast will mean little in the long run, if the other things are absent. Moreover, those technologies may be obsolete in another few years, but literature, science, languages, mathematics, history, music, art, and drama will stay.

Mediocre creativity abounds, as does false innovation. Creativity and innovation require knowledge and practice. If you do not teach the latter, you will not get great results in the former.

So what is the most daring education reform of all? I will encourage you to read the entire essay to find out.

Thanks for reading.

James

Schools and Creativity

I came across a video that is thought provoking. It confirms some of what we value here in Mt Lebanon in how we educate our children. The video is a talk given by Sir Ken Robinson at the TED conference in 2007. The title of the video is "Do Schools Kill Creativity?"



TED is a group is very intelligent and creative minds that get together and share their ideas once a year at an event in California. Some of the most inspiring videos I have ever seen have come from talks at TED. Go to www.TED.com to check it out for yourself. A friend of mine recently attended the conference in Long Beach this year. She posted a review here (see the Dream Date with TED post).

But what about the ideas that Sir Robinson is talking about in his presentation. I hear often about how teaching to tests is simply killing the ability of our teachers to teach what matters. I had a conversation with a teacher friend of mine just the other day on this very topic. Teaching kids how to take tests educates a generation of good test takers not a bunch of world leaders. This is one of the reasons I am opposed to the Governor's Graduate Competency Assessments.

How about his other points? Is creativity as important as literacy as he contends? That is a great thought. What is the best way to reach those kids that are in the back of the room muddling through what to them is an uninteresting lesson?

His point about how the hierarchy of subjects taught in schools is well taken. It makes as much sense as teaching science classes in alphabetical order (biology, chemistry, then physics). Sir Robinson says that the hierarchy of subjects was based on the fact that national education systems did not come into being until the industrial revolution was underway. Education systems were constructed to prepare students for entry into the industrial world. That is why the focus on subjects went (from top to bottom) mathematics, language, humanity, and then the arts. Unfortunately at the time there were no jobs for dancers or artists on the floors of these factories. The story about Gillian Lynne and how she became a dancer was an interesting one- especially when you think that Sir Robinson could be right in that someone today might have simply given her some Ritalin and told her to calm down.

Perhaps my favorite point in his speech was when he said, "If you are not prepared to be wrong then you will never come up with anything original."

Sir Ken Robinson's book which he alludes to in this talk is now available on Amazon.com. It is called "The Element: How Finding Your Passion Changes Everything".

Thanks for reading.

James