Not often do you find a public school teacher agreeing with an individual who believes that the public education system should be abolished. So although Alvin Toffler could be considered an enemy of the public education system his arguments for the abolition of it do hold merit. When Toffler addresses the inadequacies of the institution of public education, he refers to its' inability to keep pace with the real world. "The schools are changing, if anything, at 10 miles per hour. So, how do you match an economy that requires 100 miles per hour with an institution like public education? A system that changes, if at all, at 10 miles per hour?" This blanket statement could be regarded as a challenge by those of us who do believe that the public education system offers benefits for our students. It is no secret that many schools, filled with innovative and motivated teachers, are afflicted with the disease of laborious change. Public education was built upon the premise that individuals needed to be prepared to fill the ranks of industry. With the evolution of society into the current globally connected world has come the need for change. Students need to be immersed in technology and educated in digital citizenship, collaborating with their global peers, applying their knowledge in real life scenarios such as through participation in service learning, etc. This demanded change, necessary to keep students prepared for the future is often retarded by many variables, including stagnant budgets, bureaucratic red tape, a lack of understanding and resistance to change. Our rigid ties to the "established curriculum" also prevents us from providing an education which is optimal for all students. We all have those students in our classrooms who are bright yet disengaged in the material being taught. Toffler believes that "If you want kids to really learn, they've got to love something. For example, kids may love sports. If I were putting together a school, I might create a course, or a group of courses, on sports. But that would include the business of sports, the culture of sports, the history of sports -- and once you get into the history of sports, you then get into history more broadly." Toffler understands the concept of differentiated instruction, providing students with the motivation to immerse themselves into their education. I do believe that there are basic concepts that students should learn and be able to apply, however shouldn't the end result be the measuring stick, rather than the road that takes the student there? So although I do not agree with all of Toffler's ideas, I do believe that he does paint an accurate picture of some of the problems which we need to address in the public education system. A wake up call for public education! Reshaping Education from the Ground Up by James Daly:
http://www.edutopia.org/future-school
4 weeks ago
These two quotes by Toffler are certainly powerful. What often happens in these types of discussions with educators (and others) is that we educators take offense because someone is criticizing us. We work hard for a modest living...and we would like to be treated better.
ReplyDeleteBut, Toffler isn't saying that we don't work hard or that we aren't doing a good job. He, like many others, understand that the educational system that exists in most schools even in 2010 is from a different era. We aren't talking about change for change sake...we are talking about preparing kids for a future that we don't totally understand. Can it be done...absolutely...but not by clinging to the practices that worked in 1930 or even 1990.
And, Tricia, you really hit that on the nail in the middle of this post where you talk about global education, technology, collaborating with peers, and so much more.
BTW, I loved the second Toffler quote in red...there are so many things kids are interested in...and the school curriculum must give them a chance to pursue those interests.
I too like the second quote. In order to give kids these chances to pursue those changing interests we need to constantly revisit curriculum. Rather than wholesale change every 4-7 years, we need to start modifying and adding to curriculum on an annual basis. No matter where I go I hear the line "the curriculum is a living breathing document, and therefore should not be stuck on a shelf gathering dust." I found that this is easier and nice to say, but rarely does curriculum become more than a large bookend behind a desk. In order to meet new student needs and interests we have to actually do what is nice and easy to say.
ReplyDelete