Pete Heineman in LO9300 asked what he stated were, "Unfair and biased
questions." But I think they are good ones. He placed these questions
in the context of Joan Pomo's challenge about making education relevant
and valuable.
>Just a few questions come to mind:
> How do we prepare a "child" for a dynamic, possibly virtual
work place?
> Are you proposing that we "track" children into professions
or place them into apprenticeships? If so, how are those
placements determined?
> Do we prepare our children only for a life of work? Is this
the principle responsibility of education?
> Do we teach our children to pursue a pension instead of pursuing
their passion (Dennis Waitley)? (end of quote)
I guess my reaction to his questions and his further comments would be
more in line with,
Okay. But what are we doing NOW to accomplish any significant
results and improvements?
My children will work in a community as well as a community of work.
How are we preparing them for this eventuality, NOW?
My 13 year old son surprised me yesterday with the fact that he is
dismissed from his class before lunch to go to the cafeteria but he also
had to sit with his class in DURING lunch.
He is NOT free to talk with whom he wanted because the teachers found it
easier to control the students this way. He is also not allowed to go
to his locker (even though he walks right by it and even though he might
have forgotten something in it) unless it is during an assigned period.
And what kinds of teamwork skills is he learning in the classroom.
He's gotten pretty good at memorizing facts (but lost 20 points on a
quiz because he spelled Pangea (?) wrong only to find that the teacher
had actually spelled it wrong and that another text he had last year
spelled it the way he did. ((I advised him to consult the teacher
privately!!).
Pete also says:
> What disturbs me most about postings suggesting that we educate for
> employment is the restrictive implications it has on the human
> growth potential. Educating for understanding can come about only
> if students integrate the prescholastic with the scholastic and
> disciplinary ways of knowing. It has been my experience that, all
> things being equal, individuals with a "well-rounded" education tend
> to be ? (can't think of a word that won't get flammed).
Pete -- Maybe the word you are searching for is "well-rounded." But
maybe all the air isn't in the balloon and we're not reaching even a
small potential of our capability.
I'm most certainly NOT advocating that we educuate for employment. And
I'm not in favor of an education that is anchored in the classics of
literature, the arts, and the "liberal education major" of our colleges.
But I will maintain that what I READ about education and what I HEAR
about the reality from my son and daughter seem to be quite different
things.
The SYSTEM is not working, at least for the bright kids and probably the
educationally impaired ones. And thus I question whether one could say
it is working at all.
We have good people teaching. We have reasonanly good tools. We have
good, capable students throughout the system. We certainly devote
sufficient resources to the issue.
And Pete closed with, "IMHO educate for understanding, not merely for a
job." to which I think we could all agree. But for me the word
"educate" seems to be the issue. I just don't see it being
accomplished.
So what's the problem? To paraphrase on some US political diatribe:
"It's The System, Stupid."
We're conducting business in a 16th century way as we enter the 2nd
millenium. Duh. The Round Wheels are everywhere but the educational
process continues forward on its Square Wheels.
--Scott Simmerman
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>