In 1995, I wrote an article called "Informat-o-saurus". (Click here to read it -> Informat-o-saurus) Its main thrust was to say that what we need now is skills and ideas, rather than the 20th century notion that it was facts and skills that we needed.
The industrial revolution began in about 1850 and by around 1900 a new industrial era took over. The education system we employ today is a product of that revolution, but it is hardly revolutionary today. It was developed around the 3 S's - Socialisation, Supervision and Subject matter. For nearly 100 years it served us well and was universally adopted. Ask any high school teacher today if it's working well and you'll find that it is time to change. That system which served us so well for a hundred years is now in desperate need of change. The current school system is now very artificial because it doesn't reflect what's happening in society. It is not relevant to the students. The subject matter is segmented. The societal side of schools reflects more of a prison model than a preparation for life outside school and the cost of supervising our kids with highly qualified teachers is becoming astronomical. No-one has come up with a better solution, however.
I find it interesting that it's the three R's that are traditionally talked about, not the three S's. If you have read and agree with Informat-o-saurus, you'll understand that because facts are easy to come by now, and don't have to be remembered parrot fashion, that the academic emphasis implied by "the three R's" is simply less relevant nowadays. In cyberspace there is a saying that, "Information wants to be free". Information is no longer the captive of those who have it stored in their head, have the right text books, and have been given the authority via a certificate to be a custodian of that information. What nonsense. A nine year old can get almost any information he wants now. He just needs to learn how to assess the information itself - which is completely different.
The reason that no-one has come up with a good alternate to 20th century educational models is NOT because of the three R's changing, but because the three S's have not been addressed properly by any other other proposal. On-line learning can address the subject matter really well in many cases, but not all. The highly touted learning management systems (LMS's) do not address the socialisation or supervision issues at all. Too many educationalists have promoted technology as THE educational issue. This ignores two of the three S's - socialisation and supervision.
Now put your hand up if you'd like to see all 15 and 16 year olds left to do their learning at their own pace, in their own way, in isolation, and without supervision. It inspires visions of gangs of teenagers ignoring the highly recommended LMS's, and instead, getting into burglary and vandalism. After giving that thought a few seconds, could you still not be convinced about the three S's ..... ? LMS's are only one issue to be considered in a discussion of educational reform.
To follow my own ideology (Informat-o-saurus), I will not just employ skills and facts (statistics) in this discussion, I will use skills and ideas, designs, strategies, options, proposals, to come up with some alternative options.
We need not just educational reform but to promote educational reform in the context of social reform.
Our Industrial Era (IE) model of education promotes staying at home until 5 years old, then school until 18-24 years old and then work until retirement. On the other hand it is well recognised now that we all need to be life-long learners. The IE notion of getting a qualification and the using it throughout your career is simply an out-of-date nonsense notion in the 21st century. I hope I don't need to convince anyone of that. The current school system segments life into English, Science, Maths, etc, and work, school, retirement, etc. But the people who have the most coveted lifestyles are those who meld leisure, work, and learning into a lifestyle. The industrial era segmented our lives. This must change.
Before the industrial era there were Guilds for more formalised training. The idea of apprenticeships grew out of this practice. Before the Industrial Era people generally became vocationally inclined toward areas where there were adult mentors nearby (socialisation), nearby nurturing (supervision), and nearby expertise (subject matter). Families were deeply involved in the upbringing of progeny. As children learned how to contribute, they did. Play time merged into a learning phase which blossomed into a contributing role. This process was evolutionary, not staged and segmented. Maturation happened at a rate that was suitable to each child. One of the reasons that high school students today are so dis-affected with school is that they know they COULD contribute, but have no opportunity to do so. How frustrating. Instead of performing by jumping through a series of hoops at pre-ordained stages of their life, kids must gain motivation through contribution to their society when they are able to, and are encouraged to.
We see now a big shift from government schools to private schools and even to home schooling. Why? Obviously it's because of dissatisfaction with the current school model. I propose that parents are looking for ways to ENGAGE their kids, (or have engagement enforced on them?) The idea of herding 700 teenagers into a holding coral for years at a time is ridiculous. They learn a prison mentality as their socialisation. They are supervised to the point where it's difficult to express any individuality, and study a segmented curriculum at a rate that is frequently inappropriate for them. They remain at school for the duration of their sentence and are then released into society or day release (tertiary institution) at a pre-determined age, regardless of their progress or lack of it. Is it any wonder education is struggling? I also wrote an assessment philosophy in 1995 for current school practices that attempts to make assessment more helpful for all concerned. (Click here to read it -> Assessment Philosophy.) It seems out of date to me now, but shows a line of progressive thinking.
Governments struggle to pay for schools as the labour costs that were relatively insignificant at the beginning of the industrial era, are now an enormous burden. Teacher availability will become a big issue in the future as young adults will not be attracted to the teaching profession because governments will not be able to offer inviting salaries to well qualified applicants.
OK, following my own philosophy, I've demonstrated my skills in understanding the problem and stating an opinion. Now I have to offer my proposals, options, designs, strategies, etc
Governments are committed to providing let's say about $6,000 per student per year to government schools (but prefer to allocate $4,000 per year per student in private schools).
There is currently a plethora of Learning Management Systems (LMS's) vying in the education market to establish themselves as preferred choices. (I'm currently working towards providing one for local students and teachers.) These will end up rolling into a few excellent alternatives. They have not done this yet, and on-line LMS's are not as good as they will become in time. But remote LMS's are not the complete answer as I discussed above. Neither are LMS's administered from within traditional school settings.
We will eventually recognise that we need:
1. on-line LMS's as well as face-to-face tutoring (guides, not necessarily teachers)
2. small learning groups (not classes of 32)
3. adult society integration (i.e. "non-prison")
How?
Look at the three criteria above and and the solution should be obvious ..... Kids IN THE WORKPLACE doing on-line learning (and play).
How?
Remember the $6,000? With ten kids there'd be enough to provide an on-line device each AND a full-time tutor who supervises the learning environment of the 5-15 years old (or so) kids. The tutor can't be an expert in every area, but they can guide the learning of the kids with the help of on-line content. and "outsourced" experts. They also arrange sports and cultural activities, video feeds, and so on. This is a truly vertical environment. The kids are also encouraged to contribute to the workplace, by running errands, submitting ideas, and other workplace-related tasks, as they become capable. Standards based on outcomes, not age, are then moderated on-line (LMS's), when, and where, students are confident in achieving the particular level in that area of study.
Where?
Since only half the number of school sites are now required for people who need, or request traditional schooling, the other school sites provide an opportunity for work sites to expand, providing more space to integrate the kids. The total space is the same, surely.
Pie-in-the-sky?
Yup!
I see this as the way we will end up, not the way we will be in two years. It might take many years, as the change-over into the current Industrial Era model took. That's why I said above, "We will eventually recognise .... " It will be an evolutionary process, with a rocky start. The first people to trial it will get no support, and the program will be seen as elitist. But that won't stop it.
If this article promotes discussion of the issues, then I'll be glad. It should provide ammunition against those who become over-enthusiastic in promoting information technology as the complete solution to educational reform.
We must develop a model where kids as well as adults can adjust the balance between play, learn, contribute (work). The balance will vary with age and ability, but surely that's obvious. We just need to find a less segmented, more relevant, less expensive, more productive way of integrating kids into day-to-day life.
Can you think of any other proposals, designs, strategies, ideas? Tell me if you can. Tell me where this is nonsense, too, if you want to, at:
grdnwht@iinet.net.au
Gordon WHITE 2/01