What does it take to receive a first rate education? Smart Boards? Online learning? Laptops for every student? Sure, these things can help the learning
process, I won’t dispute that. However,
effective learning did not start with 21st Century technology, nor
do I believe I should end with 21st Century technology.
The mythology right now is that technology and education are
inseparable. And, yes, throughout
history education has evolved as technology has evolved. When we had no paper readily available, we carved
our curricula into stone tablets and memorized oral lectures. Once papyrus and paper made writing more
accessible, we traded our tablets and higher-level listening skills for scrolls
and, later, textbooks.
…A carefully trained eye noticed something just now: with our greater technology came a lesser
self-reliance and a lesser accountability.
Just thought I’d point that out…
Through it all, early societies understood is that it is
neither writing platforms, nor writing utensils which make learning exist. It was understood that learning transcends
mediums and technologies. In the modern
era, this understanding has been corrupted into one which suggests that the key
to effective learning is to increase reliance upon technology--- the idea that efficient
learning cannot exist without the latest in 21st Century technology
and methods.
This suggestion is important to furthering the 21st
Century School agenda, which aims to cut education labor costs by using
technology to replace flesh-and-blood educators. The idea is to esteem digital technology over
the human element; however, the idea that students can learn effectively
without the latest in technology undermines the urgency of bringing such amenities
into the classroom. Just think: large
part of the reason schools do everything from over-test their students, to
teach the tests to their students, to cheat on those tests (as we saw in
Atlanta) is to get funding--- scores equals funding. And while in times past that funding would be
used for things like textbooks and “ordinary” school supplies, increasingly
that funding is pursued in an effort to obtain every automated education device
under the sun. Believing it impossible
to have a first rate education without these devices, electronic media has
become education’s magic bullet--- the cure-all for the ills of every
low-performing school.
And yes, in most cases, when computers are brought into the
classroom, performance on standardized testing goes up. …Open and shut case? Not quite. The fallacy lies in assuming standardized
testing performance accurately reflects educational progress and success. It doesn’t…
This is important: what
we deem essential and not essential to education depends directly on how we
define education and how we measure education.
Since the advent of programs such as NCLB and Race to the Top, standardized
testing performance has basically become our definition of education AND the way by which we measure it. But standardized testing performance is NOT the end game of education. All testing does is indicate how efficiently
we prepare for tests; if the goal of education is to merely equip students to mark
the right bubbles and make the right statements for a test, then our
“enlightened society” has completely lost its way. While testing can be used as a tool for CALIBRATING education, it is NOT to be used as a tool for TABULATING education.
It’s as if 21st Century Education fears and would
like us to forget the vast, limitless expanses of the human mind. It’s as if neo-education is a form of
thought-police, determined to contain the minds of our students; a gross
misapplication of scientific method that insists on defining education
according only to what’s measurable and disregarding all non-standard knowledge
and demonstrations of knowledge.
Me, I’m a product of the “before” time. Back when unbridled exploratory learning was
seen as the best learning schools had to offer.
In my days as a student, it was my dream that exploratory learning would
become the dominant form of learning, although I understood that, before
students could juggle abstract theories and synthesize new possibilities, they
had to first master the fundamentals.
And not just reading, writing and ‘rithmetic--- work ethic; humility; curiosity;
context. Most of all, they had to
develop an intrinsic love for learning to motivate all of it.
But I’m digressing.
What “essentials” did we have in the high school classroom
in those good ol’ days? Paper. Pencils; coloring pencils, if we were
lucky. Raggedy-but-legible books. Chalkboards; eventually whiteboards. Not enough computers to go around. Desks.
Discipline. Home training. …Most importantly, discipline and home
training. And with those simple tools,
we were able to attain all the education we needed to build the world we now
live in.
(…Yeah, I just gave you a “back in my day” rant; I just
turned 32 on May 10th, gotta practice my old geezer-isms.)
Graduating c/o 2001, then becoming a teacher in the 2010’s has
been quite an adjustment. Watching the
same school system go from more in-depth subject matter with less technology to
less in-depth subject matter with more technology befuddles me. And it’s all
because of the rush to satisfy testing requirements. While technology being applied to education
is a good thing, it should not be seen as a replacement for strong learning
fundamentals. If a student body is found
to be in need of academic improvement, sure, technology might get their test scores
up quickly. But that’s superficial--- what
about improving their study skills? Getting
them out of their element to expose them to more of what’s out there? Increasing their intrinsic motivations? What would be our areas of academic focus if
we weren’t trying to raise test
scores, or trying to seize government funding, or trying to keep the state off
our backs?
Again, the way we define education determines what we deem
essential to education. And at this
moment, our definition completely misses the mark. #HERELIESEDUCATION
No comments:
Post a Comment
Let's Chat It Up!