Comments on: It’s not a revolution unless someone gets hurt

By: Scott McLeod

Scott McLeod — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000

In honor of Wes Fryer, here's the exception that proves the rule... =) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution

By: Tim

Tim — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000

It’s increasing clear that our current educational system is not working. I’m not at all certain it will disapear anytime soon. Our traditional school structure is cemented in place by politicians, parents, and educators who fondly remember their time in K12 and believe the same basic system is still valid going forward. This why almost all “reform” proposals don’t touch the standard framework.

By: Joshua Williams

Joshua Williams — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000

Interesting, Scott. I’m inclined to agree if I understand you correctly. It’s not that I think sweeping reform will change the existing pedagogical models and methods of public schools; rather that pressure from alternative options will diminish the relevance of the existing models and methods as those other options prove successful. How will it manifest? Will certain interest groups or large corporations insist that their local schools redefine themselves and their roles? Will it be an internal shift, with teachers and students forcing change?

By: Roger Whaley

Roger Whaley — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000

How cemented is it? The school year is still tied, with a few exceptions, to the agrarian calendar. My kids help with the garden, but they really don’t need the whole summer off to work the fields.

In some ways we are going to have to skip the industrial revolution to get to the information age.

By: Steve Taffee

Steve Taffee — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000

It will take time – perhaps a long time given the forces that Tim so aptly describes above – but schools will change. Or perhaps more likely, traditional schools will slowly die as they are replaced by charter schools, home schools, independent schools, and other alternatives that will crowd out traditional schools.

As you say, Scott, it’s not a revolution unless someone gets hurt. I hope it is not the children, but I fear it will be. And indeed, we can make a case that children are already being hurt by our failing schools.

Perhaps the most radical thing educators can do is to vote AGAINST tax increases for school districts that are failing. It may be that a quicker failure rather than the death of a thousand cuts will in fact result in more children benefiting. If the adage “put your money where your mouth is” means anything, then its corollary is also true: “Don’t put your money where your mouth isn’t.”

By: Brett

Brett — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000

Hmmm, I better go read Kuhn again... http://organizationsandmarkets.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/paradigm_shifts.jpg

By: Barry

Barry — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000

A recent Time Magazine lead story from 2006 begins with what it calls ‘a dark little joke exchanged by teachers with a dissident streak: Rip Van Winkle awakens in the 21st century after a hundred year snooze and is of course utterly bewildered by what he sees’. ‘Every place Rip goes just baffles him. But when finally he walks into a schoolroom, the old man knows exactly where he is. “This is a school”, he declares. “We used to have these back in 1906”’

I predict that 30 years from now, things will still primarily be the same. Maybe different window dressing, but school will be the same.

By: dzukor

dzukor — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000

How do you define WE in your question? I agree that schools must change. I agree that many will “get hurt”. I’m not sure the model of the future is kids getting their education completely on their own. Someone will need to provide the guidance, wisdom, and facilitation to take technical skills and learn their relevance in a global world. Online content, simulations, social networking are incredible tools for learning, but they don’t replace good teachers. (Note the word good in the last sentence.)

If schools disappear or adapt or reinvent themselves, there will still be a need for good teachers. They may not be employed by state funded institutions, but they will be there.

So back to your question. Schools (and some teachers) are being put on notice. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t opportunity for them as well.

By: Doug Johnson

Doug Johnson — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000

Uh, how long are we going to thrash around? As long as I keep getting a paycheck?

The death of traditional schools has been predicted for quite some time. Lewis Perelman’s book, Schools Out (1993) was the one that had me convinced that technology would quickly supplant bricks and mortar.

Publishers Weekly wrote:
In this stimulating brief for technology-based “hyper-learning,” Perelman argues that school systems, classrooms and teachers have become obsolete.

Looks to me like the reformers are doing more thrashing than the reactionaries in schools today.

All the best,

Doug

By: Mark Stock

Mark Stock — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000

I think that athletics and the whole notion of school and community spirit are the last tenuous thread holding this thing together. Communities still like going to ball games and identifying with the school.

But times have changed – in many places attendance is down. With a mobile society many baby boomers have left their towns and gone somewhere else where they don’t have the loyalties.

But….what would we do with all those multi-million dollar facilities?

The Stock Mark Report
http://drmarkstock.com