The 21st Century School

[CirclesAndDots]

This topic probably frequents these boards but perhaps a new emphasis can reinvigorate discussion. Digital and social media technologies are integrating into what seems to be every conceivable arena of human endeavor. As public opinion of education withers talk of reform is inevitable. The sweeping trend is to apply these "messianic" technologies to all that is old or to all that is broken in society. "Technologizing" has become a kind of social duct tape. It is an increasingly attractive tool for reform in any public institution; but why? There seems to be little justification for this frenzied social movement when no clear and substantial evidence of students increasing their academic achievement as a result of using these technologies exists. Is the educational system seeking relevancy under the name of reform? Or is a new literacy, a media literacy, displacing the old?

There seems to be very little critical output on this social movement in general. Thoughts and opinions are welcome.

Edited March 5, 2013 by CirclesAndDots

[CirclesAndDots]

No takers?

 

Perhaps I should clarify the situation or reorient the argument. Is education "reform" being led by educators or by big business speculators? And to what end? Is market pressure dictating a new kind of literacy; specifically one that diminishes critical thinking in favor of rote vocational training,(education for technology)?

 

It's a shame my first topic is a dud!

Edited March 8, 2013 by CirclesAndDots

[iNow]

There are some big names and philanthropists driving education reform, but IMO most of it is happening at the grassroots level.

 

Humans are naturally curious and are seeking out information on the web. Some sources of information are better than others, but it's the audience driving this from the bottom up as opposed to the educators and big business speculators driving it from the top down.

 

Your post reminded me of this recent talk from Davos a few weeks ago:

 

 

 

 

It also reminded me of this interview with Sal Khan I saw last week on Charlie Rose:

 

 

---

And here's another approach I just saw today (not sure of what my point is, but I thought it was cool):

 

[Genecks]

The answer is business, and the educational centers are aware of it. The educational centers that cater to business demands are considered feeder schools. There are some schools that are scholastic and Jesuit in some ways, but these are private schools. Nonetheless, their high level of standards and education prepare students to compete with those who come from feeder schools.

 

A school who cannot cater of feed their students to high positions of employment are not good schools, as is sometimes argued. There is, however, a different realm of economics involved whereby a continual trade between business and the educational center exists for such a situation. As such, the education at such a school may become more focused to cater to the level of thinking and education found within those businesses that the school is feeding to; and the school may even employ people who worked at those businesses to teach students before they are filtered and fed to the business for later employment. A kind of "you scratch my back; i'll scratch your back" setup.

 

I would consider the situation neo-industrializing rather than "technologizing."

 

Many educational centers are public, yet they've learned to work with local industries in order to have people employed by those industries. It is a good idea, but eventually people will have to go elsewhere for work, as there will become a maximum capacity unless student size is decreased or the number of people employed are increased.

Edited March 28, 2013 by Genecks