There are two parallel themes that come to mind as a result of today's learning. The first is readily apparent in Robinson's presentation. Our current system of public education was born of a different time, place and purpose that is not longer relevant to today's students. As we continue to try and cram round kids into square holes we are damaging them often beyond repair. The second theme, absent in Robinson's presentation, though no less important is loss of the liberal arts in our educational programs. This loss is most recognized by educators who year after year watched budget cuts and NCLB and its testing demands whittle away at the heart of our system of education that fed the soul of so many students. The demise of liberal arts education in our schools coupled with Robinson's damning indictment of today's system leaves may students adrift and under-served. Some ignored altogether. If we assume these themes to be correct then any change we want to bring about will require a re-education on a scale not seen before.
There are many powerful factors that currently reinforce the efficacy of our existing system of education creating monumental inertia. First, the ascendancy of the United States over the past two hundred and fifty years to a position of world prominence in military, economic and cultural power makes it a challenge to argue that our current system of education is not working. Second, is the fact that so many adults can argue with out doubt that they benefited significantly from the education they received under the current system. This creates a powerful and compelling personal story that substantiates the status quo blinding them to present day concerns. Third, is the Judeo-Christian ethic that permeates our country's culture and tends to place blame for problems on the moral failings of character, rather than the situations which students are to often placed within. Finally, by training educators are not marketers beyond the classroom. We are brilliant when it comes to making a case for why students should want to learn something in our classrooms, but when it comes to selling the public on why we want to seek changes in how we deliver education that we feel are necessary for the well being of our students we fall flat on our face.
If we are to truly take Robinson's vision to heart we must first get out in front of the idea and the idea out in front of the public. We need to make a case for how the world has changed and why our existing model of education needs to change with it. Marketing is where it's at. We've got to be better marketers of what we do, why we do it and how our students will be better for it. For many adults'--educators included--their perceptions and understanding of education was, for the most part, derived from their experience sitting in a school desk many years ago trying to figure out how to succeed within a system designed to sort and weed out. It wasn't a system grounded in equity. It wasn't a system designed to build upon a person's strengths. It wasn't a system whose goal was to raise all boats. We can no longer accept a model premised on the normal curve's predetermined rate of failure for a population. The long term political, economic and social costs are too high. Most importantly, it's flat out morally unacceptable. We can do better. We have to.
My fear, too, is that the whole education argument has gotten so politically entrenched that we fail to rise above the jousting. Like a city on a hill, we ought to persuade and/or "market" our value not in test scores, but as the backbone of future-thinking society. We need to find a way to get out in front of the argument without being in the argument. How we do that? I wish I could know.
ReplyDelete