Yesterday was quite frustrating. We were presented with some amazing examples of innovation in classrooms that had been empowered by professional development, adequate access to technology, and, most importantly, courageous and innovative teachers. We also saw evidence of our desperate need to retool education, as illustrated by Tim Magner in slide after slide of statistics about future employment, future technologies, and emerging competition for our position of leadership.
Bringing the possibilities (of which we saw only a hint among the demonstrations) together with the real needs of dramatically changing future, calls for a new vision for teaching, learning, and classrooms — perhaps even a need to redefine it all. But that vision must reflect something that rests behind a wall that is so wide, tall, and thick, that we can’t see it. Yet, it is the other side of that wall that we are preparing our children for.
There are two things that we do know that connect directly to our current vision of school.
- The nature of information has changed (digital, networked, overwhelming, unconstrained)
- We can not clearly describe the future we are preparing our children for.
From these ideas, two demands rise.
- That we redefine literacy (one literacy) to reflect an increasingly digital, networked… information environment.
- That we teach our children to be life long learners.
What I find interesting right now (and this is what’s great about being pushed by frustrating experiences), is that literacy and life long learning, might actually be combined to something that we might call learning literacy.
The ability to expose/find truth, employ information, express ideas compellingly to real audiences, and to understand and practice the ethical use of information, are all skills necessary to learning in a dynamic information environment. If, in our conversations about teaching and learning, we replace literacy with explicit discussions of learning literacy, then we might have a foothold for starting to scale that wall, and perhaps even visioning classrooms that can tunnel it.
Hi Dave,
You make some interesting points. However, literacy is often left to the subjective interpretation of teachers from one year to the next. Should we even call it literacy?
Kind Regards,
Mechelle : )
Conversely, I sat through a presentation to the faculty where the presenter taught the teachers skills to help kids memorize facts. Seriously.
The end is here.
I was frustrated last night. I wanted answers from Tim Magner. What initiatives are coming that will bring our schools fully into the 21st century? What can I do to further reform? Based on your analogy, he described the wall for us, but not how to see to the other side of it.
In thinking about it more I believe that we don’t have to see what is on the other side of the wall. I think your idea about life long learning really gets to the heart of it. As educational professionals, we must be become life long adapters. We start reforming the way we teach today and keep our eyes open towards tomorrow. Tomorrow we reform again, maybe in a slightly different direction. There is no answer because the future isn’t written yet. We must be willing to embrace uncertainty and continually learn and adapt.
Way back in September last year, I posted twice in quick succession about the changing face of literacy. What it used to mean to be literate, what it means now, and what it will mean going forward. I think there is some synergy with your post. See my posts at:
http://karynromeis.blogspot.com/2006/09/changing-face-of-literacy.html
http://karynromeis.blogspot.com/2006/09/more-on-changing-face-of-literacy.html
Dave,
Here’s an interesting article on both public and charter schools…something to consider.
http://www.nea.org/newsreleases/2006/nr060822b.html
Also, I would contend there needs to be greater accountability with regard to software at schools. Too much software is collecting dust while still in packages. If teachers have greater autonomy to choose the software, I think there would be more usage in the schools. Therefore, we would be able to make better usage of the limited resources we have.
Kind Regards,
Mechelle : )
Hi Dave,
I don’t think we need to worry too much about not knowing what the jobs our student will do in the future – it has been like forever. I’m doing a job now that was not invented when I went to school in the 60s-70s. When my grandfather went to school in 1910 aviation as an industry had not been invented, but he ended up becoming a pilot.
What is more important is to teach our students how to use higher order thinking skills – analyse, synthesise, justify, critique etc – and to explore opporutunities, become risktakers, and develop communication skills.
This is where the heart of the problem lies. It’s not how we teach, it’s what we teach. What is it that is crucial our students learn?
Lenva has a good point, but I think that’s what most of the conversations here aim towards. For the very reason that we don’t know what the future holds, it is important to teach our learners learning skills for life. Sadly most of seem unconvinced that the current system addresses this adequately.
Nice post