education overhaul for new-age learners

[MomofSev]

I found this concept interesting:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/education-needs-a-digital-age-upgrade/

Education Needs a Digital-Age Upgrade

By VIRGINIA HEFFERNAN

 

If you have a child entering grade school this fall, file away just one number with all those back-to-school forms: 65 percent.

Chances are just that good that, in spite of anything you do, little Oliver or Abigail won’t end up a doctor or lawyer — or, indeed, anything else you’ve ever heard of. According to Cathy N. Davidson, co-director of the annual MacArthur Foundation Digital Media and Learning Competitions, fully 65 percent of today’s grade-school kids may end up doing work that hasn’t been invented yet.

The contemporary American classroom, with its grades and deference to the clock, is an inheritance from the late 19

^th century.

[Admin note: edited for copyright violation. Please read our

copyright guidelines.]

[meemee]

 i am slowly going to step away from this thread ... before i blow a fuse.   

yes she is right. but its coming at an extremely high cost. we are focusing only on one aspect of life. production. work place. not personal development - critical thinking, ethics. home economics, car maintenance all gone down the drain. 

we are moving with the times at the cost of something we need to hold on to. 

[DianeFuentes]

I totally agree with meemee. The K-12 years should be focusing on developing critical thinking and trainability - no matter what type of industry you're in, you're able to think for yourself and become easily trained to be flexible. We are too focused on predicting what careers to focus on. Maybe the education we had ourselves are lacking.

[MomofSev]

Sorry, wasn't trying to upset anything. I thought it was interesting and I do think, perhaps in high school, more focus should be on academics and not extra curricular activities (like it was in my high school -small town in Washington state). However, I think in general, the United States' education system is significantly lacking.
 

Originally Posted by meemee 

 i am slowly going to step away from this thread ... before i blow a fuse.   

yes she is right. but its coming at an extremely high cost. we are focusing only on one aspect of life. production. work place. not personal development - critical thinking, ethics. home economics, car maintenance all gone down the drain. 

we are moving with the times at the cost of something we need to hold on to. 

[meemee]

oh mama no need to apologize.

just the whole discussion of education - whether gifted or not gets me mad. the philosophy behind it. and this article further encourages the new trend. while yes i agree move with technology (if one can figure out how to allot money for education) it completely infuriates me the focus on more academics and less on the 'non money generating' aspect.

because i am in school i see the impact on the kids around me and it is sad. children spend at least 6 to 7 hours in school and then daycare or activities or friends. or is it more in high school? there are rare families that have the time together to have discussions, cook or just hang out. 

the reason behind is that the corporation of education has not caught up in the US. but it is getting there. in some other countries you at least need a BA to get a job. you dont have a choice. just a high school graduation means you have a pretty sucky life ahead of you unless you go into business for yourself or have an inheritance.

some teachers are able to do the critical thinking in their class a little bit. after years in education they have figured out how to do it.

why is math, science, writing necessary and music and dance not? why is even PE not mandatory beyond a certain grade?  

[whatsnextmom]

I agree with the article in that we need education to be more relevant to the world we live in. We need to educate kids in a way that speaks to their generation and give them skills that are actually neccessary in modern life. My youngest went to an elementary school where international languages and technology were priorities. Most of his homework was online which we loved. He was given his textbooks in digital format for home and most had online support and tutoring features if needed. Most of his projects went to school on a flash drive instead of poster board. He's been using smart boards instead of white boards since 3rd grade. They start keyboarding in 4th grade.They read literature but also a great deal of news and non-fiction. I don't feel critical thinking has gone out the window at all. In fact, I think DS has been challenged to really think, compare and contrast, filter truth from garbage and come to his own conclusions far more than DD did in her very traditional school. DS has a broader understanding of math and it's practical uses in today's world. DS learned video and audio editing along with a host of TV/film production skills... a process that makes him more critical of what he watches. I feel the kids were encouraged to work together on MEANINGFUL projects they could be passionate about like figuring out how to raise funds for Haiti during their crisis. I was impressed how they broke up the work, fed off the ideas of others and could feel really good about the end result. Lord, that was infinetly better than poor DD and the endless stream of meaningless group projects where one kid did everything and the others didn't care.    Being high tech didn't keep them from deciding to plant a vegetable garden and donating the produce to the homeless children school downtown. They also learn traditional folk dances and do fantastic ink drawings.

There are negatives. Research projects were far more complicated than when we were kids. We picked out a few books and that was that. DS had to learn how to filter the endless view points and mass of conflicting information on the internet. There are skills that vanish. Cursive is pretty much gone. I had to teach DS this skill personally. I don't feel DS's elementary did a fantastic job with writing and I did supplement in this area. At the same time, the kids skills in public speaking and debate were far higher than average. Overall, I've been really happy with how our local district has been finding a balance. 

There will always be extreme situations and those never work. However, why should we assume that those extremes will be the norm? I do feel it's time for schools to update and to teach skills that kids actually value and will use. 

[Linda on the move]

Originally Posted by MomofSev 

In response to this and other research and classroom discoveries, Ms. Davidson has proposed various ways to overhaul schoolwork, grading and testing. Her recommendations center on one of the most astounding revelations of the digital age: Even academically reticent students publish work prolifically, subject it to critique and improve it on the Internet.

As the parent of 2 teens on facebook, this is about the dumbest thing I've ever read. 

We pay for our kids to attend a private school which de-emphasis technology. There are computers, but they are mostly used as word processor. Our kids have real experiences and real conversations and get input from real teachers. The photography class used 35 mm and has a dark room. The kids actually talk, not text, each other.

Oddly, most the high schoolers have pretty amazing computer skills. Many of them can replace hard drive, edit photos, create animation, etc. But they do that on their own time. School is for some thing different -- something more interactive with 3 dimensional people.

[MomofSev]

I could not agree more! Especially with the red part. We have made it a point to ALWAYS have dinner together. At dinner, we discuss our day, even if we have talked prior to dinner. It is sad that so many families do not have the time or take the time to do this.

I am working on my MBA in human resources. I can see that now, in some cases, the bachelor's degree is the new AA, the MBA is the new bachelor's degree in the United States. But it's slowly coming to this. Also, hands on experience is important. I think this should also be emphasized in high school. Not only are they learning the book material, they are gaining hands on experience so when they enter the employment world after high school or college, they will also know really what it takes to do the job.

Originally Posted by meemee 

oh mama no need to apologize.

just the whole discussion of education - whether gifted or not gets me mad. the philosophy behind it. and this article further encourages the new trend. while yes i agree move with technology (if one can figure out how to allot money for education) it completely infuriates me the focus on more academics and less on the 'non money generating' aspect.

because i am in school i see the impact on the kids around me and it is sad. children spend at least 6 to 7 hours in school and then daycare or activities or friends. or is it more in high school? there are rare families that have the time together to have discussions, cook or just hang out. 

the reason behind is that the corporation of education has not caught up in the US. but it is getting there. in some other countries you at least need a BA to get a job. you dont have a choice. just a high school graduation means you have a pretty sucky life ahead of you unless you go into business for yourself or have an inheritance.

some teachers are able to do the critical thinking in their class a little bit. after years in education they have figured out how to do it.

why is math, science, writing necessary and music and dance not? why is even PE not mandatory beyond a certain grade?  

[whatsnextmom]

Originally Posted by meemee 

because i am in school i see the impact on the kids around me and it is sad. children spend at least 6 to 7 hours in school and then daycare or activities or friends. or is it more in high school? there are rare families that have the time together to have discussions, cook or just hang out. 

why is math, science, writing necessary and music and dance not? why is even PE not mandatory beyond a certain grade?  

I'm confused by this connection. The article didn't say anything about slashing home time and PE/arts education. It said we needed to offer skills more relevant to the world these kids are graduating into. You can do that WHILE teaching academics and yes, even the arts. Why can't we teach public speaking, writing, research AND how to put together a quality a/v presentation equivalent to what they might be expected to put together in the business world. Some of my most creative and artistic friends are web designers and computer animators. You'll find the computer programming community rich with musicians as often, the interests intersect. My eldest used technology greatly in orchestra learning how to input various parts and able to practice with a full orchestra sound at home before a real orchestra concert. It allowed her to write multi-part compositions too. The arts are being slashed NOW even in the most traditional of schools. Honestly, we find in our area that the higher tech schools are the ones still providing real arts education to kids.

I understand your frustration with the degradation of the family but the school system isn't responsible for the quantity of time kids are in daycare or in activities and with friends. They have nothing to do with a families choice to eat together or not. That is more cultural and economic than anything. Yes, the school system has problems but do we have to blame it for every failing in society? How can we both demand and reject change?

[meemee]

whatsnextmom - its because of these lines in the article i quote here. 

Photoshop instead of geometry, or Linux instead of Pax Romana.  the key here is 'instead'. 

Those hallowed artifacts — the Thomas Pynchon novel and the Michael Ritchie film — had a place in earlier social environments. While they may one day resurface as relevant, they are now chiefly of interest to cultural historians. But digital video and Web politics are intellectually robust and stimulating, profitable and even pleasurable. i disagree with her a huge amount. and the key word here is 'profitable'. while digital video can give a gist it can never be intellectually robust as say a book on it or article on it can be. at least that's how i interpret her words. we already know how kids can no longer read long books if they have been plugged more into technology rather than the written word (and no the kindle and nook is a 'book' not technology). 

that is why i said yes i agree with her that we need to make technology available to them. but her basic premise is not about moving with the times. at least it seems to me. its all about profit. because she is taking out key elements of education that is way more important. the shaping of the person. my remarks about daycare and school is that there is less and less of family time together in the mainstream world where family used to fill in the holes. 

in college i see kids who are aces at presentations - using prezi with great aplomb. Many of them are looking at the dollar amounts they will earn at the end of their degree. they are budding environmentalist who hate roundup and yet are not aware that the very company they are applying to very heavily uses round up. 

education is becoming more and more super focused towards vocation. i mean high school is a perfect place to bring in philosophy, anthropology but they are not looked at as being important. one can become a pediatrician without ever having taken an ECE class. 

oh and btw at college level some professors ARE doing what she suggests. giving the students the choice to write a paper or make a movie. but only AFTER they have read the pax romana. 

[whatsnextmom]

Originally Posted by meemee 

whatsnextmom - its because of these lines in the article i quote here. 

Photoshop instead of geometry, or Linux instead of Pax Romana.  the key here is 'instead'. 

Those hallowed artifacts — the Thomas Pynchon novel and the Michael Ritchie film — had a place in earlier social environments. While they may one day resurface as relevant, they are now chiefly of interest to cultural historians. But digital video and Web politics are intellectually robust and stimulating, profitable and even pleasurable. i disagree with her a huge amount. and the key word here is 'profitable'. while digital video can give a gist it can never be intellectually robust as say a book on it or article on it can be. at least that's how i interpret her words. we already know how kids can no longer read long books if they have been plugged more into technology rather than the written word (and no the kindle and nook is a 'book' not technology). 

that is why i said yes i agree with her that we need to make technology available to them. but her basic premise is not about moving with the times. at least it seems to me. its all about profit. because she is taking out key elements of education that is way more important. the shaping of the person. my remarks about daycare and school is that there is less and less of family time together in the mainstream world where family used to fill in the holes. 

in college i see kids who are aces at presentations - using prezi with great aplomb. Many of them are looking at the dollar amounts they will earn at the end of their degree. they are budding environmentalist who hate roundup and yet are not aware that the very company they are applying to very heavily uses round up. 

education is becoming more and more super focused towards vocation. i mean high school is a perfect place to bring in philosophy, anthropology but they are not looked at as being important. one can become a pediatrician without ever having taken an ECE class. 

oh and btw at college level some professors ARE doing what she suggests. giving the students the choice to write a paper or make a movie. but only AFTER they have read the pax romana. 

Actually, the article says this "Don’t worry: She doesn’t conclude that students should study Photoshop instead of geometry, or Linux instead of Pax Romana. What she recommends, in fact, looks much more like a classical education than it does the industrial-era holdover system that still informs our unrenovated classrooms. """"

Personally, I think we have fundemental opinions on what "school" is supposed to offer. School has always been focused on vocation. It's our vocations that have changed. Honestly, I'd like to see MORE vocation training in high school as I think it's ridiculous that corporations are requiring 4 year, expensive college diplomas for your standard receptionist. The job hasn't changed that much outside the tools and they don't offer courses on most of those tools at a university. Kids who can't afford college, are late to the motivation and good grades game, or haven't been brought up to think it important are lost after highschool with no skills that anyone wants. Until college is accessable to all, you should be able to make a living with a high school diploma and that used to be the case.

Yes, it's great when a school can offer more. I LOVE that my DS has learned 2 languages. I LOVE that my DD is in an arts magnet where she is expected to take playwriting and dance classes. DD's highschool DOES offer philosophy, art history and other worldly courses. However, school is also prep for their working futures. They need reading, writing, science and math skills. DH and I can provide the rest through home discussion and making a point of exposing them to new ideas and out seeing as much of the world as they can.