The chapter shifts between two models of change. The first is market driven change. Schools choose to be different, and the market determines whether or not they meet needs. The second is bureaucratic change. A vision is developed by the school district and sustained until it is fulfilled. I have a hunch that market driven change is far more likely to succeed. It operates on a small scale and receives powerful and broad based input on its perceived quality in the form of money from its clients.
On another point, the authors seem to be confusing three issues:
schools do not serve the needs of all their students,
schools have not adjusted to the information revolution, and
US graduation rates and average academic performance are lower than other countries.
Each of these issues requires a different response:
different curricula for different students, (customization),
educate through information technology (teach the digital generation) and
send weak students overseas (LOL).
The problem with confusing the issues is that it makes the case for information technology stronger than it should be.
On another point, the authors seem to be confusing three issues:
schools do not serve the needs of all their students,
schools have not adjusted to the information revolution, and
US graduation rates and average academic performance are lower than other countries.
Each of these issues requires a different response:
different curricula for different students, (customization),
educate through information technology (teach the digital generation) and
send weak students overseas (LOL).
The problem with confusing the issues is that it makes the case for information technology stronger than it should be.
Ah, Bruce - you are, for me, the Clarica man: no matter where I am at, you always bring me to a deeper level of thinking. I was doubtful that our grad success rate was as poor as what was reported, but I am still left with the idea that many of our grads are leaving with an education that is not going to serve their real-world needs. I like your connection to the market economy because even though we are in a publicly funded system and we get paid whether we do a good job or not, we need to ensure our product is of a superior grade. Remind me to discuss my Sun newspaper article on the USS Benmore, because it effectively illustrates the issue of institutions' lack of impetus for improvement.
ReplyDeleteIs that Bob's boat?
ReplyDeleteYup...I agree that the market based approach will likely be more successful. I think this is true because then at least we will know what the product is supposed to be. Sometimes it's difficult to know if we are preparing our students for their future or not...clearly we are doing our jobs...teaching curriculum...but does that magically result in meeting the future needs of our students.
ReplyDeletePrimary teachers, especially kindergarten teachers, sometimes point out how unprepared some of their students are. Secondary teachers, especially grade 8 teachers, sometimes point out how ill prepared their students are. College/university professors often complain how poorly the school system prepares students for post secondary. Business people often complain that colleges and universities do not properly train students for the real world
In a market driven system at least we might know that Johnny (not his real name) wants to be a plumber....then we could teach him the math/science and technical language skills required for his future.
Oops: USS Benfold - sorry, Bob.
ReplyDeleteOn the topic of our students being ill prepared, page 66 suggests this extends beyond curriculum to things like "attendance, timeliness, and work ethic." This raises the question of conflict between addressing such issues and giving students more choice and flexibility in their future learning. How do flexible schedules and timeframes for completing courses, for example, develop pride in punctuality so vital in the workplace? Just one of many such questions that we could (need) to debate.
ReplyDelete