Recently in education Category
Charles Leadbeater, a researcher at the London-based think tank Demos, went looking for innovative forms of education, and found them in the slums of Rio and Kibera, where some of the world's poorest kids are finding radical new ways to learn. And this informal, disruptive new kind of school, he says, is what all schools need to become.
Interestingly enough, Leadbetter touches on a key concept regarding education and population growth in poor and low socioeconomic countries discussed by Hans Rosling last month.
In a new pamphlet, entitled "Pleasure," Britain's National Health service is trying to change the tone of sex education by urging teachers to emphasize that sexual relations can be healthy and pleasurable instead of simply explaining the mechanics of sex and warning about diseases.
A mistake in the length of state-permitted short days means students at two elementary schools in the Chino Valley Unified School District in Chino, CA must stay in school till July 31 or the district will lose $7 million in state funds.
Ouch. I can only imagine what the teachers union has to say about this.
Dr. RIchard Nisbitt, a a professor of psychology at the University of Michigan, argues in his recent book, Intelligence and How to Get It, that what we think of as intelligence owes little or nothing to genetics.
Perhaps the larger lesson is a very empowering one: success depends less on intellectual endowment than on perseverance and drive. As Professor Nisbett puts it, "Intelligence and academic achievement are very much under people's control."
Interesting article on the need for national standards in a 21st century economy. The disparity between individual states' standards and the "national standards" is incredible.
Bear with me for a moment while I set up the situation for you.
On Monday (01.26.09) our favorite memetician linked to Steven Johnson's (guest blogging for boing boing) analysis of children's board games, specifically Candy Land. Johnson notes:
There's a consistent theme to all these old-school game introductions: almost without exception, I have been mortified by the pathetic game that I've excitedly brought to the kids. Not because they're made out of cardboard and plastic, instead of 1080p HDMI graphics. (My boys still spend just as many happy hours with Lego as they do the PS3.) What's irritating about the games is that they are exercises in sheer randomness. It's not that they fail to sharpen any useful skills; it's that they make it literally impossible for a player to acquire any skills at all....It says you are powerless, that your destiny is entirely determined by the luck of the draw, that the only chance you have of winning the game lies in following the rules, and accepting the cards as they come. Who wants to grow up in that kind of universe?
To which Kottke is on point to add:
On the other hand, games of chance allow children of all ages and abilities to play the same games together and experience both winning and losing.
Today (01.28.09) the Candy Land conversation returned with a piece from Greg Costikyan. It should be noted this piece was written prior to Johnson's piece. In it Costikyan opines:
As such, it is a metaphorical representation of the fundamental ideology of the United States; the past is no constraint on the future, and each individual should strive resolutely for personal advance despite whatever the past may hold. The child born in a log cabin may achieve the presidency, an immigrant boy who grows up in the slums of Brooklyn may become a real-estate magnate, an Ivy-educated scion of wealth may wind up on a bread line, and a double green will speed you to the fore. Though there are winners and losers, initial conditions are no determinant of outcome in the freedom of America.
And finally Tom Armitage adds:
And so the first move in any game is starting to infer the rules, and deduce the logic behind the system. In Super Mario Bros., you know that you have to rescue the princess - the goal is made clear upfront, in the game and in the manual. But the rules of the system aren't. And so, using only "run" and "jump" (to begin with), you start to work out what you should and shouldn't do, what the shortcuts to success are, what enemies are dangerous and when, and by doing all this you slowly build up a picture of the rules.
Still with me? Good.
Johnson firmly states, in regards to the randomness of games, that, "It's not that they fail to sharpen any useful skills; it's that they make it literally impossible for a player to acquire any skills at all." Costikyan takes that theory and applies it to some real life situations and concludes, "Though there are winners and losers, initial conditions are no determinant of outcome in the freedom of America."
Somewhere upon reading that Gladwell is sitting and shaking his head in disagreement. The entire premise of Outliers is just the opposite. That circumstances beyond our control (including those we are born into initially) can and do determine, to some degree, how our lives unfold. Gladwell is careful not to jump into the 'all or none' camp though and acknowledges that the degree to which a circumstance affects our path is unknown. Johnson and Costikyan unfortunately take no such care. They are firmly entrenched in the 'all or none' camp and on this topic have loudly declared 'none'.
Thankfully both Kottke and Armitage are quick to recognize the benefits of such 'random' exercises. More specifically, Armitage's remarks regarding Super Mario Bros. can be applied to life itself. Your mission is clear- The pursuit of happiness. Not only is your starting point random, but the path to said goal and the system by which you achieve it are anything but clear. But as you experience more and more in life you discover friends, enemies, success, failure, shortcuts and yes even chance. All of which help form the rules you play your game by. And hopefully by the time you use your last life you will have reached your goal, saved the princess, found happiness.
Randomness is real and learning how to deal with it is a necessary path along the way to your goal. Johnson and Costikyan could not be more wrong. Kottke and Armitage could not be more right.
Two weeks ago, Kaplan University launched an ad campaign, entitled Talent. While I don't particularly care for Universities like Kaplan based on their for-profit status, the ad is very moving (that, and it stars the Fresh Prince's Philip Banks, but that's neither here nor there).
I saw this commercial last night, and I have to tell you, I was pretty annoyed. Now, I don't know much about the articles and story headlines referenced in the commercial. I didn't read them and won't pretend that I did. But what I can tell you is that there is one candidate in this election that is wrong for education, but it sure as hell isn't Barack Obama.
Across America, Moms and Dads are spending freely to make sure that their children are prepared for the upcoming school year. Most of the crap that is purchased in unnecessary and arbitrary, but looking cool is much more important than learning, I'm sure.
As a teacher, this also means that it is back to work for me. I always get random emails and phone calls all week about what my students will be needing for the year. My advice to parents everywhere: if you're going to purchase your child mechanical pencils, please choose wisely.
This piece was written in the Spring of 2006. Enjoy.
