A few weeks ago on his wonderful website (and podcast), Lou Mongello asked his listeners/readers where they would take Walt Disney in Walt Disney World if he were alive to see how his vision is holding up 45 years after his passing and 40 years after the Magic Kingdom opened in central Florida. Of course, there was a topic of discussion about EPCOT, and how Walt may or may not be happy with how his planned community of tomorrow was turned into a theme park thanks to the trials and tribulations of a little thing called ‘trying to get a real working city off the ground.’
Anyway, I’ve been thinking about this question recently and I think I have finally come up with an answer. It is not that I would take Walt to any one particular place, though if I only had one day with him (as the question stated), and I absolutely had to chose one place in all of the Walt Disney World resort to take him, it would be Kilimanjaro Safaris in Disney’s Animal Kingdom. I would run that truck through it’s paces as much as I possibly could around and around that savanna until I had no daylight left. The Safaris is a big deal, because it was what Walt himself always wanted for the Jungle Cruise in Magic Kingdom’s Adventureland. He wanted real animals to come out of the waters and the trees and be up close and personal with you as you sailed around the tiny river. It is one of the things Disney has done since his passing that I am almost positive he would love unconditionally.
However, if I was given more time, say a week or so, I would give Walt Disney the best damn Disney World vacation I possibly could. The whirlwind tour of four parks, tons of resorts, water parks, everything. I would want to show him the World. But, at the end of that week, I would guide him to the boat that ferries guests between the Magic Kingdom parking lot and its front gate and I would board that boat not just with him but also his brother, Roy, who passed away just a few weeks after the Magic Kingdom was dedicated in October of 1971.
I once heard a story that on that day in 1971, after reading his speech and giving the park over to the guests, Roy boarded the ferry, took it to the middle of Bay Lake, and parked it there. It’s not as if anyone was going to get him to move it, he’s Roy Disney. He did not want to be the focus of “Walt’s park”, and so he sat there and reflected on the construction that was in front of him and thought about what awaited in the future (I’m mostly assuming here) and I think he talked to his brother in his own special way. I would want to make that conversation not only real, but encompassing the 43 square miles of Walt Disney World and all that lies within its boundaries. I would want to hear them both discuss the things they like and did not like, both from the perspective of the visiting guest and from the perspective of being in control again.
I want to know how quickly the creative Walt and the logical Roy would break down into battles about how things are and why they do or do not need “fixing” in any definition of the term. If there is one thing anyone visiting Walt Disney World today and having Walt Disney standing next to them, it’s probably going to be quite an earful. Even if he loves everything, he would still wax poetic about all the things he would do to ‘plus it up’ just that little bit more. It would be the greatest learning experience of my life, because for as much as schools and careers can teach you about the world there is one man, sadly passed, who can teach (and in some ways has taught) me a new way of looking at the world around you.
There were a lot of projects that Walt Disney started under the pretense that they would never truly ever, ever, ever “be complete”. Nothing is so set in stone that it can’t be shifted and shaped into something new down the road, even if you have to get a few dozen jackhammers in there first to crush up the old junk. For all the talk of nostalgia (of which I am a bit of a fan of in the Disney theme park sense) and the seemingly endless political and social struggles surrounding words like “reform” and “change”, maybe there is a reason that the Walt Disney Company took to using the word “refurbishment” instead.
It’s not that we are utterly destroying things you hold dear, it’s that we are making them better (or at least trying to) and improving upon them in ways that might not have been possible in 1955, 1971, 1982, or any time but today or in the future beyond your imagination. So long as you give me a choice in the matter, there is never a time where I will not answer with “Make it more magical” if the situation so happens to come up.
If it’s not good enough for Walt Disney, then it’s not good enough for me.
Dream it. Do it.
This story from NPR is a sad look into the world of employment today. The city of Seattle is one of the big computer science hotbeds in the country (along with San Francisco, Austin, and a few others) and yet they find themselves unable to fill jobs people desperately want because there are not enough people leaving college with that major. Part of the local problem is that the University of Washington is not growing their computer-related majors of studies to meet the demand being brought to the area. Students are getting turned down because even though they want to come there and learn there just is not enough classroom to handle them.
Is that really the student’s fault that they can’t make that work? Is it the company’s fault for putting down its roots in Seattle and trying to grow a brand? Yes, the company could have gone anywhere and maybe made it work. After all, the world of high speed internet is making it easier to put a business just about anywhere and still having them be able to succeed. Looking at the student, who knows that these areas of opportunity exist, maybe should not be looking at the local school market to get a degree. There are hundreds of universities out there that can get you a computer science or engineering degree and yet that student is looking at that one school to help them out. Sure, these local Seattle companies are going to work with the university to find interns or look for those hungry students that are yearning for work in that field. Again, though, the world is becoming a much smaller place by way of social media and internet communication. You can be as much in a company’s employment radar from a thousand miles away as you can be from ten miles away. Companies love willingness to adapt and if you show the desire to want to work with them and the skills to do the work then you will have just as good a shot to get that job as someone who is coming out of the University of Washington or wherever else. That is the kind of world we live in now.
This does not mean that the University of Washington, or any such school in their predicament, is off the hook. It’s not exactly news that the computer science field is exploding, especially in Seattle. This school is at the forefront of bringing employable people to the region and yet they have not been able to grow that program to meet the demands of the student body. They are screaming at the school to take their money (loans or otherwise) and let them be computer scientists and engineers but oh, no, they can not do that because that’s just too heavy a workload for the people they have there.
Okay, the following is going to be completely off the top of my head and is entirely fictional but will be used to prove a point. Let’s just say that, I don’t know, History has tapered off as a college major at the University of Washington. Maybe ten years ago there were 150 graduates in that field and now there are 50. If that program has not shrunk, maybe not even by two-thirds but at least somewhat, then the school is not doing its part to help the students coming to their school to get a career-worthy education. It’s not to say that they should not offer History because there isn’t enough students to sustain it, but if you have students beating your doors down to do other subjects that you can’t afford to give them because you are funneling funds into History (or whatever lesser-desired field) just because you feel “you have to”, then again you are failing to do your job as an institution of education. Just as there is a reason students do not have to partake in buggy-driving class because there are not buggies to be driven anymore, then maybe everyone needs to look at the system they are a part of and see what people want, what you are giving them, and where there are opportunities to improve.
Students can find an education if they really want to work, schools can find students if they really want to work, and businesses can find workers if they really want to look. The problem is that students don’t seem to want to look, schools don’t care to change, and businesses will cry that they can’t find the proper employees because the college two blocks down the road would rather teach Shakespeare and the Franco-Prussian War than Objective-C and HTML5. Show your wants and needs to the world, and people will come. It does not matter what side of this you are on. Companies can find work, Schools can find students, and graduates can find work. They have to be willing to work a little harder than looking just outside their front door, but the rewards can be so much sweeter.
You will note Terry Gross wasn’t on this story, because she would have Chuck Norris-style roundhouse kicked these idiots and told them to post on Twitter that they are hiring and watch the resumes roll in. You don’t have to live in Seattle/SF/Austin to learn how to use a computer for money and you don’t have to go to school there, either. Being unemployed is not always your fault, but you might have to be willing to do a little more than cry about it to fix the problem. Sorry to be the one to tell you that.
It is difficult to come to terms to the fact that Education is just as much about “business” as it is about all that learning stuff that hopefully goes on. Sure, as far as primary/secondary public schools go your choice comes down more to your address than anything else, but you are still a customer of a service being offered by, well, the Board of Education as a whole. Every (public) school is part of a local (or potentially national) chain of schools that hope when you walk through the door and into those classrooms you are thinking of them more as a Whole Foods or Trader Joe’s than a Walmart or Goodwill (no offense to Goodwill). Everyone has an idea of what they want out of the system, and sadly they don’t always mesh together well.
Teachers, or people that go into teaching, are looking for job security and a paycheck. Even though there is the stigma that teaching is not as well-paying as they should be, they go. They know that there is (usually) some kind of security in their job choice because there will always be people that need to be taught something and they will be there to help them out. It is not to say that all teachers are only looking at monetary goals, as there is the knowledge that as a teacher you have the ability to share ideas and influence a new generation to be better than the current one (if you do your job well enough). There is no amount of money that can pay for the ability to make the world a better place even if it is just 30 children at a time every twelve months or so.
Students in school want, at the very least, enough education to survive once they make it through the system. This might be a bit of an idealized statement, as we know that empathy and laziness tend to cloud student’s minds as they work their way inexorably toward some soul-sucking middle-management-or-lower career path. In those cases, it can become a desperate search not for knowledge as part of a classroom and the work that comes with gaining the knowledge, but just a quest for the right answers. Give them whatever is correct, let them spout it out, and get out of their way because there is no way they are spending more than five minutes doing your pitiful worksheet when they have friends they could be talking to – which of course is another thing students like about education. They get to be social in a way that is not as scrutinized as they think the rest of their life is under the watchful eyes of their parents or guardians. Your parents won’t know if you called someone a “f-face” in between classes because they weren’t there to tell you that that kind of language is “bad”, so ha-ha on them. They won’t be there to tell you that you can’t talk to the guy in the leather jacket that smokes outside thirty percent of the school day or the girl with eighteen piercings and a fascination with animal blood and Norwegian death metal. You can do whatever you want, just so long as you remember to keep your shirt collar looking good and you do all of your necessary homework.
And what about the parents? In effect they might just want babysitting out of it all. They hope that there are grown-ups around their children to keep them away from the smokers and the death metal and are not as worried about what exactly they are learning because, hey, “If I made it through school then they can, too!” Of course, most parents do hope that their kids get as good of an education as they can, mainly because their tax dollars are helping to fund it and, damn it, that better be worthwhile or people are going to hear about it. Taxpayers without children want that, too, especially with how much “money toward education” is used as a reason to up their percentages a little bit more year after year.
Everyone wants something about of education, even if it’s not exactly “an education”. It is more of a business than it maybe should be, and that leads to all kinds of customer service issues that can crop up and really ruin your day. Think about The Breakfast Club, and Brian Johnson dealing with not getting straight A’s and knowing that his parents are going to be severely disappointed in him. He is doing all that work to satisfy his parent customer and is desperate to do the work that will make his teacher happy, even if the teacher would be just as happy with “the nerdy kid” getting an average grade and getting out of his manly environment. He did what he could and when that didn’t work, he flipped out a little and grabbed a flare gun. We’ve all seen those that go a tiny bit off the handle when feeling wronged by some company. Who knows how exactly his parents would have reacted had the “gun” thing not happened and he just walked up to them with a bad Shop class grade.
Is it the parent’s job to help the student? Is it their job to communicate to the teacher their problems? Is it the teacher’s job to listen to the parents or even to suck it up and put hours and hours of extra time into helping this one student who is lagging behind his or her classmates? The student and the parent might be shouting loud and clear that yes, absolutely, the teacher needs to get off his or her ass and help their child. The teacher, on the other hand, might be dealing with dozens, if not hundreds, of other students who are having zero problems, or even problems of their own, and is juggling not just their classroom responsibilities but also responsibilities to their superiors. Is it right to ask them to add to their workload and be more of a tutor than a teacher? Yes, there is a difference, and it’s not just how many people you are teaching at a given time. This is not a Shop class thing exclusively, this is any class and any teacher. Students that want the education they feel they are entitled to, whether at a public school or at a paid private school or even a university, may find it hard to get exactly what they want if their teachers/professors are looking at them and biting their tongue to the point of blood-loss to not scream that they are not doing their job as a student good enough to meet the expectations set by the teacher.
Conversations need to happen. Yes. That much is true. But the conversations need to be two-way and they need to have clear definitions of what each person wants out of the other. Just as people go into Walmart and hope for everyday low prices and would undoubtedly get upset if their generic bottle of soda is suddenly a dollar more and there is no damn way we are paying that and we are going to go to <insert regional grocery/market chain here>, students need to understand what their teachers are not only capable of but also what the teacher is expecting them to be capable of. Walmart expects you to be capable of paying two dollars for soda, and if you are not capable of that then you might need to leave. In the world of education, there are always other teachers teaching other classes. If you are not willing to see eye to eye, the customer/student is the one that is going to be looking for another place to use their brain while the teacher shakes their head, having lost a customer and maybe wondering if their business decisions are sound. They might change in the future, just as soda might be back to being a dollar tomorrow. That’s how customer service works, and it’s a bigger part of education than anyone really cares to pay attention to.
There’s no need to yell, scream, whine, or complain when you aren’t getting your way. Talk it out. If that doesn’t work, there are always other places to go and people willing to teach and be taught. There is no monopoly on education, no matter what you think. The faster we all pay attention to the fact that Education is a market and a business, the better off we will all be for it.
I have become intrigued with the idea of “starting from zero” in education (or at least as close to zero as we can get to) because it is one angle into the discussion of ‘reform’ that is not as highly touted or talked about. I presume the issue with ‘zero’ is that it involves quite a lot of figurative (and potentially literal) demolition, destruction, and mayhem to get back to only to then have to start right back up again. However, my brain does not have the limits of the social and political climate to deal with, so as such — I want to look at zero.
What is Zero?
When I talk about “zero”, I mean taking away all the fun constants that make up our education system – the infrastructure, the schools, the teachers, the curriculum, anything that anyone is trying to sharpen to a point and then mandate is gone. Period. I want everything to be distilled down into three categories -
- People With Knowledge
- People Without Knowledge
In broad terms, I’m going to simply use “Adults” and “Children” as simple terms for the latter two categories. Yes, I know that subcategories exist (because a fifteen year old and a five year old have different levels of knowledge in them), so maybe instead of the original terms I can just switch them into “Teachers” and “Students”, because then anyone can fit into any category and I don’t have to get age-specific. This is proofing on the fly, people.
Anyway, all that needs to occur in the educational system for it to be technically successful is to have a Teacher impart Knowledge onto a Student. That’s it. Okay, so the Student has to actually retain the Knowledge for it to be worthwhile, but as far as flowchart diagrams go, there is not much simpler than TEACHER -[knowledge]->STUDENT. That is what the goal should always be, not babysitting, hand-holding, or distracting – just get thought from point A to point B.
Old Habits Die Hard
If I snapped my fingers and suddenly we were without any school system (public, private, or otherwise) and then asked people what to do they would probably immediately try to trend back into the system that just vanished, even if it was not a very good one. People would hunt down “professional educators” to deal with their kids and slowly but surely common and standard curriculum would appear from the ether and disperse into the wilderness. Adults all have memories of what our schooling was like, and that is what we would rush right on back to no matter how much we hated it.
If, however, I snapped my fingers and not only schools vanished – but the concept of schools as well – and all we were left with was the idea that older generations need to pass knowledge onto younger generations, there would only exist a small possibility that “school” as we know it now would come to exist. Granted, this is just a theory, but as the system itself is what is breeding more user of the system (teachers teaching teachers how to teach), then removing that constant opens up a place to dump in way more variables – most of which we use now (home-schooling, one-on-one tutoring) but as more of a case-by-case basis than an overarching system.
Education is case-by-case. It always has been and it always will be, someone along the line just thought it would be much more fun to make it into an assembly line rather than a discovery process. There’s not exactly some wild new car popping off the end of the line every few seconds in the auto industry because they have built a system that is all constants. Education isn’t a paint-by-numbers vehicle to drive to adulthood. If people want to use the automotive industry as a good analogy to education, they should look just a bit above the assembly line process to the fact that there are dozens and dozens of different assembly lines going all that once, because not everyone wants to drive the same black Model T, and damn it, not everyone wants or needs the exact same replica of some die-stamped education out of a catalog.
Because of a system that is based on ideas that are many, many decades old, the entire notion of wiping everything out and starting again is as conceivable as doing a vertical leap from your driveway and landing on Jupiter. It’s not going to be possible without a lot of help, time, and equipment. As our society struggles with things like standardized testing, No Child Left Behind, and Common Core, we are always looking for what will show improvement as fast as possible. That’s it. It’s all GOALS, QUOTAS, and RANKINGS, with little in the way of long-term thinking into not only what it is doing for the students of today but what it will do to the students of tomorrow.
Knowledge, defined, is without limits (as far as we know). However, there are not very many good reasons for trying to find all of it as fast as you possibly can – even if we define ‘all of it’ as ‘what school teaches’. First, there are enough people that glower and scowl over their shoulder at their time in school that one might think problems exist with both the what and the how of their methodology. Second, that whole case-by-case basis thing is a mosquito sucking the system dry. Every time a teacher, student, or parent has to “adjust” because of the needs of one or both of the others, then people start to get very angry and very fast because that is not how it is “supposed” to be. It’s “supposed” to be “Go to classes for a few years and -hooray!- adulthood” but people just keep jamming up that road with all kinds of speed bumps, traffic pattern modifications, and an incredible amount of people with giant red “Stop!” signs that by the time you get out of eyesight of where you started you aren’t really all that psyched up about the trip any more. This pulls all the way back to the ‘empathetic’ high school kids, staring out the window dreaming of an exit ramp away to take them as far away as possible.
Maybe even straight back to zero.
Full disclosure on this, because I feel it might be necessary. It was Thursday morning, the 9th of May 2013, somewhere around 11 EDT, when I realized that I did not have a real grasp on what “tenure” was. What I knew was the simple pop culture/media awareness definition – the one that they like to put forth when showing some evil, glowering teacher standing over his or her class with fire burning in their eyes knowing that there is nothing anything that anyone can do about the hell they are about to unleash on their students because they have (dun dun dun) tenure.
Other than that, I really had no idea. So I did what I usually do in these situations and I ran myself to Wikipedia at my earliest convenience (some time between 1:25 and 1:35 later that afternoon) and found Tenure was waiting to be read all about. So I did. While the wiki article sticks to mostly the college/university level, I am aware at least tangentially that primary/secondary school tenure also exists – but that is not what is important about all of this.
What is important is that while reading the article I noticed that, like many things in the world, there are very divisive views on the idea of tenure and how it is used (or even if it should be used at all). Thinking about that, and also many of the other topics I have researched in the name of education, I have come to a very reasonable (I think) conclusion, part of which is the title to this post.
I am not saying that education reform is impossible, but…
Yes, for now I am only adding the “but…” because, really, that is all I can add at this very moment (this moment being some time around 10 pm EDT on Friday, May 10th 2013). I know that education reform is a big topic across the world – as I truly feel that people do want education to get better. I like to think that this kind of thinking is just more proof that the current system is insanely broken and worthless but in all honesty it more than likely just means that people are always looking for ways to improve anything at all and this is just the one thing that everyone can have an opinion on because almost everyone has been in a classroom at some time in their life and feels that they have a good grasp on not only what is going on now but also what damn well should be going on and they are going to hold their breath until it happens.
Sometimes I talk like that, and I’m sorry.
I might be just dog-piling on with everyone else, but it just adds to the frustration of it all. There are many (many, many, many, many) people that believe in their hearts and minds that either the system needs fixed from the ground up, that it needs improvement in places, or that it just needs a nice spit-shine to get us back in the world education race that we are slowly falling behind in. That, of course, is the first hurdle.
We can’t all agree on what is necessary.
That’s a big deal when potentially hundreds of thousands of people’s daily lives are at stake. Whether it’s political, moral, ethical, racial, whatever the heck biases people might have and push, these are things that can get in the way of these types of agreements. The second that one person decides one school, one class, or even one student deserves a whole different education from another school/class/student, that is when punches start getting thrown. Then again, it may be worth noting at this juncture that “different educations for different people” happens whether we like it or not, just not on a grand enough scale as to be noticed and burned at the stake. Everyone leaves high school, or even grade school for that matter, having experienced a different education than the person standing right next to them. There is so much that constitutes the “experience” of just growing up (with school and all it’s ups and downs being a part of it) that maybe trying to force it into a mold is the last thing we need to do to set things right. a
Everything is interlaced and woven together like Ernő Rubik and Betsy Ross had a few too many bottles of wine and nine months later your formative years popped out, stumbled around, and tried to straighten up while “With A Little Help From My Friends” played and Daniel Stern narrated. Trying to change education will change business, will change politics, will change….well, culture. The way I grew up into who I am is in part to blame (blame?) on my education, and if I were to go back and time and send myself through a whole new rigmarole of learning then who knows if the person I would come out as is the same as who I am today. I doubt it. Same thing with growing up in California compared to New York, or Minnesota to Texas. So many factors exist to make you into who you are, changing education might have a bigger effect than we can even fully comprehend until it has overtaken us and swallowed us whole.
If you tell me that I should have gotten my education in Kansas or Nevada, I’d probably laugh – even if it was true. How am I supposed to know that is what would have changed my life? Just living that thousand or two thousand miles from where I am now would be a big enough change without sliding in a few new textbooks or grammar worksheets. Are standards and all these constants in the equation of education what we really need, or is the fact that we are such incredibly large variables be enough to throw out the entire idea of constants all together?
Just as I said 27 minutes and five or so paragraphs ago, I really have no idea. It might not be impossible for me to know, but for now I’m still running around with my diving rod and hoping to hit water. Where the oasis appears is anyone’s guess, but damn am I thirsty.
We are officially one day removed from Tim Tebow being placed on waivers by the New York Jets, and a few hours since he went unclaimed and is now officially a free agent. This means that Timmy can sign anywhere he pleases at any time. The problem is, of course, that almost no one wants him – and those that do want him make him, apparently, sick to his stomach.
Because these places, barring the Canadian Football League, do not want Tim Tebow the backup and/or starting quarterback. No. They want Tim Tebow, running back/tight end/fullback/anything but quarterback. Tim Tebow hates this with a fiery intense passion. I’m almost amazed that the Jets were even able to get him line up as an eligible receiver even once during the season. As far as I am aware, he was part of 77 plays throughout the 2012-2013 season. On eight of these plays he passed the ball (six were complete), and on 32 of these plays he ran the ball (for well below his yards per carry average). The other thirty or so plays were hand-offs, which to a quarterback is the equivalent of having Jeff Gordon ride shotgun and play license plate bingo.
Tebow desperately wants to be a leader. He was raised to be a leader and his one goal in life is to be seen as the one who holds all the power. He held that power in Florida and did well enough for himself. It’s hard to win two national championships when you only get four possible tries to start with. He had statues erected in his honor and he set his sights on the National Football League with the burning desire to be a leader.
He just was not good enough.
The things that impressed the college world mattered little in the land of form, skill, and real ability. The NFL is a place where dual-threat quarterbacks go to get put on a stretcher, because only in rare cases do you not end up with a shortened career by trying to get fancy with your footwork. They want to see you pass the ball, but not at a career completion of 48%. You are almost not even worthy of being a backup at that point. You might as well get your team ballcap fitted with a chin strap and mask because that’s the closest you are going to get to wearing a helmet on game day.
I’m sorry, for all sports fans, that you were not cut out to be a leader in the NFL like you so desire. I’m sorry that asking you to be a starter in some other position is a slap in the face to all the pride you are willing to swallow to stand on the sidelines with a clipboard instead of being a contributing member of an offense. I’m sorry that the Jets released you on the worst possible day in the year. The day when your waiver should have came with a flaming bag of dog crap because that is how much they care about your contributions to the team over the past thirteen months. You were meant to be a New York Jet as much as you were meant to be a starting NFL quarterback. Even your fanbase in Denver knows that the defense and one lucky pass is what lead them to victory and an eventual stomping at the hands of the New England Patriots, a group that personifies not giving a damn about your hopes and dreams of being a professional cut from the same cloth as your amateur achievements.
Most of all, though, I’m sorry that the media ever paid enough attention to you to put you in the position you are now. There are dozens of backup quarterbacks in the NFL, but none of them invoke the tsunami of sports media that you do. No one wakes up wondering what Greg McElroy and Ricky Stanzi do during their time off. They don’t land magazine covers and big ticket interviews. They play football. They play football good enough to be back-ups but without the core set of skills that might make them something more, something better in some other position besides directly behind center. Tim, you have attributes that could, potentially anyway, make you a bigger star than the University of Florida or Josh McDaniels ever dreamed you could be.
I’m just sorry you aren’t willing to use them.
I was passed along this article from NPR earlier this week, and while it is from December it is not exactly something that has some kind of newsworthy flashpoint where I should have totally been right on top of it the moment it appeared on the interweb. With that said, here I am – and I have one question in particular about the entire idea of flipping the classroom.
The article is telling me that the idea of students listening to podcasts and watching video lectures at home is fantastic for all sorts of reasons, chief among them being able to pause, rewind, and fast forward depending on how well you are understanding your lessons. I like that idea, because it is no fun being the one student that does not understand and it is definitely no fun having to sit there, dumbfounded, and watch as the teacher breaks down a subject that everyone else in the class understands. By doing more of the “homework” style stuff in class, it can allow for better one-on-one interaction between the students and teachers. That is exactly the kind of thing education needs.
However, and this is my question, how long are these lectures? While I am first to say that students should put their education first and foremost in their lives, it would be a slog to sit through an eight hour school day and then deal with hours upon hours of lectures that night. Even if you are able to speed through them relatively quickly because you understand the concepts, I still feel like it could potentially be more work overall than the current idea of doing your actual homework at home in the first place. If these lectures are too long, and every class in a school decides to move to that model, you risk students being stuck in some kind of weird loop where they are spending all of their out-of-class time doing what is essentially class work, and I’m not sure even the best of students would be able to handle a constant barrage of public education flying at them from sunup to sundown. Then again, if they are too short, it only proves that maybe classes in schools do not have to be as long as they are in the first place, and that giving kids 40 to 50 minutes in a room with what looks to be 15-20 minute lectures is not the best use of time. Of course, there are ways teachers can fill the other half hour of a class, but I find it difficult to rationalize a good use of that time that does not involve more lectures or just giving students time to do their ‘homework’ right then and there so as to free them up in the evening. That is about the only positive a student could see in that, but it still does not justify having the students download files first when the information dump would almost take less time than the downloading itself.
The article states that this idea is helping under-performing students do better. That is fantastic. But this is only with schools using the technique in a few classes here and there and not all of the curriculum. I think the maths have the best benefit for this, and would find it odd to be staring at a video screen for something like U.S. History that is almost all lecture and very little else in the first place. I also like the entire idea of the ‘transparency’ behind learning, as now parents can see exactly what their children are learning at just about any time by watching a video with them or listening in on a podcast. Parents can use that information to get a better grasp of what and how their children learn and be able to assist them just as much, if not more, than a teacher in a classroom can.
All I am worried about is that time and attention issue. Education should always be a top priority, but it should not be the only priority, especially if it is simply handing off work from teachers to students. I support (good) teachers and want to see them justly compensated, because the joke about teachers being underpaid is only funny because it’s sadly true. If this is how you are showing the world that you deserve the pay you make (and more), then I’m worried that less people are going to buy that as reason to add to your pay in the future, regardless of whatever it is extra that you are doing in the class as part of the “flip”. Educational supporters tend to be happy with what they are given as reasons for raising compensation without seeing it because they see school now as exactly what it was when they were stuck in a desk and staring at a blackboard. They know teachers work hard. Flipping the classroom might make students better and teaching easier, but I would be afraid that even with those two things in your favor that this kind of game change to “teaching via the internet” might make you seem redundant and field fewer teachers working with higher student counts because, hey, all they are doing now is ” homework”, and parents have seen how “easy” that is for generations.
This is a very thin line to walk, and while I support any idea that helps students excel in their studies, I fear for the future it may lead to.