How do the different perspectives from the additional readings impact your view on Tony Wagner’s suggestions for changing education?
I will admit that I am struggling with this week’s post. I don’t believe that any of the additional readings impacted my view on Wagner’s suggestions. I could say that none of the reading swayed my belief that Wagner is correct in the fact that we need to change education, in fact all of them reaffirmed this belief. However, none of them were trying to dissuade any reader of that fact. They were all, Wagner included, trying to share how THEY have seen and/or experienced a change in education for the benefit of the students. Their posts or videos or books were all about their own individual experiences and opinions. That being said, I believe that they are all correct and that nothing any of them said, could possibly take away from or make anything else that was said “incorrect”.
We know that ALL children, all humans, are different and need different things. So why would varying approaches to improving education be any different? There need to be different types and styles of schools to meet the needs of all the different students. Is it even possible, that there should be some traditional, lecture based schools with textbooks still in place (with a few tweaks) because some students learn really well that way?
For example, Lisa Nielsen talks about how students plan and produce a business concept in front of business leaders who assess the students and their plan. She debates against Wagner that this is NOT innovative because we need to “stop treating youth like people who are always in state of preparation for life rather than a state of living life. We need to stop wasting time "preparing" kids to do stuff and instead let them do stuff” (2012). Now let me explain my thought process as I was reading this post.
First, this post was five years old and therefore, more schools COULD be following either her or Wagner’s lead on being innovative, regardless of the exact definition. However, from my own experience exclusively, schools are NOT doing anything close to what Wagner and Nielsen are talking about. With that said, YES, what High Tech High is doing is innovative. There is always room for growth, but to take steps to helps students prepare for their next steps in the real world, by pulling in the real world, is innovative.
That leads me to my next point, why should we stop “wasting time” preparing kids to do stuff? Why do you believe it is “wasting time”? Students are children. They are in the process of learning. To allow them to practice and learn and fail and success, we are “preparing” them to do stuff. Sometimes, they are able to take that “stuff” and run with it. No adult or school (at least the ones we are looking at) would tell the student no because they are just kids. However, if their projects are not everything that they should be, having that opportunity to revise and improve with guidance and mentors is what provides students with the learning they need to then be successful. Additionally, Wagner shares that “at High Tech High (students) complete a ten-week internship with a local company or nonprofit organization in their junior year as a mandatory part of their academic program” (2008, p. 225). This internship is not a just preparing students, it is expecting them to perform in the real world. However, it has provided them time and exposure to a variety of options so they can make a choice of internship that will prepare them for college or life or whatever next step they are going to take.
Adults are not successful at everything, all the time. We are still learning and our “stuff” that we do, doesn’t always come out the way we hoped. However, with maturity, wisdom, and the guidance of our mentors and peers, we can make the changes necessary. We are modeling exactly what they are asking of students. How is that not innovative again?
No comments:
Post a Comment