The more things change...

“Equipping today’s youngster for today’s world” (Mitchell, 2007). Or, in our case, equipping today’s youngster for the world of 70 years ago. I happened to watch this video after listening to my 8 year old complain about her timed multiplication table test, so I was struck by just how few things have changed in education. The goal of wanting to prepare students for their future by instilling character and self-reliance remains the same, and I believe it is still a valid and worthy goal. We want our students to find fulfillment and success in their lives after they leave school. We still believe that they learn better by doing, and that “knowledge gained during application is best retained” (Mitchell, 2007). We continue to use projects and field trips to teach them real-life applications for content, and to show them how to cooperate to meet a common goal. The problem is that while our goals may still be valid, the world around us has changed, and we haven’t made the necessary changes to keep up with it. The future that our students are going to experience is nothing like the one that was possible in the 1940s or even in the 2000s. We’re attempting to prepare our students for a future we can’t imagine, with methods that were outdated decades ago.

So why do we insist on using models and methods that have been around since long before most of today’s teachers and administrators were born? I believe a combination of factors is at work. We will always battle the idea that “we’ve always done it this way.” Our parents and grandparents were educated using the same model, and if we perceive that it worked for them, we tend to perpetuate a system we see as being successful. When test scores and graduation rates are good, we view that as success, regardless of what the student outcomes in the “real world” are. I believe this is why we see so many innovations coming out of charter and private schools; they are starting from scratch and don’t have a system that is already established in their buildings to overcome. There is a vested interest in keeping the status quo. Change requires effort, and sacrifices. Longer hours, flexibility, staffing changes, and capital investments are all possible outcomes for true disruptive innovation in the classroom. Teachers, administrators, parents, and taxpayers may not believe that the sacrifices are worth making to change a system that they view as adequate.

There is also a fear of change to overcome. Teachers who believe they are good at what they do within the current model may be loathe to tackle something new, only to find that they aren’t as successful. I also believe that many districts don’t follow a good model for how to change. Too often, a wholesale change is forced from above, with no attempt at getting buy-in from the people most affected before the process starts. Rather than following a process that creates excitement and buy-in about change, it is often announced as a directive that everyone is expected to comply with, often with little training or follow through. Then when that change doesn’t create the expected effect, another wholesale change is enacted in the same way. After you’ve experienced that process several times, it can be hard to parse which changes may actually have value. That’s a shame, because it means that valuable changes may not receive the support that they need to take root.

References

Mitchell, D. J. (2007, July 31). Progressive education in the 1940s [Video

file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opXKmwg8VQM

Harapnuik, D. (2014, September 16). People who like this stuff...like this

stuff. Retrieved April 19, 2016, from http://www.harapnuik.org/?p=5198

#change #disruptiveinnovationdisruptiveeducation