Principles of the semi-ideal education.

[aciel]

Ken Robinson Says Schools Kill Creativity
(TED Talk)

I highly recommend the video above. You may have witnessed me going on and on about The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto. This man touches on many of those topics and also explores other avenues.

(You're not allowed to comment on this entry until you've watched the video.)

I've come up with some principles for what I think would be the ideal school/community. They're infinitely flexible (that's the point).

If you have input, I'd love to hear it--especially those of you who think a lot about education. I'm looking at you, slitherrr, racingpenguins, smashingpopcorn, lambspam, elution, nishmael, justira, and Robert M. (And anyone else I've stupidly forgotten.)

Once I have all of the principles nailed down, I'm going to turn it into a talk and Youtube it. My first webcast! Joy! Anyway, contributors will all get credit, and I'll happily take auditions for people who'd also like to give part of the talk.

Principles for the Ideal School Community
Fundamentally, these principles are both compatible with and based on true democratic ideals, namely:

• That everyone is endowed with not only inalienable rights but inborn talent, though modern-day schools do not always recognize unusual--but productive--talent).
  • That inborn talent is not as simple as "she has always been good at math," or "he is a natural at the trumpet." Sometimes, talent is hidden or indirect, i.e., "She takes a while to pick things up, but her drive to succeed is so strong that she excels--beyond any of her directly-talented friends--at everything she tries."
• That choice is an inalienable right: people should be absolutely free to choose a career or path through life, and to change careers at will, independent of their individual talents, provided that the path directly or indirectly increases productivity.
  • The last clause is intentionally extremely broad. Consider Van Gogh, whose work was not appreciated until after he died. He might have been viewed as an unproductive member of society, but in fact his work served as inspiration, comfort, or entertainment for other members of society, and thus indirectly increased their productivity. Consider Hitler, whose work was also not appreciated--and look at what he did, which society of the day undoubtedly viewed as productive.
• That differing levels of education represent a form of disparity, and that disparity is damaging to society and productivity. Education shall be free of charge as long as the student continues to make satisfactory progress. Students shall receive sufficient support for necessities of life as long as progress continues. Finally, students may always choose to return, even after failing to make satisfactory progress.
• That creativity and logic skills are critical to participation in a democratic society, some system of education (one following these principles or another of the student's choice) would be compulsory up to a certain age.
  • Compulsory participation in some system should not be viewed as compulsory participation in a specific set of subject areas. Resources (libraries, teachers, classes, information sources) should be made available to students, but not pushed upon them.
  • Students are free to pick an adviser or multiple advisers, and advisers are free to turn down students. It is the adviser's responsibility to approve or deny access to entertainment sources (non-educational television). The goal of denying access is not censorship, but rather to allow the student to find intrinsic motivation independently (more on this later). Students are always free to participate in physical activity.

More specifically, there are principles that the system should follow to promote the ideals named above:

• Education should be tailored to the individual.
  • Motivation. Students are expected to find their own motivation, just as they will be expected to do post-academically. It is the responsibility of teachers to suggest sources of motivation to struggling students, but not to use punishment or reward systems to compel completion. Systems which provide extrinsic motivation are not compatible with freedom of choice, and furthermore, destroy the students' intrinsic motivation.
  • Pace. Students are not "left behind" or "sent ahead." Courses may be completed at the individual's own pace.
  • Process. Teaching and grading shall emphasize process over result. For example, a mathematical error does not make the answer wrong, particularly in a complex problem. Similarly, good study or practice habits should be emphasized over outcome (such as an exam).
    
  • Subjectivity. Success is to be viewed as an objective matter rarely if ever; as it is the process, not the result that matters. This is in part to avoid the undue emphasis our current system places on "mistakes." Labeling answers or courses of action as mistakes diminishes creative thinking and the voicing of dissenting opinions, and encourages group-think.
    • A student may always choose to participate in a more objective style of grading in certain areas, particularly when pursuing a particular field of study. Certainly it is important that the nuclear engineer designs the reactor safely, for example; but again, rather than categorically declaring an answer a mistake, the teacher should perhaps focus on methods of checking for mistakes, or methods of improving accuracy. Rarely is fate determined by the immediate production of a correct solution to a calculus problem; much more depends on rather more complicated decisions that do not have simple answers, especially for a nuclear engineer.
  • Grading. In the current, flawed system, measures of success, or "grades," are essentially efforts to quantify a unique individual's skills based on a few highly visible qualities. These grades are used by many companies and continuing education systems to determine a student's qualifications, along with what are perhaps an even worse measure, standardized tests, IQ tests, and the improperly named "intelligence tests."
    
    An ideal system would be based on the written references of educators and advisers, submitted materials (personal statements or portfolios which reflect the process rather than the result) or auditions, and interviews.
    
    Since this is not an ideal world, some recognition must be given to the practicality and expediency of simple measures of success, such as letter grades. Such grades should reflect, as always, process over outcome. In other words, a very rarely awarded "A" would go to a student who covered and retained an incredible amount of material. A much more common "C" would go to a student who successfully completed the minimum amount of material necessary to advance to the next level. The failing grade is eliminated completely: courses that were not completed are simply excluded from the student's academic transcript.
    
    An exemplary grade from a more advanced course in some subject area may not supersede a grade from a less advanced course. At the teacher's preference, however, an additional mark may be added to the transcript to indicate that the grade for the more advanced course also includes the materials from the less advanced course.
    
    
  • Advancement. A student may freely advance to the next level of a specific subject with the permission of the teacher, even if the previous level has not been completed (or started). Once a student has advanced, he or she may return to a previous course, but a new grade should never supersede an earlier grade for the same course; rather, both should be listed together.
    
    Teachers should not automatically refuse entrance to students based on the claim that "all previous students who entered without that class failed." As an example of a similar logical fallacy, "All physicists have failed to discover cold fusion so far, and therefore no physicist ever will."
• Teaching. Research, invention, and art produced on the common dollar should be shared freely. The most advanced research is useless if it is not communicated. Thus, experts are expected to give back to the system through advising or teaching; if this is a problem, they would probably fit in better elsewhere. There should never be a perception that one has no choice but to teach: like study, instruction should be intrinsically motivated.
  
  Student teaching and peer support values will also be emphasized. In keeping with the principle that a discovery is useless unless communicated freely, students should be encouraged to pursue study in the area of pedagogy. Furthermore, all community members should strive to set a positive example with respect to teaching.
• Participation and Organization. Members of the community--particularly students--should be given a voice in administration of the system.
  
  Participation in this aspect of the community should be proportional based on field of study, socioeconomic status, and as long as they continue to play a role in discrimination in our society, such factors as race/ethnicity/cultural heritage, gender and sexual orientation, disability status, veteran status, and age. Diverse backgrounds are critical to a diverse outlook.
  
  Researchers especially should be encouraged to participate in community and political outreach. Government officials should always have easy access to an expert in a field, even if they do not request it. This is based on--among other things--the government-approved recommendation that sugar be 25% of every American's daily diet. That came straight from sugar industry lobbyists. Instead, such recommendations should be coming from scientists/teachers with expertise in nutrition. Additionally, promotion of funding for education and research is to be pursued aggressively.


• Research. Research is to be considered as meaningful progress in an area of study, as if the researcher were a student; in this case, progress and success should be measured by colleagues and always in light of such things as family (maternity/paternity leave, medical conditions, etc), and secondary or tertiary careers (administration, organization, teaching).
• Career. Those who choose research, teaching, and/or education administration as careers should be given financial incentive proportional to (a) perceived success in the specific field or fields, (b) perceived need (or amount of funding available) for that field, and (c) successful secondary or tertiary careers in the educational system (e.g., someone who is both a prolific researcher and a well-respected teacher.
  
  No member of the community should ever be punished for pursuing--for example--teaching in addition to research. The current system currently gives tenure based almost entirely on research. That's very bad, in part because it pushes out very good teachers.
• Work-Study. Members of the community should always have work-study as an option for support, particularly when exploring other options for study or research. In this way, people may remain in the community even when not making progress.
• Community and Family. Although this is last, it is perhaps the most important principle: no one should ever have to choose between a career/education and having a family.
  
  This is made possible by institutional cooperatives and "work-study." For example, husband-and-wife researchers may choose to work in the lab for fewer hours and instead take several shifts at the community day-care center or teaching their son's or daughter's subject-specific class. They may also choose to contribute these work-shares before they have children, which would enable them to take time off later in order to spend more time with family.
  
  All students, teachers, researchers, staff, and other members of the institution--along with family members--should be members of the institution's community, if possible living on the campus. This is important both for sustainability and for the development of local identity.
  
  Furthermore, the community should be arranged in such a way that work is never more than a short walk from home or school. There is no reason to separate educational facilities from living facilities.

"Researcher" is to be taken to also include those who would normally be awarded tenure in non-research departments, such as artists, musicians, dancers, novelists, etc with no implied or latent bias.

Again, infinitely flexible. Please make suggestions, criticism, etc. If you think it sounds really communist, make suggestions about better incentives for creativity and participation in the system. Also, financial solvency is a plus.