I think it is important to place education within some kind of context. How else are educators to understand what might be important goals for what they are to accomplish with students? Some want to tell us that we educators are dealing with students who come into our classrooms different because of the context within which they live and we no longer understand. Some want to tell us that we must prepare students to function in a world very different from the world we may consciously experience and with which we have had little experience in our own training. One of the reasons I discuss topics within this blog that are not about education is that these topics concern issues I am learning about that are providing this new “context” for me.
One of the authors I have read extensively is NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman and I have made reference to some of his books on several occasions. Within the past couple of days, I have had several experiences in which Friedman’s perspective on the world and I would argue what implications for education might be have been challenged.
The first “experience” came to my email box in what appears to be an ad for a book. I have no idea how this kind of thing happens. Does someone out there know I read books by Friedman and think I would be interested in a book that takes a somewhat different (less optimistic from the ad) approach? Perhaps this was some kind of general mailing and you received the same email. Anyway, the email contained a link to a promotional video that is kind of interesting (New critical analysis (video promoting a book) of Friedman’s perspective in The World is Flat).
The second came to my awareness as I have been searching the educational blogs to find someone who might pick up on “The Cult of the Amateur” because of the stance this book takes in opposition to open source, blogs as information sources, wikipedia, etc. It took a week or so, but the reaction I expected has begun to surface (e.g., Weblogg-ed). It is the comments that are associated with this post that I found interesting:
I find it particularly ironic that you raise the issue of Keen’s lack of expertise visa vis education. What do Tom Friedman, Daniel Pink, Don Tapscott, Malcolm Gladwell or David Weinberger know abouteducation?
Yet, many educators slavishly hang on to every word they utter.It’s fine to integrate different perspectives into our work, but thereare much more powerful ideas available within the education community that should be guiding our thinking.
I think I have read every author in the list provided above. So, I am offering this post to give those with a different view some attention. For the record, I don’t think Friedman is too optimistic. I do think he makes it clear that there are many in the world who would relish the opportunity to do the jobs (both low and high end) that we take for granted and that corporations (and we as their customers) see this as a way to bring competitive products and practices to the market. Friedman scares me enough and so did what I was able to observe during my brief visit to China.
I do think that education is the way that this reality must be addressed and preparing students to compete at the high end is a necessity. No, schools (K-12 and higher ed) should not be run like businesses and no, business leaders may not understand what educators are trying to accomplish. I also understand that someone who writes about business, global competition, etc. is neither a businessman nor an educator. So, I read Friedman to suggest that the development of creativity, critical thinking, problem-solving must be merged with the mastery of basic skills and that schools, parents, and students must step it up a notch or so. I can agree with that. I guess I prefer Friedman’s perspective to that pushed by the present administration. Politicians are not educators either, but funding may depend on what politicians happen to think (or perhaps what the pollsters tell them to think). It is an interesting mix of ideas.
Blogged with Flock
