Frosted Cheerios
are so underrated. This has nothing to
do with my blog, but I am thoroughly enjoying a bowl right now. They are good and good for you!
In our last 504
class we had the opportunity to hear from and question a panel of former U of M
Secondary MAC graduates. The
hour-and-a-half session was extremely informative.
The highlight for
me was when we lighted on the question (loosely restated), “Is school supposed
to mimic life? Or is it supposed to be
separate?”
Bring in the wine
and cheese! (A French Bordeaux and a sharp cheddar if you please.)
Admittedly, we
probably need to define a few things if we really want to have an intelligent
discussion (i.e. what does “mimic life” really mean), but I have some general
theoretical questions/postulates that might add to the discussion.
This is an
enormous question with lots of facets that I cannot cover in one blog…but let’s
start…
First, the 2nd
Law of Thermodynamics states that everything tends towards entropy, that is,
disorder. This disorder is ultimately
inevitable, but it can be mitigated by intervention. (You put butter in the fridge so it doesn’t
melt.)
Does this law
apply to our cognitive function? That
is, if left unchecked, will our ability to think and reason tend to
disorder? I am not sure if proof exists
for this, but anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that it would.
If we agree that
our natural human tendencies lead us to something we’ll call “disorder,” and if
we agree that this “disorder” is something we do not desire (in general) then
something must be done.
I would suggest
that this “something that must be done” is the foundation for Education, going
as far back as you want to in history, to the first group assemblages for the
purpose of collective education.
Making a big jump
(and feel free to question this jump) I would suggest that the purpose of
education is to move kids (or adults) beyond something they already are. That is, that their current state has the
potential to be improved, for the betterment of themselves and society, and we
seek to foster this “betterment.”
That is why I
take issue with a recent New York Times article questioning the need for
Algebra in high school.
The question is
not about Algebra itself, but what do we see as the purpose of education? If we agree that the purpose of education is
to move kids beyond what they naturally are capable of, then why wouldn’t we
push them to learn new, and (gasp!) difficult things?
“Difficult” just
means things that you can’t do it naturally.
It does not mean that it is something you are not capable of. Push yourself! And your students (appropriately).
I believe it is a
mindset. The SecMAC courses this summer
has given a term to an idea I have had floating around in my head for many
years. The term, defined first for us by
Ritchhart (still my favorite read of the year), is called “Intellectual
Character.”
So while I agree
we need to tap into student’s prior knowledge and schema, we do so only as it
helps us to move them beyond this prior knowledge and schema to new, often
difficult, places.
Education is a
lifelong process. Grade school is a big
part of this. The purpose of grade
school is to get kids out of their comfort zone in appropriate ways and move
them to new places of cognitive and intellectual capacity, even if it is hard.
These are some of
my initial thoughts. A bit idealistic I
will admit. They might change in a year…who
knows?
I welcome
feedback and counter-arguments…please!!