Yesterday’s post highlighted the fundamental differences between schooling (specifically within the state system) and home education. It demonstrated that the option of home education, regardless of educational philosophy, enables parents to more easily meet the legislative requirements of the Education Act 1996, which sets out very clearly that education must be suitable for the individual child, according to his or her age, ability, aptitude and special needs.
In other words, the current legislation demands that all children can avail themselves of highly personalised learning channels, presumably such that are relevant to 21st century living. This is the sort of learning the government is so keen to tell us that today’s state education system is able to provide.
Convinced? Not so much. Reading Jim Knight’s speech on Building Schools for the Future (BSF) I can’t help feeling that he’s stuck somewhere in the 1990s. And that, in terms of both technology and human outlook, is a veritable age. His boast of broadband access, interactive whiteboards, digital registers, and text messaging is dire. Even in local government I was doing this kind of stuff (in a particularly backwards department) years ago.
Look at this. And this. And this. And this. These are educators in the US, and this is the kind of stuff they talk about and get involved with, alongside their students, the global peers of our children. They are progressing beyond the actual technologies and moving into what is undoubtedly the most important arena of all: exploring and defining the less-tangible concept that is 21st century learning. Knowledge management. Participation. Collaboration. Creation. Innovation. Peer review. Sharing. Authenticity. Reputation. Entrepreneurship.
Sure, these people are leading the way. But they exist, they’re visible, they’re persuasive and they’re on the ground, making change happen. And what do we have? Jim Knight, trumpeting the heady heights of innovation in UK state education, trailing about twenty years behind. The technologies he mentions are already pretty dated, but that’s not really the problem. His speech makes it evident that he and his colleagues have yet to understand that young people do not need school teachers or schools in order to learn. Schools have to to figure out how to give power back to students, rather than continually taking it from them. That is the real key to understanding 21st century learning. All of the new technology in the world is pretty meaningless without it.
Consider this, taken from an article in MIT’s international learning and media journal [excerpts taken from Weblogg-ed, but with my emphases]:
"In this article we argue that, after millennia of considering education (learning and teaching) chiefly in one way, we may well have reached a set of tipping points: Going forward, learning may be far more individualized, far more in the hands (and the minds) of the learner, and far more interactive than ever before. This constitutes a paradox: As the digital era progresses, learning may be at once more individual (contoured to a person's own style, proclivities, and interests) yet more social (involving networking, group work, the wisdom of crowds, etc.). How these seemingly contradictory directions are addressed impacts the future complexion of learning....
"While the ubiquity of digital media resources allows for more customized learning within a formal learning context, its primary value lies in the acknowledgment of the legitimacy and value of learning that take place beyond formal schooling...
"In the last few decades, the phrases “learning communities,” “lifelong learning,” and “the learning society” have virtually become clichés. Yet like many clichés in education, and elsewhere, the terms themselves are more familiar than actual instances of the phenomena they describe. In our view, no society is likely to thrive in the future unless it actually is dedicated to lifelong learning; and this, in turn, will require both a society that values learning, and communities that continue to learn. As educators, we hope that this learning will continue to take place in educational institutions. But unless the schools are equal to the task of absorbing the new digital media, and making acute use of their potentials while guarding against their abuses, schools are likely to become as anachronistic as almshouses, teachers as anachronistic as barber-surgeons...
"Any culture that wishes to survive will ensure that learning takes place, but the forms and formats remain wide open."
My argument is absolutely not that all home educated children are more digitally literate than their school-educated peers, although I do believe they can be because of the circumstances precipitated by their educational status. A quick read of the many home education forums out there confirms that many families are pretty conversant with new technology and the easy learning opportunities it affords.
However, there are lots of home-educated children who do not have such access, and yet I believe that they are still more likely to find themselves at ease in the digital world (a world we are all heading towards) if - when - they make their way into it. Why? Because their daily circumstances mean that these children are more likely to feel empowered as individuals, and they are more likely to have experience of significant community interaction. Remember the common features of home education I listed yesterday?
In order to operate, most schools necessarily institutionalise most children to some degree, perpetuating memes about conformity, control and authority. If children take these memes with them, they will find it harder to integrate into active communities as adults, whether those communities are online or “in real life”. Such communities naturally place a premium on self-confidence, personal responsibility, contribution, problem solving and decision-making, which can be alien concepts for school leavers.
It’s certainly a concern of every state school teacher I currently have contact with. Those teachers either routinely subvert the system, or fall foul of debilitating stress. At home, some parents realise this and compensate accordingly; others believe what the government and league tables earnestly tell them about their child’s preparedness for adult life.
I wrote the other day about some of the qualities I (and many others) believe to be necessary for business survival and growth in the 21st century. Upon reflection, these qualities are equally as desirable for any individual who seeks a fulfilling existence, howsoever he or she chooses to define the notion of “fulfilling”. This is because these qualities are as pertinent to production of human value as they are to the generation of revenue. It’s pretty short-sighted, but unsurprising I suppose, that the government sees the value of education primarily in terms of economic outputs. It is certainly misguided for it to suggest that economic success is the best indicator of wellbeing - see Gill's blog for a good discussion on this.
However, it is also true that the potential synergy between individual wellbeing and economic development has never been stronger than it is today, in a post-industrial society. The government could easily leverage this at no human cost to students. I’ll repeat again: it’s not really about the technology as such; first and foremost it's about embracing a significant shift in attitude.
If the government stopped using (horribly outdated) buzzwords to demonstrate the relevance of its education system to the 21st century and actually implemented a 21st century strategy based on the primacy of the learner, facilitated in a non-institutionalised environment instead, the needs of individual students would be far better met. Development and growth of a strong, knowledge-based economy would follow on naturally from many of those individuals. Whatever our children choose to do with their lives, they deserve to know that they can be the authors of their own narratives.
Unfortunately, as long as schools continue to assume that children are naturally incapable, untrustworthy and immature, and as long as education is viewed as something that is done to ignorant children by expert adults, then state-school educated children will continue to receive an outdated 20th century education, regardless of laptops and online learning areas. Without a doubt, this will lead to a generation of miserable adults, none of whom will be adequately equipped to seek out a fulfilling existence - or contribute to a 21st century economy, either.
This should be an urgent priority for the government - so where's the consultation into state education? Why is home education such a concern?
