In his essay titled "Why School", Will Richardson takes aim at the outdated structure and purposes of school. Namely , that even the newest strategies and standards developed for today's students fail to take into account the changing dynamics of an technology-driven world where there is a growing abundance of information at people's fingertips every second of every minute of every day. In Richardson's view, the traditional school structure was not intended to produce learners for this kind of environment. In fact, not much has changed since education was aimed at preparing kids for an assembly-like type of work force. With recent decades of educational reform pushing for an emphasis in standardized testing and regurgitation-style assessments, schools today are only more entrenched in that mindset. What's difficult is that many of us, especially parents of children in modern society, have ourselves been through the same process and have ourselves been programmed to see this kind of learning as the universal standard. So how are we to change? What is the right way? What is the real purpose of school? Thankfully, as we begin to become accustomed to this evolving wealth of knowledge and technology, we are also beginning to take a step back to evaluate our education system. A main artifact of this is the Common Core standards which Richardson points out has been approved by 45 states, California included. However, according to him, this is merely a money driven movement that still doesn't foot the bill needed for students to become efficient learners and independent thinkers in this young 21st Century and ultimately remains attached to traditional school values. What he predicts is paths for which the future of American (and global) Education is to take. The first is to follow tilt towards Common Core and a revised version of traditional learning. The second is Richardson's vision of education in which student learning is increasingly autonomous and the emphasis is placed more on making students literate in communication and technology as well as masters of their own learning process.
Of course, this is the lite version of Richardson's argument, but nonetheless he makes a compelling case for a realignment of priorities in education. As a teacher candidate, I agree with his overall view that schools must prepare students to be literate in a vastly different world than what traditional institutions were and are intended for. Secondly, he reminds us of the undeniable and deplorable truth that business and politics are often what directs educational measures, not student learning itself. However, I disagree slightly with his tone towards common core and refined standards which seemingly carries the notion that it will lead to the depreciation and fall of learning as we know it. I believe that there are some beneficial aspects to the aim of common core in its attempt to make students more critical and collaborative thinkers. As with most things, there's no clear black and white in the direction of education as Richardson claims. There's always a more complex grey area where the solution means possibly borrowing from both views to reach a reasonable achievable solution. In fact, Richardson does allude to this idea a few times without really giving it its due. That is, that education practices don't change overnight. Standardized testing, common core values, and traditional content will still likely exist within this new concept and ultimately that may be what's ideal for students to gain tools needed for their future. The important thing is, as his essay states, for students to no longer be masters of content, but rather masters of learning.
In the end, Richardson states 6 necessary ideas that must be implemented in order for learning in this world of abundance to take place: 1) Share Everything 2) Discover, don't deliver, the curriculum 3) Talk to Strangers 4) Be a master learner 5) Do real work for real audiences 6) Transfer the Power. In my opinion, all of these are doable to some degree. Some are easier than others of course. Namely, in today's day and age, sharing everything and talking to strangers is fairly simple. Whether it be with social media, the web, or smart phones, communication of ideas is now easier than ever. As said in the essay, it's no longer what I know, it's what we know. Secondly transferring the power and discovering the curriculum is a challenge but more and more we're seeing it the classroom with innovative teachers doing their best to differentiate content and change up activities to meet student interests. In doing so, teachers themselves are learning alongside their students. Lastly, and perhaps most difficult is to find a way to make content and learning meaningful. In many ways, being a master learner and doing real work go hand in hand for both students and teachers alike and it's very relative to what Richardson is trying to say: Information and learning is available to all of us, it's up to us to figure out how to obtain it and use it for the benefit of something that transcends the classroom grade book.
Of course, this is the lite version of Richardson's argument, but nonetheless he makes a compelling case for a realignment of priorities in education. As a teacher candidate, I agree with his overall view that schools must prepare students to be literate in a vastly different world than what traditional institutions were and are intended for. Secondly, he reminds us of the undeniable and deplorable truth that business and politics are often what directs educational measures, not student learning itself. However, I disagree slightly with his tone towards common core and refined standards which seemingly carries the notion that it will lead to the depreciation and fall of learning as we know it. I believe that there are some beneficial aspects to the aim of common core in its attempt to make students more critical and collaborative thinkers. As with most things, there's no clear black and white in the direction of education as Richardson claims. There's always a more complex grey area where the solution means possibly borrowing from both views to reach a reasonable achievable solution. In fact, Richardson does allude to this idea a few times without really giving it its due. That is, that education practices don't change overnight. Standardized testing, common core values, and traditional content will still likely exist within this new concept and ultimately that may be what's ideal for students to gain tools needed for their future. The important thing is, as his essay states, for students to no longer be masters of content, but rather masters of learning.
In the end, Richardson states 6 necessary ideas that must be implemented in order for learning in this world of abundance to take place: 1) Share Everything 2) Discover, don't deliver, the curriculum 3) Talk to Strangers 4) Be a master learner 5) Do real work for real audiences 6) Transfer the Power. In my opinion, all of these are doable to some degree. Some are easier than others of course. Namely, in today's day and age, sharing everything and talking to strangers is fairly simple. Whether it be with social media, the web, or smart phones, communication of ideas is now easier than ever. As said in the essay, it's no longer what I know, it's what we know. Secondly transferring the power and discovering the curriculum is a challenge but more and more we're seeing it the classroom with innovative teachers doing their best to differentiate content and change up activities to meet student interests. In doing so, teachers themselves are learning alongside their students. Lastly, and perhaps most difficult is to find a way to make content and learning meaningful. In many ways, being a master learner and doing real work go hand in hand for both students and teachers alike and it's very relative to what Richardson is trying to say: Information and learning is available to all of us, it's up to us to figure out how to obtain it and use it for the benefit of something that transcends the classroom grade book.