Disrupting School: Promoting the Values of Personalization
We need to do education more ethically, for the purpose of good. Education in America has existed to benefit the most students at any given time, the bell curve model and scale. Education has done well to meet the needs of a lot of students, but with the rise of technology, we have the opportunity to reach and help all students succeed, not just most. It is unethical to continually focus on reaching just a scaled number of students.
Technology has removed a lot of barriers for students, the principle of them being seat time. Students do not need to be at a desk to be learning. They could be doing thousands of other tasks that influence them far more proportionally, like apprenticing or problem solving. Technology can then tether students to a centralized locale, offering a space for reflection or furthering understanding, but they are not required to hear about things that they can otherwise experience. The Aurora Institute already notes that numerous states have taken steps to outmoding the construct of seat time in favor of competency based mindset.
Technology and spaces like augmented reality also provide opportunities for students to actively engage rather than passively experience material. This article from Digital Promise explains how schools utilized “powerful use of technology” to enhance student learning. The article highlights how technology can help create experiences for students, as opposed to being a repository of information.
Technology cannot be the driving force behind change, though. Its existence is not enough to alter how we think about education. That understanding must be enforced through its purpose, to create new thinkers and learners. The first concept to impart is that of executive function, a term couched in cognitive science and co-opted in terms of personalized learning. We must shift from learning the ABCs to helping students master their own impulses, flexible thinking, and memory.
In a world where students are primarily taught how to look for answers and solve problems, teachers are left to be architects of education, working with their students to build content paths, rubrics, and projects that more accurately reflect what our learners understand. Teachers would then be free to utilize all of the theoretical jargon we read about in graduate school and practice those collaborative classes about which many educators (myself included) dream.
This reformed way of considering education puts onus on the learners to think about their worldview, and how their experiences shape the manner in which they can explain more abstract theories. Imagine students explaining the American Revolution in terms of uneven expectations from an authority figure instead of “taxation without representation.” I don’t know too many fourth graders who really grasp what it means to pay taxes.
Classrooms can be rid of the rule of the bell curve by promoting the values of personalization that so many other parts of our society have embraced and utilizing the tools that it provides. Disrupting and changing is not easy, but it’s already begun in a weird and opportunistic way with remote learning. We should make this year count towards mastery, competence, and a triumph of ethics.
We can free ourselves from the frank monotony of showing up and doing lesson plans if we allow our students that freedom to create their paths. Giving up that power is a difficult step to take, but one that will save a new generation from burnout before it’s too late.
