In the midst of a mind-blowing sprawling online discussion
group on the topic of Education, which I have the pleasure of moderating.
Here was the first post:
"I
have come gradually to understand that the liberal arts cliché about teaching
you how to think is actually shorthand for a much deeper, more serious idea:
learning how to think really means learning how to exercise some control over
how and what you think. It means being conscious and aware enough to choose
what you pay attention to and to choose how you construct meaning from
experience. Because if you cannot
exercise this kind of choice in adult life, you will be totally hosed."
-- David
Foster Wallace, This is Water
Hello All-
There are so many possible places to start, but let's start
here.
To set up the first question, a quick introduction. Earlier this week, I went to lunch with some
potential clients and the conversation turned to education. One of our party, who had been raised in
Singapore and England, was asking about how charter schools worked (and whether
they did). From there, we got into
topics such as teaching to the test, incentives set up for public schools based
on legislation like No Child Left Behind, and so forth and so on. Towards the end, another of them, an older
gentleman, and quite a sharp guy said something to the effect of this:
The problem with
education in this country is that its politically wrong/incorrect to say what
needs to be said (which he then went on to say, and he said this:) There are
some small percentage of students (say less than 10%) that are
extraordinary/curious/motivated/supported and will truly excel. There is another relatively small percentage
(say 15%) that are in the middle that, if given the right support, can also
excel. But there is a large percentage
that are, he said, hopeless. And in our system, in our public schools, instead
of dedicating resources to the first two groups, we are dedicating 90% of the
money/time and resources to those for which it probably won't matter, while at
the same time short-changing the first two groups.
His statement rankled me.
Putting aside with whether it was true, it seemed to take such a . .
. utilitarian and striated view of
education. On the other hand, I suppose
though, if it is systematically true, isn't it problematic if there are
classrooms in schools where the brighter kids are not challenged adequately or
given enough attention, or where the lowest common denominator sets the
bar. (Oooh - starting off somewhat
controversially..!!).
This leads me to discussion Question Number 1:
What is your reaction to his statement and what do you make of it?
Second piece of background is this: Last night, at my
parent's house, my dad gave me a copy of Richard Feynman's Lectures on
Physics. Feynman was a brilliant
physicist and teacher, who taught at CalTech in the 1960's. He is also a very thoughtful person on the
nature of education and learning. These
lectures are serious stuff. In his
preface, Feynman states: "The lectures here are not in any way meant to be
a survey course, but are very serious. I
thought to address them to the most intelligent in the class and to make sure,
if possible, that even the most intelligent student was unable to completely
encompass everything that was in the lectures - by putting in suggestions of
applications of ideas and concept in various directions outside the main line
of attack."
Towards the end of his preface, Feynman ruminates on whether
his course was a success: "My own point of view - which, however, does not
seem to be shared by most of the people who worked with the students - is
pessimistic. I don't think I did very
well by the students. When I looked at
the way the majority of the students handled the problems on the examinations,
I think that the system is a failure."
Which led to this thought:
"I think, however, that there isn't any solution to
this problem of education other than to realize that the best teaching can be
done only when there is direct individual relationship between a student and a
good teacher - a situation in which the student discusses the ideas, thinks
about the things, and talks about the things . . . . But in our modern times we
have so many students to teach that we have to try to find some substitute for
the ideal. . . . "
I found this to be an interesting statement about
education. Also interesting that it was
made 50 years ago!
So, Question
Number 2: How do we most effectively build (or make sure that we have)
a gigantic scalable system that effectively teaches, motivates, inspires
curiosity and thirst for learning, and prepares our children with necessary
skills for not only a good career but a good life? (Yup - that one is open-ended as hell. Go for it!)
P.S. - For more Feynman - sorry that he kind of took over
the first post here....see this very interesting transcript of him explaining
the complexity and multiple layers to any question. Feynaman on Why Questions: http://lesswrong.com/lw/99c/transcript_richard_feynman_on_why_questions/. Which my Dad remarked reminded him of the
probing dynamic mind of a child asking why.
But why? But why?
Even more on Feynman here: http://www.feynman.com. Good good stuff.
