Seriously though, any method that causes more creative expression in any media is a good deal for any culture and revenue building.

As a film composer the Internet has opened more digital venues for my art. Almost everybody wins.

Dammit, you’re right again. The more I think about it the more I realize I shouldn’t comment before lunchtime (east coast time).

But I still say that School 2.0 as immediate punching bag is kind of transparent. And I still can’t believe I’m doing something as lame as defending a movement that’s still being defined.

I don’t know if I’m a School 2.0 guy. I do know that from where I am, a lot of the ideas that are contained in the School 2.0 bag seem right-on. And I also realize that even though you’re the pro-lecture, teach-basic-skills-first-so-help-me-Athena guy on my blogroll, you’re doing something valuable for all of us–showing up how old-school pedagogy can be remixed into something relevant to now.

It’s just the tone, sometimes. Seriously.

I’m all about t.v. for education’s sake but, for the record, I’ve got nothing again t.v. for entertainment’s sake. Being told a story ain’t exactly a new pastime no matter the medium.

Dean, yeah it’s a blanket, which is annoying, but understandable. He’s being really literal – arithmetic, actually – tallying up the hours in a kid’s day and finding it slanted heavily in favor of t.v. and school. So those have to be the problems. Duh, right?

Problem, from my perspective, is that it neglects a lot of intangibles, mainly how a student is watching t.v. (Though, acknowledged, fifty-five hours is fifty-five hours is way too much of anything.)

Eric, I appreciated your expansion and agree with most of it, particularly the bummer arrangement between schools and parents right now.

It’s gotta be said that there are elements of mathematics which don’t pay off for years. There exists no project-based assignment (that I know of) for factoring equations, for example.

I’m sure the same could be said of other disciplines. So unless we’re going to call off our national conviction that our students need to possess a (relatively) common body of knowledge upon graduation, compulsory those sections of the canon must remain.

(For the record, I’m not entirely convinced they need to possess that common body of knowledge.)

Jeff,

You’re mistaken. This isn’t the thing you think it is. Wasn’t in the last post and it wasn’t in the post before that either.

School 2.0 (rather, the long-ass description of School 2.0 you cite) feels like a good-faith effort to cure the principle ills that Gatto describes.

I’m kinda finding my place in all this, casting a cynical eye when one’s required, finding lots to learn in other instances. [viz: the update to Whatever I’m Getting Wrong]

You said: “Rarely do those disciplines (reading, writing, ‘rithmetic) carry obvious value to the student in the present, only in hindsight to the future practitioner. I’ve always wondered what would compel those students to study fractions absent any compulsory institution like a school saying so.”

I think part of the problem is that the current educational system doesn’t know how to show students the relevance and usefulness of those skills because the skills tend to be taught in isolation of any practical application. (I think that’s one of the best features of your lessons, Dan … you connect them to the lives of your students.)

This doesn’t apply to all skills at all levels, of course, but it seems that the disconnect between “school world” and “post-school world” is getting larger, and that’s a major source of the “why do I have to learn this” protest. Some of that is the school’s fault. Some of that is the way students view society. (When media, advertising, and adults’ wallets spend the majority of their time and resources on actors, athletes, and musicians, it’s understandable that kids don’t immediately see the value of deconstructionist criticsm or geometrical proofs. That doesn’t mean that some pretty-smart folks aren’t behind the scenes using the hell out of those skills … we need to help students see that.)

I’ve wrestled a bit with this here, and with the problem of a completely student-driven curriculum here.

Other thoughts, anyone?

(Again … thanks and sorry.)

This has kinda been the School 2.0 vector all along, right?

Straw.
Man.

Check out the actual explanation of what School 2.0 is from its very own website, school2-0.org:

We believe that schools must transform in order to meet the multiple challenges of the 21st century: accountability, student engagement and achievement, and economic competitiveness. By encouraging a discussion of community-based ‘next generation’ schools, we hope communities will be inspired to think creatively about teaching, learning and management and then explore ways that technology can help meet those goals.

Enough with the School 2.0 taunting. “School 2.0” itself is kind of a dumb term. Unfortunately, “An attempt to increase student engagement in both academics and the community, made easier/more convenient through the wonders of modern technology” just doesn’t roll off the tongue so easily.

On the other hand, even a brief step outside the mainstream culture of this country will wake most people up to the constant barrage of consumerism pumped at us from every angle. It’s really hard to escape and can be literally “mind numbing” if we’re not careful.

And though he may be speaking in ideal terms, that doesn’t discount everything. How can we argue with the claim that we must “force the idea of ‘school’ open – to include family as the main engine of education”? Do we give up in the meantime? No … but let’s not pretend that the role of family (and community) isn’t a huge factor, or that schools, on their own, can remedy this (which too much popular discourse on the issue certainly does).

I do believe children need guidance (obviously), and that some things they need they won’t want and won’t see the benefits of for some time. However, the way we control their time, limit them to what is almost always unhealthy and uninspiring environments, and allow little room for personal interest is inexcusable. And those are systemic conditions that teachers can’t overcome themselves in their classroom, no matter how hard they work to offer relief to their students. (I mean, from what I can tell, Dan’s class is likely a mathematics oasis in comparison to some other math classes, but he only controls his class and his room …)

It’s a tough issue, I think, and I’m not arguing for one side over the other because I think balance is what we have to find, not binaries. Discussion, of the type I often see on this blog, is a move in the right direction.

I do argue, though, with great angry yells, with anyone who says there is no problem.

Thanks for your thoughts, Dan.

…don’t you just love blanket statements? They’re so helpful. sheesh.