Jonesieblog

This post is going to read like I’ve had a complaint!  I haven’t had any negative comments in fact, but on reflection I’ve decided that my last post could be construed as an attack on the motives of educational gurus, and I didn’t mean it to be one. So…

As I said, I believe that enduring inequalities in the education system present a more pressing case for change than the fact that society needs different things from young people than it did 60 years ago.

In my presentation of this position, I may have seemed to suggest that educational gurus are not concerned about redressing social inequalities.  This is certainly not the case.  Stephen Heppell, for example, chairs The Inclusion Trust, which is making a real difference to the lives of disadvantaged youngsters.

With that caveat added, I’m happy to stand by my words!

Stumble it!

I guess that most teachers would agree, deep down, that schools represent a far from ideal solution to the education of young people. They are institutions – institutions which struggle to cater for the individual needs of young people and in which it is all too easy for the suffering of individuals to be overlooked. These are systemic problems, which persist despite the hard work and dedication of those employed in schools at all levels.

Ever was it thus.

If you listened to a certain brand of education gurus, you might imagine that there was once a time when schools represented a perfect solution, and that it is only now, as the digital generation passes through school into a digital society, that schools and the “factory education” that they offer are failing to provide young people with what they need.

Rubbish! The profound failings of schools have nothing to do with the nature of the current generation of students, and nothing to do with the kinds of careers that young people will be pursuing once they leave school. The inadequacies of school education are broadly the same today as they were in 1950. In 1950, schools were institutions in which the socially advantaged did better than the socially disadvantaged, and in which those with additional support needs often gained very little indeed.

Are we not still wrestling with these same problems? And are these problems not more deserving of our attention than the fact that wee Kevin may find school somewhat less of a rush than playing Call of Duty? Didn’t wee Kevin in 1950 similarly find school less of a rush than playing football and fighting in the playground?

I do value the opinions of those who choose to observe, analyse and imagine rather than to work in classrooms day-to-day. Education needs these people. But many of them are picking entirely the wrong issue as their rallying call for change in education.

Stumble it!

I don’t read very many books about education, and when I do I am often disappointed.  There are too many snake-oil salesmen offering simplistic solutions.

“Disrupting Class” by Clayton M. Christensen is different.  It provides the perfect balance between moments of “yes – that’s what I think”, “oh wow, I hadn’t thought of that, but it makes sense” and “hmm, not sure about that at all.”

The central tenet of the book is that the success of schools has been measured in many different ways, and that the transformations required to succeed in terms of these successive measures require disruptions the magnitude of which would kill any business – to be replaced by new businesses that introduce disruptive innovations.

Christensen argues that every disruptive innovation in business begins by selling to non-consumers of the current product.  Apple began by selling their personal computers to children, whereas DEC were selliing mainframes to huge corporate clients.  Disruptive innovation has to start in this way, because in the early days the disruptive product is not as good as the established one!

The parallels with innovation in education are obvious.  We are able to be innovative much more easily in settings where our customers are currently not consuming.  This has definitely been the case for me, where I have felt much more free to try innovative approaches with classes that have histories of low achievement and low motivation – classes in which many pupils are simply not consuming the education on offer.

I haven’t finished the book, but am having trouble putting it down!

As usual, I came across this book via my personal learning network – @alexragone on twitter to be precise.  Thanks Alex

Stumble it!