[Disclosure: My family and I are part of the homeschooling community.]
A combination of a fairly feisty state of mind and George Siemen’s latest post on his Connectivism blog titled “Technologically Externalized Knowledge and Learning” has got me seriously riled up tonight – not at George mind you, but at the state of education as we know it.
In setting the scene for a discussion on “finding a cure for stale ideologies,” George discusses some of the issues with traditional views on learning, as well as some of the shortcomings of those who seek to affect systemic change in formal education.
Of more traditional ideologies on learning, he writes:
“…these views reflect an ideology that is growing in obsolescence in relation to the world outside of classrooms and training labs. When does a student know the structure of a problem in advance of solving it when she’s trying to create a YouTube video? When do a group of children know their learning outcomes when they choose to create and play a game? When does a salesperson know in advance that their is a correct way to engage a foreign client and thereby when the business of their organization? Learning, occurring under contrived conditions in classrooms, bears only a faint resemblance to real world problems and challenges.”
He points out, rightfully so, that we’ve been aware of these shortcomings for decades, and yet despite this we, as educators, have still failed to overcome the “stale” ideologies.
The reason for this, he argues, can be attributed to an inability to “rethink the learning model.” He continues:
“Reformers have largely worked within, rather than on, the system of education. Working within the system has resulted in status-quo preservation, even when reformists felt they were being radical.”
Certainly there is a great deal of truth to this criticism, however I’d like to add to the discussion by pointing throwing some additional ideas into the mix.
Systemic Integrity and Resilience
There can be little doubt that there is a strong and growing tide of discontent amongst some educators in formal education who believe the system needs to change. One need only glance quickly across the myriad of educational blogs, discussion forums, and Twitter for examples of this. And yet despite what are at times extremely vocal expressions of disapproval and calls for change, formal education has remaining largely unchanged in the wake of recent innovations. Why?
To borrow two terms from the life sciences:
Integrity refers to “The ability of an ecosystem to maintain its organization (i.e.,structures, processes, diversity) when confronted with environmental disturbance and change. ”
Resilience refers to “the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance without shifting to another regime.”
In my view both of these terms would accurately describe characteristics of formal education. Contemporary educational institutions are in very real terms self-preserving systems.
While progressive mavericks may gain prominence, notoriety and indeed infamy within educational spheres, the reality of their influence at a systemic level is not necessarily as profoundly felt. Extraordinary webs of bureaucracy and a tendency for increasingly conservative philosophies in the upper echelons of institutional hierarchies combine to stifle many of the radical propositions of reformers.
It is little wonder why the disconnect between senior managers and front line instructors is so pronounced and so profound. The two realms are worlds apart.
So really, attempts to change the culture and underlying ideology, despite their sincerity, are largely absorbed by a system in which there not a direct and singular route to the top, but rather an endless interconnected web of catacombs and obscured pathways.
In such an environment it is very understandable how youthful fiery visions of making a difference begin to fade with professional maturity and eventually expire, leaving only jaded cynicism or a Borgian acceptance that “Resistance is futile.”
Some reformers vote with their feet
Continuing his commentary on the relatively minimal impact reformers have had, George argues: “Illich failed to account for how educational institutions are integrated into society.”
There is little doubt in my mind that George knows more about Illich and his work than I do, but just for a moment consider the following: Just because something is integrated into society doesn’t make it right. Perhaps Illich knew full well the extent to which educational systems, and their embedded ideologies, were deeply rooted in society. That doesn’t necessarily lead to the conclusion that these structures should remain, or that he failed to account for them.
Thoreau once wrote, “He who shall be a man, must be a nonconformist.” He also spoke of Civil Disobedience, and the idea that, should we be ethically (or indeed philosophically) opposed to a standing policy or even law, we are morally obligated to defy it.
These individuals didn’t necessarily argue for remaining in a system they felt was inherently defective, they – in one way or another – decided to break from the system completely.
In the case of John Holt, for example, he went on to become one of the most famous and influential advocates of homeschooling.
“Holt’s philosophy was simple: “… the human animal is a learning animal; we like to learn; we are good at it; we don’t need to be shown how or made to do it. What kills the processes are the people interfering with it or trying to regulate it or control it.”
To me, Holt’s views bears close resemblance to George’s critique of traditional views on learning, and the idea that “Learning, occurring under contrived conditions in classrooms, bears only a faint resemblance to real world problems and challenges.”
What I’m really suggesting here, I guess, is that reformers come in many forms. Some choose to remain within the system and fight the good fight, some fall prey to disillusionment and cynicism, and others chose to leave the system entirely.
Educational Sacrilege or a Symbol of Change?
Here’s where things get interesting. Some would consider educators like Holt – who is perhaps the homeschooling movements most well known advocate – as though they are betrayers of learning, hardly reformers of education, and indeed not worthy at all of the title “educator.” Yet if what George is saying is true, and the failure of educational reformers lay with the fact they “have largely worked within, rather than on, the system of education,” then a complete split with the formal educational system is perhaps the ultimate symbol of a desire for change and reform.
Going further, if all this is true, and advocates of alternative methods of learning are indeed worthy of the titles Reformer and Educator, then no survey of the impact of educational reform or pedagogical innovation is truly complete without considering all forms of learning – not just traditional schools and institutions.
Indeed, if I may be so bold as to say, when considering the notions of Networked Learning and Connectivism in their uninhibited practice, homeschooling is perhaps one of the better places to witness it.
That’s a post for another day though…
