As our nature so surely rests in the animal, so then is education the root of humanity. This is where it all truly begins and whatever it ought to be it
most definitely shouldn't be a ritual of rote learning, though poor choices seem to have left it so. The very notion that building successive generations on a foundation skewed upon the
premise of passing exams is clear enough evidence of a system which spits in the face of overwhelmed teachers, and is broken or corrupt on an
epic scale. It could be either, likely both given that this betrays the roots of
education which rest in a plan conceived over a hundred years ago at the birth of the Industrial era, to make society useful to those self-apppointed leaders. There is a notable comparison between this concept and that of American gun ownership rules - both are built on principles from another era, seriously outdated and in need of revision to meet the problems of the present, in spite of the stubbornness which rises to meet such suggestions. Matters of real life which we have every opportunity to improve upon have been virtually side
lined by the harder topical matters deemed necessary for our
fabricated industries. That's not to say that this cherished knowledge isn't necessary or valuable, and a broad curriculum is needed and welcome, but there is much angst and hysteria surrounding but a mere part of the spectrum of education. Worse still, with the exception of specific events such as TED
which do some good in bringing these matters up, barely any light seems to be cast by the mainstream towards that which deviates from the normal patterns pointed at in statistical analysis, reports
and performance-related tweaks (it has to be said this is ironically
exacerbated by technologies which have enabled the harnessing of such vast
quantities of data which would otherwise be unmanageable). That's not to
say such data isn't of value either, but it should not be
centric at the expense of the individuality and development of the child, as both a
student and human being.
Rituals based upon artificial models of behaviour, the inflexible routine exemplified in a typical school day - a fixed a time of day to start and finish, a set pattern of hours for lessons and lunch, likely does no less harm to the individual psyche from nursery to college than any ten to fifteen year stretch in prison, and all this from within halls which are supposed to promote betterment. Pavlov would be proud of the demonstration but probably less so of the result. Funnier still is the recent trend in the west looking to the east for inspiration since those students in Asia seem to do so much better on paper than our students. Setting aside the fact that eastern cultures have a different approach to work, education and family (largely as a result of an economic work/life balance demonstrably poorer than ours in the west, and most of ours aren't great), as well as the notable suicide rates amongst Asian teenagers, one has to question why their model should be seen as better when its value is being measured by industrial parameters. If they were to be strictly adhered to they would see virtue in all people being pushed to breaking point to balance the numbers in the bank. It's an inevitable Capitalist wet dream from the point of view of raw data, whether compiled by a 19th century ink-doodled log book or a 21st century digital spreadsheet - bigger numbers often equal greater results, and whilst I don't wish to paint any boss as overly ogre-ish I'm sure raw business would have it exactly that way if it could. This resistance to change and compromise is why it took a long while to begrudgingly get some workers rights into place. Were it not for the past efforts of unions we'd still be locked into more of a Victorian workhouse model than the refined version we're still lumbered with.
We should be taking a long hard look at what we really want and what we need to live with. We ought to be helping kids to be the best they can be by working with their inherent qualities and motivations instead of adopting patterns of conformity within a conveyor belt model of false reliability, however such reasons might be justified. Even if such practices were optimal for an entire generation in a given school, it would be no guarantee that the next would be as well suited, and this isn't even the case - no one child is the same. They should be treated as such, not pushed through a factory system. Reserve that habit for when you're in need of a million M32 thread screws, reliably pushed out to established spec tolerances, not for when you're trying to nurture creative talent. It's not right to merely accept the existence of individuality as some form of irritating anomaly to be tolerated and accounted for. If someone truly learns nothing else other than that which they are best naturally suited, at least they will have that to help keep them psychologically and creatively focused in a healthy way. I'm afraid to say that if the job is to be done well, the actual ethical basis of being a teacher cannot be encapsulated and compacted into a factory solution, fit only for churning information out. This is one of the main justifications I can fathom for keeping class sizes to a low maximum limit, since a teacher cannot possibly handle too many diverse personalities with any real effectiveness. Any efforts to establish a good working practice for schooling environments would do well to heed this when they decide how best to craft the environment. That suggests that the system within a school itself demands flexibility, in presentation, function, resource allotment, class times, lunch times, start and finish times. Of course there is still only a certain amount of time in the day, but slicing all that up into set routines where every individuality is expected to work and learn the same way will produce mediocre results irrespective of such force and control (which if you read the last blog gives some insight into why letting go of some forms of control in exchange for flexibility is a benefit and not a hinderance). Sometimes you just have to let go of the demands, with change required in unexpected places. I want to give a shout out to a few people who have done well to illuminate worthy avenues, and which have in turn helped me to explore ideas. There are doubtless others and I would encourage you to continue any exploration as I have, but to start you off here are a handful. Sir Ken Robinson gave not one or two, but three fabulous TED talks, and it's worth throwing Shawn Achor's similarly entertaining TED talk which looks at his research into the cult of the average. Little help seems to be gained from current governments in spite of their lip service to the people who promote these matters. Academies have sprung up in the UK promising revolution, but despite the official promotional line they're little more than rebranded grammar schools, funded by central government rather than local, and with a "convenient option" for private sponsorship. That such backing potentially arises from the same source as the problem leaves me with little hope that matters will be made right under such a model.
Much like the paperless office, so many opportunities for simplification seem to have been inexplicably bypassed altogether. The best developments are not only about taking the next step but drilling down into the matter to explore where it's possible to improve the quality, completely rewriting if necessary. To that end I would see changes made on multiple fronts to evolve a better way of living. The rule of law for example could be approached with a far less autonomous mindset, and be far more prosaic than it is. I think it's completely reasonable to pursue such a concept if we really want to resolve all the loopholes and caveats which litter our processes. Fairness and equity (that being "appropriate" and not necessarily "literal" equality) seem to sit at the heart of a better legal system. I'll drop a link to the piece I published elsewhere about the Code of Human Principles, a playful little diversion I set for myself which came into sharper focus as I considered how one might adopt a more simplistic model. It's imperative that we continue to impress the notion of a legal system which remains stoic and factual in itself, and yet we would also be remiss if we didn't try to handle the emotive matters. Society could be better served if we look to prevention rather than reactionary improvement alone. I don't claim for this to be perfection incarnate, although I've yet to break it. It's a test work in progress, and like any good model I made it with the intention of having any and all hypothetical cases thrown at it to test it's integrity, with the one caveat that it remains prosaic. The intent in its heart is two fold;
Rituals based upon artificial models of behaviour, the inflexible routine exemplified in a typical school day - a fixed a time of day to start and finish, a set pattern of hours for lessons and lunch, likely does no less harm to the individual psyche from nursery to college than any ten to fifteen year stretch in prison, and all this from within halls which are supposed to promote betterment. Pavlov would be proud of the demonstration but probably less so of the result. Funnier still is the recent trend in the west looking to the east for inspiration since those students in Asia seem to do so much better on paper than our students. Setting aside the fact that eastern cultures have a different approach to work, education and family (largely as a result of an economic work/life balance demonstrably poorer than ours in the west, and most of ours aren't great), as well as the notable suicide rates amongst Asian teenagers, one has to question why their model should be seen as better when its value is being measured by industrial parameters. If they were to be strictly adhered to they would see virtue in all people being pushed to breaking point to balance the numbers in the bank. It's an inevitable Capitalist wet dream from the point of view of raw data, whether compiled by a 19th century ink-doodled log book or a 21st century digital spreadsheet - bigger numbers often equal greater results, and whilst I don't wish to paint any boss as overly ogre-ish I'm sure raw business would have it exactly that way if it could. This resistance to change and compromise is why it took a long while to begrudgingly get some workers rights into place. Were it not for the past efforts of unions we'd still be locked into more of a Victorian workhouse model than the refined version we're still lumbered with.
We should be taking a long hard look at what we really want and what we need to live with. We ought to be helping kids to be the best they can be by working with their inherent qualities and motivations instead of adopting patterns of conformity within a conveyor belt model of false reliability, however such reasons might be justified. Even if such practices were optimal for an entire generation in a given school, it would be no guarantee that the next would be as well suited, and this isn't even the case - no one child is the same. They should be treated as such, not pushed through a factory system. Reserve that habit for when you're in need of a million M32 thread screws, reliably pushed out to established spec tolerances, not for when you're trying to nurture creative talent. It's not right to merely accept the existence of individuality as some form of irritating anomaly to be tolerated and accounted for. If someone truly learns nothing else other than that which they are best naturally suited, at least they will have that to help keep them psychologically and creatively focused in a healthy way. I'm afraid to say that if the job is to be done well, the actual ethical basis of being a teacher cannot be encapsulated and compacted into a factory solution, fit only for churning information out. This is one of the main justifications I can fathom for keeping class sizes to a low maximum limit, since a teacher cannot possibly handle too many diverse personalities with any real effectiveness. Any efforts to establish a good working practice for schooling environments would do well to heed this when they decide how best to craft the environment. That suggests that the system within a school itself demands flexibility, in presentation, function, resource allotment, class times, lunch times, start and finish times. Of course there is still only a certain amount of time in the day, but slicing all that up into set routines where every individuality is expected to work and learn the same way will produce mediocre results irrespective of such force and control (which if you read the last blog gives some insight into why letting go of some forms of control in exchange for flexibility is a benefit and not a hinderance). Sometimes you just have to let go of the demands, with change required in unexpected places. I want to give a shout out to a few people who have done well to illuminate worthy avenues, and which have in turn helped me to explore ideas. There are doubtless others and I would encourage you to continue any exploration as I have, but to start you off here are a handful. Sir Ken Robinson gave not one or two, but three fabulous TED talks, and it's worth throwing Shawn Achor's similarly entertaining TED talk which looks at his research into the cult of the average. Little help seems to be gained from current governments in spite of their lip service to the people who promote these matters. Academies have sprung up in the UK promising revolution, but despite the official promotional line they're little more than rebranded grammar schools, funded by central government rather than local, and with a "convenient option" for private sponsorship. That such backing potentially arises from the same source as the problem leaves me with little hope that matters will be made right under such a model.
Much like the paperless office, so many opportunities for simplification seem to have been inexplicably bypassed altogether. The best developments are not only about taking the next step but drilling down into the matter to explore where it's possible to improve the quality, completely rewriting if necessary. To that end I would see changes made on multiple fronts to evolve a better way of living. The rule of law for example could be approached with a far less autonomous mindset, and be far more prosaic than it is. I think it's completely reasonable to pursue such a concept if we really want to resolve all the loopholes and caveats which litter our processes. Fairness and equity (that being "appropriate" and not necessarily "literal" equality) seem to sit at the heart of a better legal system. I'll drop a link to the piece I published elsewhere about the Code of Human Principles, a playful little diversion I set for myself which came into sharper focus as I considered how one might adopt a more simplistic model. It's imperative that we continue to impress the notion of a legal system which remains stoic and factual in itself, and yet we would also be remiss if we didn't try to handle the emotive matters. Society could be better served if we look to prevention rather than reactionary improvement alone. I don't claim for this to be perfection incarnate, although I've yet to break it. It's a test work in progress, and like any good model I made it with the intention of having any and all hypothetical cases thrown at it to test it's integrity, with the one caveat that it remains prosaic. The intent in its heart is two fold;
- As a set of rules designed to act as a conscience filter, to provide a guide to living a good life and help prevent transgressions.
- As a foundation for philosophical debate and consideration for people charged with the dispensation of law when trying individual transgressions.
Life is complicated when you seek true justice. Rather than trusting upon an ideal of guidance and keeping intellect to the fore, it seems that the legal system has steadily built itself upon a pyramid of exemplification and test case. Doubtless followers of such history might look at the Code of Human Principles with either a sense of painful naivety, abject horror or both at its nakedness. Yet if you stop to think about it all I'm presenting here is the case for the dispensation of an intelligent justice. I tend to believe that cases should be treated as unique, even when there are similarities to be had at some level. That uniqueness in a given case can make true justice difficult enough to achieve, without the guidance and principles being similarly convoluted. I'm sure I don't need to cite examples - most of you reading this will at some time or other have encountered cases of injustice, either in the news or first hand. Granted a fair few of them will have seemed outrageous in the absence of any knowledge of the evidence, which is why I often think that some deeper thought ought to be applied to current reporting restrictions. Such matters are perhaps not always so worthy of being withheld, should that result in the report becoming a plaything for ratings, glamour and drama. Still it's a fact that people have been the victims of miscarriages of justice and this has to be accounted for if improvement is to be sought. To that end rules which inform and guide a resolution under circumstance have to be so much better ethically and morally than the listless sterility of compendious tomes, which by their very complexity become less of a guide and more of a blender into which a given case may simply end up being justified into fitting. I would invite you to consider the code as it's laid out. I'm not setting out on a crusade as such, but as with anything so designed it cannot be improved upon if it rests unchallenged.
No comments:
Post a Comment