A critic of the school of the future

[Mario F.]

The so-called digital revolution is no different than any other technological revolution. It is permeable to excesses until the revolution is no longer a revolution and becomes better understood in the context of its correct placement and impact on human societies. Like children, humanity is driven by a great deal of excitement over the new and unexplored. The trouble is when things that aren't yet well understood are nonetheless thoughtlessly introduced on the school; that institution that shapes the men and women of the future.

Why your 8-year-old should be coding | VentureBeat | Dev | by J. O'Dell

This article from 2013 reflects a trend of a group of modern thinkers that pretend to have all the answers to what is the best teaching pedagogy. And it includes the introduction of digital technology at the driving seat of teaching and learning. The benign and luminary nature of the article, filled with good intentions and mounted on the always appealing idea that technology solves all human problems and none better than education, is bound to gather adepts. The idea of schools with computer devices and software serving the purpose of teaching-by-fun as a means to better-learn and better-adapt in modern times, is bound for quick consensus. But most easy and simple ideas, are bad ideas.

One of the chief arguments of those wishing to have schools with robots, tablets, software and modern teaching methods based on the digital revolution, is that technology is changing at a rapid pace, constantly innovating, while schools are stuck on the old methods, austere and away from technology. But, ignoring for a moment that this is a non sequitor, a glaring contradiction becomes evident in this argument as soon as we give it some thought: If that is true, if schools are that bad, where is the quick advancement of technology coming from? Is it aliens that are inventing the digital revolution? Isn't it true that the impressive rise in the number of human innovators and technologists that are leading this digital revolution are themselves the product of those supposedly boring austere schools and old teaching methods? We should expect and desire the digital world to enter our schools. No doubt. But to deny the value of the formal teaching methods is to deny the very genesis of the digital revolution. For this reason alone, we should be more careful about exactly how we wish to disturb our teaching methods. But there's more.

Experiments like on the article above are happening a little around the globe. Advocates of the digital revolution as the revolution of all things, create, adapt or adopt all sorts of educational tools, frameworks, devices and businesses, all following the central pedagogical idea that technology should be the engine of teaching and children are better served by using it as a learning tool. But how much thought has been really given to this idea? One of the first things that comes to my mind is how much this will affect career choosing as these children grow with these teaching methods? One of the advantages of the formal and institutional teaching methods is that they are not tendentious. There's less room on a tech-driven school, of the type which these advocates promote, for its students to grow into musicians, lawyers, writers, cooks, dancers, social workers, and other career choices that do not necessarily take technology as their basis.

Technology can be used as a facilitator of teaching methods and of learning. That much I can agree. But should not take such a central role in our schools. Suddenly the School is thought to be old, boring and not adapted to modern times. The same school that has been birthing thinkers and scientists since ancient Greece and the same school that birthed the digital revolutionaries. That School can't be wrong. On the other hand, we cannot expect for an ultra-technological modernization of pedagogy not to have a negative impact on career choice. Children are biologically built to follow guidance. Their educational process must be all-inclusive in more ways than just the study subjects. Matrials count too. Study materials have long been recognized as essential tools in the learning process. And to pretend that computer devices should replace most of them, is destroying from the onset of childhood the ability of young adult to choose a career from a wider spectrum of possibilities.

[whiteflags]

I actually think education is using technology about as good as it needs to tbh, so I agree with a lot of this. Like e-books replacing textbooks is fine, and that happens when it needs to, and plenty of students use computer labs and things like this. I can just imagine the whole laptops for every kid idea backfiring incredibly hard. Hacking happened in my high school just to steal ........ or get around internet nannying and introduce distractions.

The only thing I might wish there was more of technology-wise is like, Linux machines. I wish schools had more of them so they could learn better material (sys admin stuff) somewhere on the high school track, maybe.

[Mario F.]

I can just imagine the whole laptops for every kid idea backfiring incredibly hard. Hacking happened in my high school just to steal ........ or get around internet nannying and introduce distractions.

And there's the possibility of another even more malign outcome. A 3rd argument to the above.

Digital technology is proving to be a factor of social and economical differentiation. Not just between countries, but between members of the same society. Digital Technology is not proving to be accessible and all-inclusive. We get a shocking bird's eye view of this when we look at the worldwide map of communications and realize the technological desert that is Africa, South East Asia and South America. And while there's a tendency for growth of the global percentage of internet users, there are other more material elements of differentiation that are aggravating the gap, like access to high-speed internet due to the increasing costs of the infrastructure that many countries can't support, and the increasing financial burden of the internet on the family budget.

This has an impact globally with countries not being able to ride the wave of educational innovation and modernization, which will only tend to increase the gap between the developed and the non-developed world. But specifically on the context of the national educational system, this imposition of digital technology at the core of education methods, has a nefarious effect on the poor students who suddenly find themselves unable to compete on equal grounds with their richer colleagues in the class. State support is not the answer. Facilitating computers to poor students will not save their families from the high costs of internet usage necessary for research and study. Neither should we expect that computers given by the state should meet good hardware requirements and contribute to a democratic access to education (btw, what to do when the state sponsored computer breaks?). And on a more global scale this is yet another factor contributing to the widening of the gap between rich and poor countries, the last of which necessary do not have the capabilities to give free computers to their population. Experiments like the Hole In The Wall on India, do not reflect the realities of this world. They only confirm what we already know (that computers and the internet are easily absorbed and understood and that they can act as benefit to mankind). But in no way these experiments address the economical reality of the internet and the digital revolution that is far more harsh, very exclusive and offering completely different experiences based on the quality of the equipment.

A small minority of poor students may be able to face these obstacles; The gifted, or those integrated into a family on the upper end of poverty. But the vast majority will not. The normals would have to face the reality of a new intrusion into their family budget which can already barely cover their more immediate needs for food, health and clothing.

The illusion of technology as a solution to all human problems always demanded to be tempered. But when we see a certain push towards these untested concepts to be moved to our schools, its when we need to raise the stop sign. Like you, I'm perfectly happy with the notion of technology in schools. But only in the context of formal teaching methods and only as a facilitator. Many schools do this, thank goodness. They seem to have a firm grasp of the limits of technology on the educational process. But the constant nagging of a certain brand of technologists has been increasing over the years and we have moved from simple experiments to the real classroom on some schools. And that should be a matter of concern.

[swgh]

Your preaching to the choir Mario.

That is one of the biggest problems, and as much as I agree with you - there is very little you, me or anyone
else can do to change any of it. When I was at school, we did have computers and they were used. But they
were only used for large word processing in an area known as Business Studies. The entire subject was never
intended to be molded around computers, how they are used and how they work. They were just that - a tool.

I never really learned anything about "how a computer worked" until I ventured outside the box and read books
from my local library. The Internet was not around at this point - and the world was a brighter place for it. After
some months of using nothing but books and taking notes I picked up a book on ADA and taught myself my first
programming language. I was going to choose C right off the bat - but when I was younger I wanted to be an
engineer software developer and this was the language being praised. So, I studied hard and over about a five
year period I managed to learn about 85% of the language and could/can write some pretty complex
applications. I still have the books at home.

My point is - modern technology is going to keep on advancing over the next X-amount of years - and that is
a shame for the stand point of older institutions such as schools for young adults. School's are forever going
to be running to catch up with the "latest trend" and have the "cool kid computers" in the science labs. Libraries
are more or less non-existent now. There are a few scattered about but the Internet has everything a book could
tell you in your home.

Retail stores in city's are closing down because of the recent boom of online retailers such as Amazon and most
high profile stores make more profit online than in actual store sales. The music industry is another one - gone are
single CD sales. Nearly everything is digital. Computers probably will take over the world eventually - and it's people
like us who are going to programming their software. Irony.

Ada x

[Elkvis]

On a somewhat related, but separate subject, have you seen the schools they're building these days? Do the buildings really need to be so architecturally "beautiful?" What does it really contribute to the education process, to have a building where a significant portion of the cost of building it was for some highly respected architect to design it? Do we need vaulted ceilings, when it's not structurally necessary? Do we need fancy stone work? Do we need beautiful landscaping? No. We need a box with walls, doors, and windows. It's what's inside that matters. The building just needs to be safe and large enough to accommodate the volume of students and staff. Put the funds into the purpose of the building, not its appearance.

</rant>

[Epy]

On a somewhat related, but separate subject, have you seen the schools they're building these days? Do the buildings really need to be so architecturally "beautiful?" What does it really contribute to the education process, to have a building where a significant portion of the cost of building it was for some highly respected architect to design it? Do we need vaulted ceilings, when it's not structurally necessary? Do we need fancy stone work? Do we need beautiful landscaping? No. We need a box with walls, doors, and windows. It's what's inside that matters. The building just needs to be safe and large enough to accommodate the volume of students and staff. Put the funds into the purpose of the building, not its appearance.

</rant>

Agree 100%. Lining pockets of the local construction giants.

Had a similar thought last night about anti-cigarette commercials...pretty sure everyone knows how bad it is now, why is the gov spending so much money on that? Why not have commercials about how bad fast food is for you? Already know the answer of course though, because lobbying.

[whiteflags]

On a somewhat related, but separate subject, have you seen the schools they're building these days? Do the buildings really need to be so architecturally "beautiful?"

I don't agree. I understand it's not entirely necessary, but still I would fight for a good building. Plus, a poor appreciation for architecture guarantees your whole city is ugly.

Sure, you could say the same thing as an argument, that an artist could try something new and it comes out stupid, especially when you take it in and consider the surrounding landscape. Still, I hate buildings that just look like barely-windowed, brick warehouses. It's so lazy, and it makes everything utterly depressing. I've come to appreciate the settings where people spend their time. A good building is significant; it can even be inspiring. I went to high school and the building was made in a style called Colonial Revival. It was also the oldest building still teaching in the state. Being built in 1928, it went on to become a historic place on the national register, probably because Martin Luther King Jr. spoke there. (It was ten years ago I might have seen the plaque, forgive me.) That's where my bias comes from, but if the building lasts long enough, I always feel like good architecture is worth it in the end. If we're gonna put up a building, I want it to be the accomplishment it deserves to be.

I'm putting my location out there somewhat. Stop by and murder me if you want, I guess.

[Mario F.]

It's what's inside that matters.

Architectural choices are transversal to the quality of teaching; i.e. all things being equal, a pretty school is better than an ugly school. So, for me to agree with you, only on a case by case basis. There could be political factors that would force me to agree. For instance, on cases of excessive state spending. But generally speaking I can't agree.

There are two problems you need to consider:

This push towards tech-based teaching that I spoke above can be heavily criticized (as I sure did). But one of its motivations has its roots on a real and prevalent problem in the modern educational systems around the world (not just USA): the incremental rise of dropouts at all levels of the educational system and the also steady lowering of national average scores. Both indicate a degradation of the educational system ability to retain students presence and their interest. The reasons can be many, and the general rise in worldwide poverty, including in the western world, is very likely one of the most important. But it is undeniable that educational institutions can benefit from a face lifting environment that helps to facilitate student integration and to pike their interest. A nice looking school fits the bill.

The other, completely distinct, problem has to do with the tremendous change that has occurred in the last 25-30 years concerning parenthood. Around the early 90s a new pedagogue "movement" started to emerge, initially concerned with the wellbeing of children in a family environment. This largely publicized movement (because these pediatricians and sociologists also liked to write self-learning books with catchy titles) tried to educate our societies on more stringent principles about child-protection. Like good medicine gone wrong, this movement quickly turned sour as it gave birth to excess. Today we have on our western (developed) societies some of the most cruel child welfare states imaginable, with families loosing their children to adoption for the most innocuous reasons; like failing to register their birth or not being able to properly cloth them during winter. And the push towards even more stringent rules continues, with such proposals as to criminalize a slap on the butt. I'll refrain from talking more about this, because frankly it would be worth a book of its own and it is a topic that gets me riled up very easily. But another effect this has been having on our societies is the growth of excessive parent care that is reflected on the choices they make for their children. So, for the most part, the market is forcing those architectural excesses. Parents demand it as a means to validate the unfortunate notion that a great looking school is a better school for their children. Little do they care to know (or even know what to ask or understand the answers) about the quality of its docents and helpers, the curriculum, or the pedagogical methods in place. Parenthood is today an heavily regulated environment filled with self-learning books of unknown authors sporting a PhD on questionable educational specializations with little scientific support, an inhumane policed-child-wellfare-state promoting excessive child care and protection, and a pop culture that promotes small-thinking and an a focus on the non-essential. Together they all contribute to one of the worst generation of parents (my generation).

[Epy]

Really don't agree with any sentiment that we need "pretty" buildings. We need architecturally sound and "healthy" (i.e. not falling apart) buildings, no more. Gov doesn't need to be building Sydney Opera Houses.

Saying we need pretty buildings to properly teach children is kind of like saying we (as people) need to be pretty to be smart, or good programmers.

[whiteflags]

I think the point is largely exaggerated, anyway. The original complaint about buildings with vaulted ceilings, which is hardly the worst architecture has to offer, it's just different from a box.

[Elkvis]

I think the point is largely exaggerated, anyway. The original complaint about buildings with vaulted ceilings, which is hardly the worst architecture has to offer, it's just different from a box.

It was one example. In the high school that was built in my home town a few years ago, they spent a million dollars on a tile mosaic of the school mascot on the floor of the entry of the school. That is literally nothing but a waste of money.

I agree that ugly buildings can have negative effects. The point was that they should spend less money on appearance, and more on substance. A building can be inexpensive and basic in appearance, and still be tasteful.