Revolutionizing Education

I started doing some videos to suggest the possibility that the (Australian) government should be doing more to encourage "thinking" as part of the curriculum.

But the more I thought about it, and explored the issue, and looked at what people were doing already, the more futile it seemed.

Maybe it could be done, I know that EdB often cites the example of Venezuela, but it seems unrealistic to expect politicians in Western democracies to foist something unfamiliar onto a self-righteous public.

The problem with education is its "customers".

There are at least three specific problems:
1. The customers who make the decision (ie the parents) are not the same people who use the service (the students). Who has ever heard of parents calling for the sacking of a teacher just because he is excruciatingly boring?
2. There is little agreement among customers (parents) as to what service should be provided (ie. what should be taught). The only clear point of agreement is that the kids should be protected from harm - so school ends up being a kind of babysitting service.
3. It is a long time (years) before results are known - as opposed to most defective products or services where the problems usually surface quickly (then complained about and fixed - or some other provider sought).

It seems to me that education delivered online can easily overcome all three problems.

Some have already made a start (usually teaching maths online), often successfully. I haven't found any, however, that completely transform education in the way that I imagine is possible.

I am working hard to make this happen.

Tags: education

3 members like this

Add a Comment

You need to be a member of The Edward de Bono Society to add comments!

Join The Edward de Bono Society

Comment by Phil Bachmann yesterday: Hi Dennis,

Thanks for your comment. The idea behind asking adults what skills, knowledge, values children should learn was not really to get something to take to the kids but getting adults' brains moving.

Yes I agree listening is key.

Making thinking enjoyable is something I hadn't really thought about but does now seem very important.

Comment by Dennis R Perrin yesterday: Phil

It would be all too easy to list skills, knowledge and values that children should learn. By listening to them, we may find that the values are already in existence. Their questions will provide a challenge to the way we impart knowledge. Their skills they will learn by emulation. We should be careful we do not try to impose things, things that are not really wanted or needed, on to our kids. A value that comes to mind, apart from listening, is peace.
Thinking would be a certain value, especially making it enjoyable.

Comment by Phil Bachmann on April 29, 2013 at 1:02: Hi Valerie,

Yes I can see that state planners may have an agenda to support the national purpose - though my suspicion is that they are more concerned about keeping happy the people who care about what is taught (teachers, academics).

The Victorian and Australian governments have combined to decide what kids are going to be taught for the first 11 years of schooling: http://ausvels.vcaa.vic.edu.au/.

There are 45 references to algebra, 27 to geometry, 114 to Aboriginal culture, but none to Newton, Einstein, Archimedes, Henry Ford, the Wright brothers, Edison, Jenner etc etc.

de Bono philes might be encouraged that there are 96 references to "thinking", but sadly the bureaucrats have redefined the word "thinking" to mean "wanking".

Soon I will be asking people what skills, knowledge and values children should learn as a priority.

Comment by Dennis R Perrin on April 28, 2013 at 23:14: I think Valerie meant to say Phil not Kim!

Comment by Valerie D Chalmers on April 28, 2013 at 22:54: Why isn't learning a musical instrument a standard part of education? Because education is designed to serve a national purpose, designed by state planners. As you suggest Kim, education on line would circumvent the bureaucratic elite's purpose.

Comment by Phil Bachmann on June 29, 2012 at 22:12: Hi,

Reading your comment I find I have no perceptual disagreements with them, but by all means clarify your perceptual disagreements with my post..

Comment by spectramollisol on June 29, 2012 at 16:01: I have numerous perceptual disagreements with your post.
While the government might have some say about the curriculum ( in Canada it is a Provincial responsibility), direct confrontation may not be the best way to bring about curriculum change.
In the U.S.A., Dr. David Hestenes has been advocating reform of physics education and has documented some of the problems he has had and the extremely large amount of resistance to change in the educational community. Dr. Roger Schank also has spoken out for educational reform in the U.S. and recounts some of his experiences in talks he has given.
Are parents REALLY the ones making decisions about the curriculum or just about what private school to send their children to? In North America, the Publishers are calling the shots and creating the curriculum, supplementary materials and lesson scripts.
I have heard of parents calling for the sacking of a teacher in both private and public school systems.

Comment by Phil Bachmann on April 24, 2012 at 2:45: Hi Luis,

Thanks for the offer - but I kinda feel like things are on track here: The comment below by Bhuvaneshwar Joshi was right on the mark, in my opinion.

Sir Ken Robinson seems like Walt Disney's answer to education reform: feels good but there's no articulation of practical ideas on what individuals can do today that is going to make a big difference.

As I said in Graeme's discussion: my current fascination (aside from developing software that connects and encourages learners) is "Who produces the value in society?" If you want to talk about that subject, Luis, I'm very interested in your thoughts.

Comment by Phil Bachmann on April 9, 2012 at 8:45: Hi Bhuvaneshwar,

I agree that "review" is a better term than "monitoring", and also agree about two sided being more fair.

One of the beta testers, however, told me that there was "no way" that he or any of the parents he knew would want to give his children the ability to "review" his activities. In his opinion, parents check up on children not the other way around.

It may be that parents can be tricked into buying "monitoring" software and then, after their children have convinced them that they are human beings too, agree to enable the two-way review. It may be that some mothers will be grateful to the children for reminding them that they are spending too much time on Facebook.

I'm not sure how the independent panel fits in her, but it is an interesting idea that I shall keep in the back of my mind - it has strong possibilities.

Comment by Bhuvaneshwar Joshi on April 9, 2012 at 7:12: I would prefer the word 'Review" to "monitoring" and a two sided would be fairer and more acceptable. Further to preempt an ongoing dialogue between the two concerned parties,it may be useful to have an independent panel of judges to give their detached observations.

‹ Previous
1
2
3
…
11
Next ›