The authors point out that everyone will have to go above and beyond to keep from being "outsourced, automated, digitized, or treated as an interchangeable commodity." Or as Mr. Flieder says, "fungible." My brother recently attended a two-day retreat where his law firm was counseled by a consultant on how to distinguish itself in an ultra-competitive marketplace: doing their "job in a way that truly enriches the experience for the person paying for it."
I guess it shows my lack of entrepreneurial spirit, but I am struck by how often the authors mention starting a business, citing technology as the great-leveler (the world is flat). As they stress in the book, the authors are optimistic about a future where the US will continue to innovate and create, as we think like "immigrants," "artisans," and "waiters/waitresses." And an education based on "critical thinking, effective oral and written, and collaboration" will be essential. I love the story about Steve Jobs dropping in on the calligraphy class and how, although he did not realize it then, it informed his aesthetic sensibility in designing the fonts for the Mac. While education should be relevant and practical, we shouldn't encourage students to see their educations as job-training only. They cannot be so fixated on whether they find all their educational experiences relevant. Just because information is available online does not mean students need only be able to access it. Students need to know stuff to think creatively. Students need to know stuff to innovate. Students need to know stuff to collaborate: "Creativity only comes from a genuine understanding of a discipline." Having a well-rounded educational experience is not a luxury; it is a necessity. Furthermore, students need to realize that getting a good education and doing good work is not always fun in the way they think of it (that is, easy): "A lot of the completion of a really creative task is boring." We need "to foster imagination but also teach execution. Persistence trumps talent, but it is best to have both." I have been reading lately that students who are praised for working hard take more academic risks and persist longer, which leads to growth. On the other hand, those that are praised for being smart often play a defensive game. In order to preserve their view of themselves and the one they perceive others to have of them, they play it safe. They take fewer academic risks. And when they do struggle or fail, they identify the source outside themselves: the test was unfair, the teacher doesn't like me, nobody else got it either, this stuff is stupid. Finally, I love the "I kill jobs" guy at the end of the section. His tough love is shockingly honest: "Any job that can be eliminated through technology or cheaper labor is by definition not coming back."
And Ed is out is record time... Have a nice summer Ed!
ReplyDeleteLOL
I wonder if we contribute to kids' lack of drive by fighting so hard to "engage" them. I struggle with this in my own practice: education can only happen when students are challenged, which often means experiencing frustration and finding the wherewithal to fight through... but I feel pressure (from where? hard to pinpoint.) to entertain them, keep them hooked in, and that can translate into "keeping them happy" which undermines the process.
ReplyDeleteMaya, that's a great point and I completely agree. I often struggle with this as well. I definitely see the importance of engagement, but everything we do should not need to be entertaining at all times. We are teachers, not entertainers, and this is school, not a video game. Some lessons will simply not be "fun" for every student. I am not saying we should go back to the old-school daily lecture/note-taking routine, but I also think that sometimes the pressure to engage and entertain students does "undermine the process," as you stated.
ReplyDeleteLaura and Maya, I totally agree. In my classroom, when I see a student that is disengaged and lacking motivation, my first thought is often about how I can re-teach that lesson or how I can change what I am doing to encourage more interest. As I am reading this book, I am starting to feel that tailoring every lesson to garner as much interest as possible may not always be the best thing for students. While involvement and motivation are vital, changing our own practices to the point that every student is happy and entertained will not instill a strong work ethic or any sense of determination. Getting students to work through the challenges, and as Maya said, “find the wherewithal to fight through” is something that will benefit them more than being passively engaged in class each day.
ReplyDeleteMaya, Laura, and Becka - This is something that I struggle with as a teacher. In my heart, I feel that if a lesson is boring a student, I am doing something wrong. While work should be challenging, learning should be fun, or at least, rewarding. After all, there are subjects I've HATED, but then when I had a really awesome teacher who taught in creative ways, I really got it and enjoyed learning (i.e. any science class). But I know human beings are all different. I also just naturally enjoyed learning and school - some students do not. And it's hard when you have one of those students that is just not interested in your subject. Some then my head tells me, you can't win them all. I guess I just try to shoot for entertaining the majority of my students. But yes, I agree that we need to teach kids that learning is not always easy. Learning takes work. I try to remind my honors students that when they think they'll always get it right the first time. I tell them when they learned to ride a bike, they fell many times before being able to ride on their own. The same goes for learning in school. I don't know where we got to this place where students feel they should be perfect from the start. It really saddens me.
ReplyDeleteTo Ed's quote from the book: "Any job that can be eliminated through technology or cheaper labor is by definition not coming back:" My husband and I have been saying this since the economy took a tumble. When I hear politicians talk about getting jobs back, I think, how? These jobs are gone. There will be no more toll booth operators anymore, less cashiers in grocery stores, etc. Anywhere a machine can replace a person, it's going to happen. It's more cost effective. It's just the way it is. We don't see phone operators anymore, do we? No, because party lines disappeared and there was no need for them. We need to invest in training people to be able to do other jobs.
ReplyDelete