Yesterday I had the opportunity to briefly speak to the parents of our rising seventh graders about the 1:1 Tablet PC program we are implementing this fall. As I outlined our rationale for moving to an “anytime, anywhere” learning environment, I impetuously adapted a line from Sir Ken Robinson and reminded the audience that their children won’t retire until approximately 2058. The effect was instant and nearly universal; eyes widened, mouths gasped, and heads shook in a state of sudden awareness as they contemplated my subsequent assertion that “the world is going to change a lot between now and then.”

It has been said many times before, but we are preparing our students for jobs that don’t yet exist in a future we cannot begin to imagine. The question, then, is are we providing them with the knowledge and skills necessary to become lifelong learners who can meet these unknown challenges, or simply “staying the course” and reinforcing the basal tenets of our current educational system? The answer lies largely in our capacity to acknowledge and embrace change…and unfortunately, that may not necessarily be our strong suit as a profession.

In his 2006 NAIS article, Why Curriculum Change is Difficult–and Necessary, Olaf Jorgenson makes the following observation on the concept of change:

A speaker I once heard at a conference on curriculum development compared instructional change to moving graveyards; nobody pays much attention until you try to do it! Years later, after serving in several independent and public schools that collectively embrace a long tradition of academic freedom, this metaphor rings true. But I’ve discovered that faculty resistance to formalized instructional improvement and curricular change builds not because teachers lack desire or capacity to improve, but because, collectively, teachers value their autonomy, worry about their ever-increasing workload and time constraints, and are, by nature, averse to risk and change.

Consider Jorgenson’s remarks in light of a study published last month by the University of Melbourne which concluded:

The most effective teachers are attracted by opportunities for professional autonomy, school responsiveness to student needs, and the prospect of responsibility, while the least effective teachers are averse to change and challenge…

At the risk of over simplification, the issue appears obvious: the world is rapidly changing, and teachers (in general) are averse to risk and change. Perhaps a better question is how do we balance our desire for autonomy and pressing workload against the need to do what is right by our students? I don’t profess to have the answer, but I do think it’s an issue that anyone privileged enough to call him or herself a teacher has an obligation to address.

I can only speak for myself, but I have no desire to be categorized as “least effective” in my teaching, and if I’m still here in 2058, I hope the students I’ve helped mold into adults will be enjoying their retirement as capable, lifelong learners thriving in the 21st century. I don’t think “staying the course” will get me (or you) there, so perhaps it’s time we charted a new course and embraced some necessary changes….

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Posted: 05|6|08 at 7:45 pm. Filed under: Curriculum.
Comment | Trackback