Article 1 Review, "A Learners Bill of Rights."
OBJECTIVES OF STUDY PAPER/JOURNAL/ARTICLE
The primary intent of this article, "A Learner's Bill of Rights", is to give the reader a framework to develop a learners or intellectual bill of rights built from a progressive and constructivist view of education. The author, Charles Rathbone is a progressive educator who has had an affiliation with an "open education" school of the 1960's that was celebrating its 35th anniversary. At the anniversary celebration, a panel discusses progressive education and from this discussion, Rathbone develops his short treatise of 11 "rights" of learners. Rathbone makes it clear that these rights should openly be accepted and endorsed by all likeminded progressive educators.
DESCRIPTION OF THE EXPERIMENTAL/STUDY/DESIGN PROBLEM
In order to effectively describe the proposed rights we need to understand the basic philosophy behind them and the author's ideology. In the United States open education, was primarily a movement of the 1960's and 1970's, which was based upon the progressive education pragmatic philosophy of John Dewey and the developmental learning theories of Jean Piaget (Rathbone, n.d.). The general tenor of the movement was a reaction to the perceived negatives of traditional education which was felt by the proponents of open education to be, racist, sexist and oppressive. The emphasis in open education was to be an open learning environment in which the child was free to choose to learn what he or she saw fit, in the time frame that they considered best for themselves. Teachers were primarily guides and facilitators of children's learning and they simply considered themselves as participants in the experience rather than the experts in the class. To the proponents, open education was a free, expressive and caring environment in which children could bloom and blossom to their fullest potential. To distracters the open education classroom was considered almost circus like with its multiple learning centers, colorful atmosphere and very casual style. It is from this open education view that the author presents his 11 rights. While the formal open education movement may have ended for the most part in the 1970's, we do see its philosophy alive and well in modern day constructivist education.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
As the author notes from the Plowden Report, "At the heart of the educational process, lies the child", it is from this child-centric view of education that Rathbone develops this theoretical framework. With an emphasis on the learner, it is only practical to Rathbone that the learner's have to have a bill of rights to guarantee their individual needs. Without such rights or guarantees, the Rathbone argues, the growing mind of the learner may not fully experience all it needs to flourish, grow and achieve.
The proposed solution that Rathbone put fourth are the following 11 rights as necessary to meet the needs of the learner.
- The Right to Choose
- The Right to Follow Through
- The Right to Take Action
- The Right to Remain Engaged
- The Right to Wallow
- The Right to Err
- The Right to Concentrate
- The Right to Take Learning Personally
- The Right of Collaboration
- The Right to Respect
- The Right of Centrality
Within each of these rights Rathbone elaborates the primacy of the child as the learner, suggesting that without such primacy of rights the needs of the child are unlikely to be met.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF STUDY/JOURNAL ARTICLE
The piece is an opinion/op-ed piece that was written from a progressive, constructivist view of education. The goal of the piece was to offer a set of parameters or objectives in which progressive educators can coalesce around. There was no openness to other thought or idea. It was broadly assumed in the article that all educators who cared for the needs of children would accept and proclaim these rights.
DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION
The author concludes that teachers ought to become an educational ACLU, and be a shrill whistle each and every time that these rights are not recognized or enforced in the educational system. According to Rathbone, teachers need to flinch when the rights are glossed over and to make it evident to all within hearing that the learners individual rights are not being recognized. To Rathbone, and other progressive educators their clarion call is to keep the child at the heart of education. To these educators any other goal would miss the mark of providing the very best education possible.
REVIEWERS APPLICATION
The more I read, the more convinced I am that the root of the problems within American education is the blind allegiance to progressive education. Articles such as this give me prime examples of what needs to change in our educational system. Rathbone's ideas while interesting, are in my mind at the core of the problem. Rather than address the real deficits of knowledge, wisdom and understanding in American public schools, progressive educators, such as Rathbone, make the issue out to be one of a lack of rights of individual learners.
It appears noble to say that that the child must be at the heart of education. Yet in the pursuit of the noble, progressive educators miss the key component of education, and that is learning. So rather than become a system that emphasizes hard facts and knowledge, we have allowed a system to develop that emphasizes what feels good. So while for some it is much more inspiring, motivating and enlightening to speak of collaboration, cooperation and collectivism, the problem remains, a large majority of students within the American public school system can't read, write or do arithmetic. To this I suggest, students have one right and that is the right to learn and teachers have one responsibility and that is to teach.
Article 2 Review, "The Skill Set."
OBJECTIVES OF STUDY PAPER/JOURNAL/ARTICLE
In his treatise, "The Skill Set", the author, Lawrence Hardy, the editor of the American School Board Journal, discusses the challenges of American education in the face of globalization and the shrinking educational disparities between the developed and the developing world. Hardy looks at the issue of American students facing not only the challenges of developing a proper skill set at home, but also a skill set that works to their advantage against students from around the world. Without developing this proper skill set, he argues the American educated worker will be left behind and be non-competitive in a changing global environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE EXPERIMENTAL/STUDY/DESIGN PROBLEM
The problem that the author sees is that in an increasing globalized economy, the United States is no longer effectively the only resource for highly trained and effective workers within its own borders. What is occurring within the developing world is a shift away from simple technologies to highly advanced and competitive education and technologies. These advances within previously developing nations has led to a better trained, highly motivated and less expensive workforce that is able and willing to do the job of the American worker at a cost that is far lower than the American worker requires for the same job.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The question that Hardy asks is "will the United States weather the educational challenges set before it to meet the changes that are occurring globally?" While asking the question, he proposes that a dramatic shift is taking place, in which the United States is, not the only provider of its own highly educated workforce; rather, it is one of many providers. He cites examples of Indian trained and educated engineers being able to do the same work as American educated engineers for a fraction of the cost of the American engineer. The world according to Hardy is shrinking and the United States needs to address the issue of educating its workforce to not only keep up but effectively compete with educated workforces from around the globe. He notes while there will always be a need for a builder in the U.S., there may not be the need for the architect. As Hardy notes, U.S. schools need to prepare students for such eventualities.
In order to effectively compete and excel, Hardy proposes that the United States adopt the skills sets promoted by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills. This plan, a collective vision of such U.S. corporations as Apple, Microsoft and McGraw-Hill Education, proposes a six-point educational approach to the changing global demand. The emphasis of the plan would be upon, core subjects, 21st century content, learning and thinking, information and community technology literacy, life skills and assessments that measure thinking and learning skills.
UMMARY OF RESULTS OF STUDY/JOURNAL ARTICLE
Rather than summarize his opinions, Hardy leaves the reader to question and ponder the new forces at work today in a global environment. He notes that change is inevitable and points out we are already undergoing significant changes within our culture, educational challenges and workforce. He makes it clear that without proper adjustments within the American education system there will be serious consequences for the American worker and his or her way of life.
DI
SCUSSION/CONCLUSION
Hardy points out that our nation has weathered large changes before. He points to the large shift from the U. S. being an agricultural society to a manufacturing society during the 19th and 20th centuries as a prime example of the ability of the American workforce to adapt to change. As well he notes the more recent steady decline of U. S. workers out of the factories and into service industries. The question though still remains, do we adapt to the new globalized economy in a slow painful pace or do we manage to adapt in a quicker, more efficient and less painful method than we have in the past? This he suggests is the question that American educators need to address, and they need to address it as soon as possible.
REVIEWERS APPLICATION
As I compare this article with the article "A Learner's Bill of Rights", I can't help but think that one asks a valid question, whereas the other simply proposes mushy platitudes. Both articles address the needs of learners. But, "The Skill Set", in my view appropriately addresses those needs whereas Rathbone's article merely promotes an ideology that in my view will not best serve American students and workers. Again, the more supposedly enlightened amongst us may clamor that American schools must maintain the very best collaborative learning environment possible inside the American classroom. Yet, the facts point out that students from underdeveloped and developing nations who are educated without this enlightened atmosphere in their classroom can and do compete and often beat American students and workers in a globalized society. To me, Rathbone's ideas are not only wrong, but in light of an ever expanding educated globalized workforce they are also harmful to American students and workers.
References
Hardy, L. (2008). The Skill Set In K. M. Cauley & G. M. Pannozzo (Eds.), Annual Editions Educational Psychology (pp. 18-19). Boston: McGraw Hill Higher Education.
Rathbone, C. (n.d.). Open Education. Retrieved October 24, 2008, from http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2303/Open-Education.html
Rathbone, C. H. (2008). A Learner's Bill of Rights In K. M. Cauley & G. M. Pannozzo (Eds.), Annual Editions Educational Psychology (pp. 2-3). Boston: McGraw Hill - Higher Education.
No comments:
Post a Comment