will richardson

valuing change
comments closed - late to the game - my bad.

so here's mine:

perhaps we can take a look at what we mean by scrap the system.
we're thinking we don't need to scrap the system, if you're doing what you love you're good.
we're thinking we do need to scrap the essence (at least played out essence) of the system - the fact that it's compulsory. and if we did that - most likely much of what we're doing won't change.. what will change is who's together in a room, a space. [yes - we get that at first it will be a mess.. as most people don't know what to do when they are given space to be - but perhaps a mess we can no longer avoid if we want change.]

we're thinking we need to trust the curiosity of the human mind, find the curriculum in each person (papert) - because that is when authentic discipline is owned and practiced even when no one is around or expecting anything.
more from dewey on this

what if we trust the allure of the web. if we let the learner's curiosity drive, most of the things we think are so cool, so pushable, (even math), will show up. if not, maybe it wasn't so pushable - not so vital.
it's not the bells and whistles of tech that are so alluring to most people - esp kids. yes at first, but that usually dies off. as is evidenced in what kids (all of us) do on the weekends and over the summer. it's the allure of the web, the fact that it lets them drive, that keeps them hungry for more.

we're thinking the compulsory part is compromising a discipline we desire, but we perceive (the discipline and learning) won't exist without it (the compulsion).
we're thinking - the doing both - is precisely what is keeping us from seeing some of that owned discipline. (our findings in failings over the last 2 years)


if we're clear on what we want, and give heed to anticipated first failings, we can scrap the essence of the system

replying to stager here


*we - being mostly kid voice - kids longing for spaces of permission

__________________