This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
. Albert Einstein I found a different perspective of curriculum and education after reviewing the first three weeks' reading materials. Some educators have focused on creativity and standardized tests, and others put emphasis on self learning without control on curriculum and school programs. I like Sir Ken Robinson's concept of creativity and how teachers do not acknowledge the creativity of children. Sir Robinson makes an entertaining and profoundly moving case for creating an education system that nurtures creativity. His talk on creativity and unpredictability of future education made me feel that educators still have ignored the actual learning process of children. Many children are forced to learn different subjects and programs as the choice or direction of their parents or teachers without letting them choose. In other words, the creativity of children is twisted and molded for the demand and need of parents or teachers. My questions me: why can't we think about this to let children's creativity grow? Charles Murray's thoughts stopped my thinking process for a while. I find him categorizing society into educated and not educated. In Real Education, Murray outlined four basic principles that frame the curriculum discussion: ability varies, half of the children are below average, too many people are going to college, and America's future depends on how we educate the academically gifted. Learning abilities of children vary depending on age and environment. Many educators and policy makers know this "open" truth yet they are struggling with test scores and predictability of learning. High standardized test scores have considered the measuring rods of college success. Why do not we act wisely in our schools and colleges with our students as a teacher if we know that children differ in their ability to learn academic material? Are we afraid to bring change in our work place or ignore to pass it out? Murray brings an interesting concept of learning ability in relation to Gardner's theory of multiple intelligence. He also illustrates that how the seven abilities as Gardner pointed out are not equally valuable in adult life in term of statistical correlation. However, it is always obscure that educators/teachers do not know the learning level of students precisely. Even the existing system of measurements can not accurately evaluate those abstract abilities. Although we know some areas improve in our schools and colleges but we are not able to implement our ideas because of the bureaucratic structure that we live in. It is important for educators and policymakers who do have power to bring changes in their work place should comprehend the underlying problems to achieve academic success.
The problem is that kids who have neither the money nor the brains for college are still going, because they're told it's "Yale or jail." However, people are not so dumb they can't get a basic understanding and set of fundamentals. These fundamentals are not taught well in high school. I went to college just to learn basic knowledge that I should have learned years earlier but didn't. What about all the other countries that are ahead of the USA in math and science? Are they just smarter than us? I don't think so. They have longer school days, longer school years, different teaching methodologies and populations who value education. Murray's theory applies filtering process that all learners are not equally smart. I agree that we live in educational lie. However, it is educators and parents who should know what is going on in education. Students should be smart enough to acknowledge the value of college education. Education is for all those who can afford and utilize college education in work places. Again my perspective on education changed when I read Turning Learning: Right Side Up, by Russell Ackoff and Daniel Greenberg. For a moment, I thought "Yes, this is the school, we all need!" Their focus was on leaning but not on teaching. I watched those videos on Sudbury Valley Schools. This is just an ideal school, but is not that easy to change whole educational system to Sudbury model. It has been a long time that authors advocated this model in our educational system yet we are unable to adopt it because people felt that won't work for all. There are several good educational models and frameworks of creating "best" schools and colleges. But, no curriculum is perfect to meet the need of current education in schools and colleges. We have very diverse student population with diverse abilities as Murray and Sir Robinson mentioned. Our students, educators, and administrators have different needs in our communities. We just live in our ideal dreams!! So, educators and policy makers should develop and adopt a curriculum that meets both needs and demands of current education in their local contexts.