Chapter+10+-+What+can+be+Done?

Chapter 10 Papert uses the example of a command economy that assigned a USSR factory to produce 100 tons of nails but made 150 tons of nails too large to use. It fulfilled its plan. In a market economy (an emergent system), someone would have the idea to make nails of the correct size. “What is typical of emergently programmed systems is that deviations from what was expected do not cause the whole to collapse but provoke adaptive responses” (p. 208). Papert states that the feeling may be “School is too firmly implanted ever to change” (p. 205). This is a fear I share with him. “Defining educational success by test scores is not very different from counting nails made rather than nails used” (p. 209). I do not know if there is an effective test, outside of life, that could accurately test for one’s ability to not only create but use the nails to maximum efficiency. We all have experienced or seen that testing creates nervousness or test anxiety (negative feedback). Testing reinforces the idea that learning is knowing the right facts to memorize. Testing promotes concentration on tested information and thereby robs time from information that is not tested. But with schools increased focus on testing because of NCLB I do not feel that this will change. I know I hear teachers lamenting over not being able to reach the whole student because of the pace of the curriculum but as a teacher what power do I have to change that? Could I keep my job if I openly spoke out against testing? Papert feels that little schools are the future because computers, the internet, and video conferencing could be used to connect the little schools to whatever information or expertise is needed for learning. Yet we do not see this. Why? To move in this direction will require parental support and commitment. I know parents see technology in my district as a means to further one’s self. The one drawback he foresees is that little schools may become the rich learning environment for the wealthy or elite. “It would be heartbreaking to look into the future only to see wonderful networks of access to knowledge for some people while others are excluded, or to see that education had become even more than in the past a breeding ground for intolerance and hatred” (p. 225). And I must say that even in his time his fear may have been actualized. School is a place where our countries roots in intolerance and power are still played out every day. And even though inequities are well known AND shown in test scores. The fundamental way school plays out has not been changed in 100 years. So when will this revolution happen? How did it not happen when society changed around school from industrial to technological and if that shift had little effect on school what will it take for schooling to become what we all hope for. So i am still asking what can be done? ---T.D.

What can be done? I don't know. It's 20 years later and I still can't answer this question. Honestly, other than technological advances, schools haven't changed all that much since Papert wrote this book. It reminds me of the old man sleeping video we watched a while back. It's sort of amazing to see how much other things have changed, but not schools.

I'm still torn between my data driven instruction and Papert's theories. I feel like we do need some sort of map and I think that data driven instruction is one way to guide us. If we only used curriculum maps and no testing data, how would we know that the knowledge had been acquired. Would there be some other form of assessment to determine the level of learning?

The little school of the future that Papert talks about reminds me of a school I taught at in California. It was called Rancho Capistrano School -- and we had about 70 students in Jr. K thru 8th Grade. We were very small population wise, but we had a large campus -- close to 100 acres of rolling hills, trails, palm trees, an outdoor pool, retreat center, fountains and a small lake. Our big idea at this little school was that each of us has gifts and we have to foster those gifts in order to be successful. I would say that this school followed much of Papert's beliefs with respect to the type of knowledge that students sought. However, we did have some frustrated teachers who felt that they didn't have much direction. I had a great time teaching there, and my own children attended and had a very memorable year as well. One of the big events at the school was the annual fishing tournament. It was a day of fishing (with bamboo sticks and hotdogs) for trout in the small lake on the property. Families would spend the day at school picnicking, fishing and just hanging out. We were continually encouraged to take our kids outside for lessons -- get them under the trees with their books, walk the trails -- basically "tinkering". It was an incredible experience. Sadly, the school has since closed due to the declining economy in the area. In the long run, I don't know if the students at Rancho Capistrano could have invented smart missiles simply because they tinkered under the trees more, but I do know that they had more time to be children, and that might be part of what makes successful and knowledgeable adults.

I wonder if the Waldorf schools are similar to what Papert is thinking about when he talks about the little schools of the future. The big difference would be that Waldorf schools don't use computers at all -- they do not use any modern day tools, as they feel it interferes with the students' learning. Maybe the little schools of the future are going to be online learning networks or communities. There's quite a bit of online schooling happening these days. The online component offers those that might have considered homeschooling but didn't want the challenge. I think even though some would argue that online learning separates students, I feel it can also foster connections among students from a wider range. Students can connect with other students in far-reaching places. Students can connect on an interest level rather than just by grade level or classroom. Again, it would be nice to see what Papert thought of all of this today.

-Carol

I am even more conflicted now that I have a read a book from over 20 years ago. When I was reading it I was thinking that a lot of it was still relevant today. I feel this is like the cartoon we watched about medicine changing and other parts of life changing to better incorporate technology, yet teaching and education has shown little growth in the use of technology. 20 plus years ago we still had this problem and we are sitting here still today trying to incorporate technology. The schools have computers lab and not enough money to get sets of computers in the classrooms and without computers for the students in the classroom, I don't see a change in the way students learn happening. The other side of that though is, how much teaching needs to be accomplished and how much should be push off on this "exploratory" internet/technology way of learning. It's sad to think that we are stuck in the same predicament as 20 plus years ago and the only thing that has changed is the technology continues to grow and expand and education isn't keeping up! I would wonder what Papert would think of this day and age with computers and technology.\

~MK

• Does technology improve teaching? Papert is a big supporter of the "little school" model, where a group of like minded parents and educators share a vision about how to approach education. He has some big hopes that in these new school there will be greater latitude to learn from computers, especially in the science and mathematics fields. Papert wants students to have in-depth experiences with technology (and all of education, I suspect) and he sees very little use for the knowledge-for-knowledge sake type of education.

Even though the book was written a while ago I think the "charter" school movement of today would excite Papert. These schools seem to be closer to the "little school" idea that he was promoting. In the area of literacy, I know that there are schools that have put in literacy programs when 85% of the staff agrees to participate in the new program. This sounds exactly like the type of school that Papert envisioned when he was writing this chapter.

I don't think Papert's ideas are at odds with TPCK. Papert would want to make sure that teachers and students had the flexibility to pursue areas of individual passion and interest. But following those ideas doesn't mean that teachers couldn't plan their units to make the best use of technology. Papert is more interested in what type of learning is being planned. He is a big proponent of experiential learning rather than abstract, theoretical academic exercises.

Papert's ideas are more for the larger community than they are for the classroom. He seems more interested that there are more choices of school made available, and that each school have a broader range or activities for learning. I think that Papert would be a big supporter of the people who like student lessons planned around real "authentic" activities. For example, I am sure Papert would like us to study the election and how government works more that he wants me to study early American history. He would probably prefer that students used computers to pick an issue and get involved in the community in trying to create real change.

 This chapter ties into the TPCK model by...

Practical uses for the info presented in this chapter for my classroom include...