patth@dasys1.UUCP (Patt Haring) (12/21/87)
Excerpt from "The Public High School in the Year 2010: A
National Delphi Study," doctoral dissertation by Margaret E.
McCabe, Copyright 1984 (UMI 8401629).
Scenario
Imagine, if you will, that it is springtime 2010. A
sixteen year old girl awakens and after she has had her
breakfast and watched a "talk show" broadcast from France on
the family satellite television set (which was part of her
foreign language studies requirement), she goes to her desk
and turns on her personal computer (PC). Her printer
immediately types a message to her; it's an assignment from
the Exploratory Language-History Learning Guide: "Write an
Essay on the Changes that have Occurred within the High
School Education Program Since 1982." The girl places her
"source-guide" program into her PC and verbally asks for
information on the topic. A crystal clear voice responds
telling her which codes and she spends the next few hours
listening and reviewing records, documents, old newspaper
articles, and interviews with various legislators,
governors, and leading educators from the past thirty years.
She then interviews her parents (who work at home on their
PCs) and several community members to gain their first-hand
reports of what the high school was like in the 1980s and
1990s. She contacts her "study teammates" to share
information. Finally she sorts out all the information and
sits down at her PC to write her essay, confident that she
is including the most salient points. When she completes the
essay she will send it via the computer to the high school.
This is what she writes:
Evolution of the High School Educational
Program: 1982-2010
Many aspects of the high school educational program
have changed during the last twenty-seven years. Much of the
change was the result of the citizen unrest and demands
during the late 1970s and early 1980s. Business
organizations and industries, as well as parents, demanded
greater excellence in student performance. High schools
across the nation were severely criticized for not assuring
student mastery of what was called "basic skills," which was
defined as reading, writing and math computation in those
days. In response to these demands, some high schools
deleted many electives and rigidly focused these three
subject areas. An increase in requirements and higher
standards for all classes became the norm, which seemed to
please most communities in 1990. That was a dramatic change
because prior to that time there had been demands to
increase the diversity of high school classes. To us,
gaining an education in 2010, this may seem like a strange
action for the educational program to have taken, but it
seems there was great emphasis placed on test scores and the
scores of high school graduates had been decreasing over the
years prior to all the criticism. Also, during the late
1970s and early 1980s there was a high rate of inflation and
excessive unemployment, which no doubt played a part in the
citizen unrest which was focused on the schools.
Learning Guides, or "teachers" as they were called
then, were directly criticized during this time---some
people charged that the teachers were lacking ability in
those same "basic skills" areas which caused at least one
state, California, to implement a teacher competency test,
i.e., individuals were required to pass a proficiency test
in reading, language, and math computation before they were
awarded a teaching credential.
Many State Boards of Education also reacted to the
criticisms by adopting standardized curricula for high
schools---high school graduates were now required to master
State-mandated skills in reading, computation, and writing.
"Teachers" responded to all the criticism and mandates by
becoming more unionized and demanding to be included in all
policy decisions.
Just before 1990, computer literacy was mandated in
many states for high school graduates. Actually, all that
meant was every high school student had to take one semester
of computer science in order to graduate.
Several years later, closer to the turn of the century,
demands were made for greater excellence and expertise in
the newest technological devices. These included the
computer, satellites, and continuing research in the use of
fiber optics. Private businesses and industries voluntarily
began coordinating with schools to provide training
activities for students in these areas.
The fact that current training was being provided and
computer literacy was required combined with the fact that
many high schools across the nation were using computers in
most of the classes really brought change to secondary
educational programs. A student's course of study was once
again diversified and individualization was actually
becoming a reality. Teachers were able to spend more time on
details and in exploratory discussions with students. Small
high school were able to offer more courses, such as the
study of various foreign languages and a host of other
subject areas they had heretofore been unable to offer due
to limited staff. Students were grouped by abilities and
interests in many, but not all high schools. Needless to
say, the advent and popularity of micro-computers in so many
high schools in the 1980s and 1990s caused "teachers" to
flock to computer training classes. The micro-computer
definitely revolutionized the process and content of
instruction in the schools and was more than likely
responsible for the great educational programs we have
today.
The student population of the high schools also changed
by the turn of the century---people of all ages were
attending schools to update their skills and to gain new
skills. The high school became the primary resource in
communities that did not host a college. No doubt this event
created confusion and great adjustment on the part of those
who directed and taught in the school system, but after
several years everyone adjusted to this event.
The primary catalyst for lifelong learning activities
was the information era, which had become intense in the
early and mid-eighties. Computers were everywhere, and it
was apparent by 1990 that any person who was unable to
operate a micro-computer would be constantly behind in terms
of general information. Additionally, computer literacy was
required for many jobs by 1990, and for most jobs by 2000.
The movement of adults entering the schools again
changed the curriculum--it became more fluid, continually
being updated. It was also much more flexible and diverse
than it had been a decade earlier. Community members,
specifically those connected with large businesses and
industries, went into schools to offer training in specific
technological skill and knowledge areas, particularly those
involved in research and development of fiber optics and
international satellite information centers.
Today, gaining an education is very different than it
was then. The options are virtually limitless. Individuals
can, and many do, attend public and private high schools,
but the high school per se is becoming obsolete. In fact,
the old buildings are utilized more and more as community
socialization centers. People of all ages now gain
information and knowledge through international satellite
television. Most of the kids, however, use personal
computers to complete their formal education. (Schools
actually lend PCs to students who can't afford to buy one.)
We still have to pass a competency exam to get a diploma,
but there isn't any talk about "basic skills"--today we must
be proficient in computer operation, i.e., how to access
information using a modem as well as software packages. Most
of us know how to program pretty well, but only basic
programming skills are required to complete high school. We
also have to know how to read proficiently and to compute,
but computation is accomplished using pocket-size computers,
which are very much like the old small calculators. Other
areas in which we must be proficient are language skills,
mostly because even with our sophisticated electronic
communication devices, we must still be able to speak with
people. Several times each year we have to attend special
debate and public speaking lessons. Written skills are very
important, of course, because without them we would not be
able to communicate effectively between computers, etc.
Real diversity and individualization has become a
reality. Students work at their own pace, but there is no
need to complete the high school courses in four years--now
we have time to study topic areas in great depth. "Teachers"
no longer have to dominate the instructional content; they
act more as planners and guides in the learning process and
they are available for discussion and private conferences
much more than in 1980. This is probably why their title was
changed to Learning Guides right after the turn of the
century. Our educational programs today are similar to the
independent study programs of the 1980s I've read about.
Great emphasis is placed on the process of learning today;
the philosophy is that if we all learn how to learn, how to
access information, we can always update our skills and
knowledge. (Knowledge and current information has become a
more important commodity in our society than in the past.)
Another emphasis today is problem-solving. Learning Guides
provide us with actual problems and case studies so that we
can develop these skills. We really learn where our
resources are and how to use them. In fact, we often
participate directly in community social and political
activities to learn how to resolve problems. Students
frequently work in teams to study and resolve problems. Some
students are directly linked with each other through TVs and
computers, which is a great advantage in that it enables
them to work together at any time.
Our 3D holograms did not exist in the 1980s either.
They really help us understand other geographical areas as
well as politics and world events, because we feel we're
right in the place. For example, the other day I watched our
President talking with some officials in Europe.
I'm glad I live now--going to school in the 1980s
sounds so restrictive compared to the present time. I wonder
what kind of education will exist thirty years from now. For
example, the other day while scanning my international
satellite TV news stations I saw some interviews with people
who are using drugs to increase their memory and level of
intelligence. According to the program it really works and
seems to be gaining momentum in some places.
Reposted from: The U.S. Department of Education BBS
(3/12/2400 Baud, 24 hrs)
Toll Free: 1-800-222-4922
--
Patt Haring UUCP: ..cmcl2!phri!dasys1!patth
Big Electric Cat Compu$erve: 76566,2510
New York, NY, USA MCI Mail: Patt Haring; GEnie-PHaring
(212) 879-9031 FidoNet Mail: 1:107/701 or 107/222ed298-ak@violet.berkeley.edu (Edouard Lagache) (12/22/87)
In article <2285@dasys1.UUCP> patth@dasys1.UUCP (Patt Haring) writes: >Excerpt from "The Public High School in the Year 2010: A >National Delphi Study," doctoral dissertation by Margaret E. >McCabe, Copyright 1984 (UMI 8401629). > > Scenario > ... Deleted description of a High School Student working almost exclusively at home ........ > >1990s. She contacts her "study teammates" to share >information. Finally she sorts out all the information and >sits down at her PC to write her essay, confident that she >is including the most salient points. When she completes the >essay she will send it via the computer to the high school. . . . This is all fine and good, but I think that it misses a very important part of education: the learning of social values, and how interact with people. That part of the "hidden curriculum" is probably the most important skills that schools are expected to teach, and computers are not going to replace human contact. I was also struck by the loneliness of the scene. Given the women's movement success in bringing everyone out of the house, it seems very strange to imagine locking up families for 24 hours a day, completely without any direct human contact from the outside. Perhaps these comments should be posted to 'comp.society', but before we computerize everything (especially education), perhaps we should decide what we are trying to do as humans, and if computers can really do that sort of work. Edouard Lagache School of Education U.C. Berkeley lagache@violet.berkeley.edu
gary@basis.UUCP (Gary Babcock) (12/24/87)
In article <2285@dasys1.UUCP>, patth@dasys1.UUCP (Patt Haring) re-posts an essay from >"The Public High School in the Year 2010: A >National Delphi Study," doctoral dissertation by Margaret E. >McCabe, Copyright 1984 (UMI 8401629). It is kind of a fun vision which Ms. McCabe cooks up. It is an old vision and not very innovative by my standards. See _Education and Ecstasy_ by George Leonard for a 20-year old version of the same futuristic look at education. Lately I have been amused to recall how when I was a child in the 50's we saw serious "Visions of the Future" promoted on all sides -- and by competent scientists -- which had us all zooming about in helicopters, buying tickets at airports to fly to the moon, and other equally fanciful ideas... by 1975! The most enduring vision I remember was of a family of four in a motorized, three-wheeled glass bubble, scooting along a freeway with no one at the steering wheel. The whole family was playing cards on a table while a computer steered them towards a dazzling city on the horizon, all glittering glass towers and freeways. I rest my case. /gary
kurt@tc.fluke.COM (Kurt Guntheroth) (12/24/87)
I think there is something about being an educator which makes you yearn for a diverse, unstructured educational system. Educators continually push for smaller and smaller class sizes, individualized instruction, unstructured curricula, etc. This push occurs without regard to benefit, without regard to cost, and without regard to evidence that this is not always beneficial. For instance, in this "High Schools of the Future" article, kids learn at home from their computers. In what way does this individualized instruction affect their social development. They are not learning anything about working in face-to-face group situations. Their skills of social interaction are not being developed. Do they become adults with social experience similar to their parents, or do they become a generation of isolated, anti-social hackers. (Hackers in the general sense of someone who focuses intently on an individual endeavor and is uninterested in the environment or group activities.) What is the quality of the instruction given by the computer? I have seen "porogrammed learning". I always found the bite sized morsels of knowledge these courses provided to be stifling and lacking in interest. You can't "leap ahead" in a programmed learning course. Unless each child's workstation embodies an aritifical intellegence substantially as powerful as current generation high school education liveware, the quality of knowledge transmission will be far lower. If a human monitors the student's progress, how does s/he deal with the more limited bandwidth between student and teacher. Inspecting test scores by correspondence is far slower than taking a quick glance at the face of a student to see if it is registering comprehension or confusion. How does a human deal with the wide choises of curriculum promised, and the wide range of rates-of-progress. To fulfill each child's potential, a given subject must be able to be presented at depths ranging from shallow to very deep, if children are given a fixed set of subjects they must master. Who will prepare this coursework? How will students be motivated in a totally unstructured home environment? Part of the discipline of school is a lack of ready distractions from study. Will students pick up a broad range of interests or will they focus on a single subject, so that you have musicians who cannot read (text), and historians who cannot use a bus schedule to get to the mall. Are there not, indeed, "basic skills" which we all must have to get along in society. Do not these skills include reading (from paper or CRT), writing/typing/editing, and the ability to make change, count items, and solve formal problems? How will we insure that students learn all these things if we give up "control" of their learning to the ultimate extent envisioned in this article? The existing structure of schools is well organized for teaching basic information, promoting needed social skills and interactions, and providing a common cultural base for children. It delivers these services to nearly all children, in an economical way that is not a burden on society. It generates a large population of similarly educated children, and has only limited capability to generate an elite overclass of highly educated rulers. The existing structure of schools is less well organized for teaching critical thinking and reasoning processes. These forms of mental discipline are difficult to teach and both children and educators often fail to understand what modes of education foster this kind of learning. Children nowadays either form or fail to form advanced reasoning habits pretty much on their own. Such people often go on to technical trades or professions. There is some evidence that gradeschool aged children lack they physiological maturity needed for abstract reasoning, and that at the gradeschool level, rote learning is more appropriate. It would be interesting to research ways to develop abstract reasoning in children, but I don't see how the mere presence of an unstructured environment would develop it. I expect to see my children going to high school just like I did. On the other hand, I might expect to enroll myself into an electronic university. With developed habits of reasoning and discipline, I can build my own structure, and benefit from deep education in areas of interest.