Day 15: It Worked for Me

One of the voices I often hear (no, not in my head, these are real voices…this time) when I speculate about changes to the educational process is the “good enough for me” preservationist. This voice reasons that what has been done for generations has worked well, and therefore changes risk every good thing that has ever happened. This voice is often associated with the curmudgeon (“kids these days”), but it is actually in all parts of the education establishment and it is a voice that is alive in each of us. There is something inherent in human nature to perceive the next generation as inferior to the last. The briefest scan of quotations through the years show the human race on a long journey to hell in a hand basket.

For today I'm going to leave the part of the argument that a changing world requires changing skills (and maybe doing 50 algebra problems for homework isn't the best preparation for this…or any…world). I believe this, but I want to examine this complaint from another angle.

It seems that this argument is similar to the spanking argument (now, I know there are readers who feel different things about this, so please take this not as criticism, but examination). Often when we hear about high-profile child abuse cases, the voices come forward, “I don't know, my dad used the belt, and I turned out just fine.” Now, I am not suggesting that there are not sometimes outrageous claims about things that in no way resemble physical abuse, but let's stick to the argument. It seems to me that the “I turned out just fine,” argument is based on two huge assumptions.

The first assumption is that the speaker did turn out just fine. What does “just fine” look like? I agree that most of these speakers live relatively conventional lives and have not committed any detectable crimes. However, the majority of people from all backgrounds do this, and to connect the dots to show direct causality seems tenuous. Most times this means, I don't carry any scars from the experience, and I don't know about this either. This is based on the assumption that we can know what we would be like without this (or any) experience in our lives. Perhaps there is a different (or perhaps even) better self that would have developed in a differnt set of circumstances. In either case, the line is blurry at best.

The second, and I think more dangerous, assumption is that if this were OK for me, it worked the same for everyone. Let's change our speaker to an inmate of prison, held for a violent crime (frankly, I'm certain that statistics would show a greater incident of corporal punishment among prison populations than the general). I'm not suggesting that the spanking caused this behavior any more than the proper behavior, but it does show that there are many incidents that turned out differently. It didn't work for some.

Similarly with education, clinging to past techniques often makes the same two assumptions. We were taught that way, and we turned out fine. This both assumes that we are the best, most educated we could be, and that it was this model that made us this way. The reality may well be that we would have benefitted from some non-traditional techniques, or that it would not really have mattered.

Second, this statement also implies that if it worked for me, it must be right. Plenty of children didn't learn through these methods. Many of those who did became teachers, thus perpetuating the cycle and the echo chamber of knowing and working around those who learned best with the techniques of their childhood. By drawing primarily from those best adapted to the system, the educational establishment protects and perpetuates itself.

It is dangerous (and lazy) thinking to cling too tightly to “what has always worked.” Techniques, skills, and content must stand on their own merit, not be a mere reiteration of what came before.

As always, I welcome your comments.

Image: http://pixabay.com/p-334476/?no_redirect

Posted with Blogsy