There was the knowing and the un-knowing. The one who was "in the know"always stood in the front. Those who were part of the "non-knowing" sat down. The less you knew, the farther back in the room you sat. And then came reform. But is it truly reform (or was it meant to be con-form)?
Frankly, I'm starting to hate the word reform. It directs focus on the past rather than the future, on those sitting in the class without addressing those standing in the front. It seems, in context, it's leaning towards "re-do" instead of "re-form." What? Have we been doing it wrong all these years? Probably not the case — though I hope complacency doesn't set in either.
During the summer season, I work with teachers from all over the country who invest their own personal time not in a re-do, but in a do-better, a do-whatever-it-takes habitude style of operation. Together, we are working on ways to reform transform education. Yes! That's what we're working towards. Transfomation!
Knowledge used to be received alone. The old "Hear it and Hold it" method. A one-way transmission. Top down. Nothing was contextual. It was about sequence and order. Here's what we did yesterday, here's what we're doing today. Sequence and order ruled over context and experience.
Does this old "transfer" of knowledge work well in the long-term? Not so much. There's a lot of blame game still going on from one grade level to the previous level. The "Hear it and Hold it" might serve short term testing, standards, and assessments well – but it falls way short of serving the most important people in the room — the learners.
Now, collaboration is a key skill. Differentiation and Equity have important roles in curriculum design and classroom experience. And we'll examine some of the differences between the old "reform" and the ne "transform" soon. Put your thinking caps on, kids:-) We'll learn from this together.
We can sooo do this.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=d898c679-f17f-4027-8c60-b707d5e16d2b)
