Thoughts on This Week's Time Magazine

Perusing through the last issue of Time Magazine and had some thoughts:

Arnie Duncan may be the Apostle of Reform, but is he Peter or Judas? I like the focus on student achievement, but the lack of clarity around “achievement in what?” makes his statements a placebo at best. He is also falling into the trap that most education reformers are – comparing our scores to other countries. That is less than pointless – it is destructive. We aren’t competing against Finland – we are competing against ourselves. But even more, external factors such as culture are as important as education in a country’s success. The objectives of our education system must be aligned with our culture, so comparative test scores are not the way we should measure success.

Logging on to the Ivy League. Nice article. Here is what I think it means:

• The brand of a fancy college won’t mean much when your content is evaluated by a broad community. Guys like me don’t care about the Ivy League – if there is a better content provider at San Jose State, then I’ll get my content there. Finally, a real market for knowledge, where the validity of knowledge is not based on who said it.

• The students will be grading the educators within the next 10 years. Finally. This will start to undo some of the upside down market dynamics of the education system.

• Some people love to talk up “choice” but then don’t do anything about the structural tyranny of the present bad system. Why are some people so caught up in socialist boogey men when real socialism (in corporations and formal education institutions) goes completely unchallenged? Maybe because the light is better where they look.

• What happens when you get your education from the web? You have a “What not Where”  situation, because having content expertise about a subject is not the same thing as being a good teacher. So when you break the “Where” of teaching into “Whats” you get people who specialize in conveying information and other people who can match excitement to skill to opportunity, and then others who can excite students about learning. And when you put the content purveyors in the web, increase the percentage of people who are telecommuting, and look at other effects of putting gigabit into the home, you end up with a situation where kids can get their content when and where they need it, and then they will work with other kids on projects to solve real problems under the guidance of guidance experts (i.e. a person who can recognize their specific talents and match them to specific future needs) and real teachers (i.e. people who can encourage children to pursue a life-long love of learning).

Stacktacular – is it just me, or does the increasing speed of innovation mean not only greater technical opportunities, but also physical and emotional as well?

Spinning a New Strategy. Even a mundane business like spinning yarn can be competitive if it moves from mechanical and knowledge work to creative work. Patrick Yarns is the only major textile firm left with major operations in the U.S. because they focused on solving problems, not blaming everyone else for their crappy management. This story is probably the best story I have seen to demonstrate that mechanical and analytical jobs will go overseas, but creative jobs can stay here, even when the industry started in the mechanical age (read the first post on the Three Ages here).

Comments

[B Smith @ Education 2.0]

I can't agree more with your views on the source of the education. Unless you plan on being an investment banker (or something similar) employers just don't care. What they want to know is how well you will fit into their organization and if you can do the job. For this they look to your past performance, not your degree.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of education and continuous learning. I just view it from two perspectives:
What I get to learn.
Getting the maximum education for the lowest cost (time and money)