posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
maelorin at 12:00am on 14/03/2005
maelorin at 12:00am on 14/03/2005in 1998, david gerlernter warned:
at the same time, serious questions have (and are being raised) concerning both the quality of education being provided to 'education consumers'™ (are they getting real 'value for money'™?), the quality of teacher training (are they being sufficiently prepared for the job?) and the quality of those consuming the 'education product'™ (are they even interested/trying?).
i have been in, and involved in, education (particularly university education) since i was four [quick count, 30 years now. ouch.] and i have seen - and been subjected to - many changes in theory and practice, politics and economics. and last year i jumped into the sharp end of secondary education here in south australia. many, many challenges there. not the least of which is to actually explain how education theory relates to teaching practice so new teachers and the general public can understand what it is about/for - and where education is (supposedly) heading.
speaking of which, in the aesthetics of computing gelernter argued that unwarranted emphasis on technology over context, features over function, was self-destructive. technology per se is only capable of 'highlight[ing] and underlin[ing] the text it is given'. context gives meaning to technology: what we use it for matters; but so does how it performs those functions. the same can be said for education.
what is education for? is it just about preparing new units for the labor market for employers to exploit? or is there more to it?
who is education for? the 'consumer'™ who is being expected to pay for what they 'use'™? or those the 'consumer'™ is hoping to attract into an employee-employer relationship by prostituting their expensively acquired credentials?
what is the context of education? and how does it relate to the much touted idea of 'lifelong learing'™?
if the prostitution of scholarship to politics in research and teaching goes much further, students and their parents and the taxpayers are going to stop paying for it. [the aesthetics of computing @ 120]
the devastation wrought by a full generation of educational appeasement is awful and largely invisible. [the aesthetics of computing @ 121]australia's political masters, those currently 'running the show' in canberra, have been relentlessly driving australia towards a us-style education system for at least a decade now. education used to be a public good. now it is a commercial product, or (at best) a commodity to be consumed - and therefore paid for - by 'the consumer'&trade.
at the same time, serious questions have (and are being raised) concerning both the quality of education being provided to 'education consumers'™ (are they getting real 'value for money'™?), the quality of teacher training (are they being sufficiently prepared for the job?) and the quality of those consuming the 'education product'™ (are they even interested/trying?).
i have been in, and involved in, education (particularly university education) since i was four [quick count, 30 years now. ouch.] and i have seen - and been subjected to - many changes in theory and practice, politics and economics. and last year i jumped into the sharp end of secondary education here in south australia. many, many challenges there. not the least of which is to actually explain how education theory relates to teaching practice so new teachers and the general public can understand what it is about/for - and where education is (supposedly) heading.
speaking of which, in the aesthetics of computing gelernter argued that unwarranted emphasis on technology over context, features over function, was self-destructive. technology per se is only capable of 'highlight[ing] and underlin[ing] the text it is given'. context gives meaning to technology: what we use it for matters; but so does how it performs those functions. the same can be said for education.
what is education for? is it just about preparing new units for the labor market for employers to exploit? or is there more to it?
who is education for? the 'consumer'™ who is being expected to pay for what they 'use'™? or those the 'consumer'™ is hoping to attract into an employee-employer relationship by prostituting their expensively acquired credentials?
what is the context of education? and how does it relate to the much touted idea of 'lifelong learing'™?
thoughtful