Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!mordor!sri-spam!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!BEAVER.CS.WASHINGTON.EDU!uw-nsr!uw-warp!dennis From: uw-nsr!uw-warp!dennis@BEAVER.CS.WASHINGTON.EDU Newsgroups: comp.society.futures Subject: (none) Message-ID: <8804200006.AA06144@beaver.cs.washington.edu> Date: 20 Apr 88 00:06:54 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 107 To: uw-nsr!uw-beaver!info-futures@bu-cs.bu.edu cc: uw-nsr!uw-beaver!EdDean@IDUI1.BITNET Subject: Re: NEW Basics Pat Haring forwards an article quoting Alvin Toffler, which I cannot leave un-criticized, even though I'm not sure it deserves further mention in this forum: >Used with permission of Education Daily Copyright 1988 Capitol Publications, >Inc. > >EDUCATORS MUST BEGIN STRESSING 'NEW BASICS' OF THE EMERGING WORLD, SAYS >TOFFLER > >NEW ORLEANS -- Schools are failing because they are preparing children for a >world that no longer exists, says a noted author and futurist. It is not clear that schools are failing, or at least it is not clear that it is the fault of schools that their graduates are not adequately prepared for whatever it is that they are supposed to be prepared for (this article never clearly states any such goals). Finally, even if schools are failing, it seems unlikely that changing the curricula is the most important part of the solution. >Alvin Toffler, author of Future Shock and The Third Wave, told members of the >National School Boards Association meeting here last weekend that they must >trade a back-to basics approach to the current crisis in education for a >forward-to-the-basics mentality. > >Toffler said rapidly advancing technology is leading the world to a new >diversified structure, away from the uniformity and massification of the >Industrial Age, which shaped the way today's schools operate and what they >teach. > >The new revolution is making today's ways of educating children outmoded >because schools are not addressing the new questions and problems, the "new >basics" of the emerging world, Toffler said. > >Proposals to fix the education system are not going to solve the problems, he >said. "The basic proposal is not to eliminate the smokestack school, the >factory education. The basic proposal is to run the factory better." > >But the technological transformation demands that educators determine what >"new basics" students will need to function in the 21st century, he said. > >For starters, educators should consider the impact of the changing family >structure, the changing definition of literacy, the impact of instantaneous >forms of communication and ethical questions born of technology, Toffler said. None of these "starters" has anything to do with "basics," old or new. The plain "old basics" are just that: a base for all further education. Changing family structure is irrelevant to the need for solid reading and writing skills (even if unstable family structures make it more difficult to teach these things). Instantaneous communication requires the same "old basics" as slower methods of communication. I dispute the claim that the definition of literacy is changing. If you can't read or write, you are not literate. If you can't read or write, you are very unlikely to have any influence on society's decisions about ethical questions born of technology. (As an aside, I think that even the vast majority of literate people will have little impact on these decisions anyway, so for them, "ethical questions born of technology" are not relevant to primary and secondary education.) Perhaps the "new basics" are an oblique reference to computer literacy. I believe it is very desirable for more people to become "computer literate," but plain old literacy is a prerequisite for this. Computer literacy cannot be one of the "new basics," but will require a strong foundation in the old basics. Computers might make teaching the new basics easier or better or both, but I believe the "old basics" cannot logically be replaced. >"We cannot cure the crisis in education by substituting money for >reconceptualization or by running today's smokestack schools faster or >harder," he said. "We need to start the extremely difficult intellectual work >of defining the new basics of the future. It is only by addressing the >conceptual crisis of education that we will be able to solve the functional >crisis.""We are the beginning of the end of the smokestack school." --Cindy >Decker Rowland We cannot cure the crisis in education _without_ money. Only a very few good teachers will teach for little money. I believe that very few school districts could be considered well-funded. Toffler cannot dispute the fact that some schools produce well-educated graduates that are prepared for the future, even using curricula based on the "old basics." I suspect that those schools are significantly better funded than other schools, and that they have higher quality teachers and administrators as a direct consequence. More money means that the school district is able to attract and retain better teachers and administrators. As the next article forwarded by Pat points out, most K-12 students do not have regular access to computers and those who understand them well. Neither computers nor those who understand them are inexpensive (at least now). I am skeptical of this vague idea of "reconceptualization," and do not see how this will help teach the basics, old or new. I do not claim to have a complete proposal for radically improving our schools. But I know that we will not get better schools unless we are willing to invest money and intellectual effort in this goal. By contrast, I think that Toffler is speaking in vague generalities that are unlikely to improve our educational system. Dennis ------ arpa: uw-nsr!uw-warp!dennis@beaver.cs.washington.edu usenet: {ihnp4|decvax|...}uw-beaver!uw-nsr!uw-warp!dennis