Dear all,
Re discovered this quote the other day and thought how well it fitted with the culture that we are building here at ISHCMC, being the best in the Universe. I’m going to print it out and tape it to my desk each day to remind me how lucky I am working at ISHCMC with all of you.
“When what you are deeply
passionate about, what you can be best in the world at and what drives your
economic engine come together, not only does your work move toward greatness,
but so does your life. For, in the end, it is impossible to have a great life
unless it is a meaningful life. And it is very difficult to have a meaningful
life without meaningful work. Perhaps, then, you might gain that rare
tranquility that comes from knowing that you’ve had a hand in creating
something of intrinsic excellence that makes a contribution. Indeed, you might
even gain that deepest of all satisfactions: knowing that your short time here
on this earth has been well spent, and that it mattered.”
Jim Collins, Good to Great.
Food for Thought
This week's article at first sight sounds and I feel is intended as radical. However if you read between the lines you will note that much of what he talks about as the practice for the future we are already doing, have thought about and deliberately planned for our student's learning.How to Fix Classroom Education: Get Rid of It
Precht, 48, contends that the current educational system doesn’t foster the kind of creativity or original thinking future generations will need to succeed. Young people would be better prepared for the workforce, he says, if there were no grades, no subject-based instruction and, in some cases, no teachers—nothing less than radical reform will do the trick. Credit Suisse recently caught up with Precht to discuss his thought-provoking views on education.
Credit Suisse: What do you think is the primary problem with our current educational system?
Richard David Precht: The gap between what our children are learning in school and what they will need in life is wider than ever before. We insist that children memorize facts and figures, but that’s not the kind of knowledge that lasts. People forget over 90 percent of what they learn in school within a few years of graduation, and we don’t encourage the curiosity, creativity, originality and teamwork skills people need to survive in a complex world. We should cultivate and encourage a child’s intrinsic desire to learn – not destroy it.
CS: How does eliminating grades fit into that?
RDP: A child’s personal development is more important than acquiring a certain body of knowledge over the course of a school year, and that can’t be captured in numbers. For example, I was good at gymnastics as a child. Jumping over a beam was easier for me than for an overweight classmate, so if he managed to do it, his achievement was greater than mine. Grades aren’t very helpful in measuring accomplishments like that. A written evaluation at the end of the school year might be the best approach.
CS: But in the workforce, isn’t it absolute performance that counts, rather than an individual’s personal development or potential?
RDP: I’m not so sure of that. Evaluating an adult’s performance isn’t always easy, either. And there’s a lot more to success than performance. My point is that we need to give children a chance to find out what appeals to them. What do I like to do most? What is easy for me? What is the best way for me to learn?
CS : You have a 10-year-old son. Are you saying there’s nothing specific he should study to maximize his chances of success in the labor market?
RDP: That’s not the right way to look at it. When I finished school in the 1980s, everyone said that engineers and programmers were in demand. At a class reunion years later, a large number of classmates who had chosen those fields were unemployed. Besides, many of tomorrow’s jobs are entirely unknown to us today. So how can a student know which subjects are the “right ones”? Young people should learn what they want to learn.
CS: That sounds very open-minded, but what if your son were to announce that he wanted to be a harpist – or perhaps just a free spirit?
RDP: I would point out that there aren’t very many harpists in the world, and that a fulfilled professional life might be very difficult to achieve. But I wouldn’t stand in his way. I would, however, caution against earning three degrees in the humanities, as I did. I’d suggest he should also learn about economics, law, the natural sciences, or technology.
CS: Why do you object to subject-based instruction?
RDP: After students learn the basics, schools should put much more emphasis on projects. Placing boundaries between subjects impedes learning and stifles curiosity. The real world isn’t divided into subject areas – it’s interdisciplinary..
CS: What would project-based instruction look like?
RDP: In a project focused on the era of Goethe, for example, students would read “Faust” with their German teacher, while their history teacher would explain what was happening in Germany during that period. Their chemistry teacher would tell them about alchemy and conduct experiments using iron and sulfur, and students interested in theater might act out a scene from the play. That kind of approach would help students understand the context and significance of what they are learning.
CS: But isn’t pure knowledge essential for some subjects? It’s hard to argue with the need and benefit of memorizing your multiplication tables.
RDP: You’re right. And that brings me to my next point. You don’t need a classroom to learn mathematics. We now have excellent, exciting learning software that allows each student to master material through play. Traditional classroom instruction doesn’t teach the top students anything they don’t already know, but it’s too difficult for the weakest students. Whole-class instruction is therefore unnecessary in certain subjects and after a certain level.
CS: So what “hard knowledge” should schools impart? What minimal curriculum is required to prepare students for the workplace?
RDP: Students need to be able to communicate confidently through both writing and speaking. They should be able to think abstractly and have an understanding of history, geography and political thought. Basic knowledge of the law and economics is essential, and they should have some practical experience with the arts.
CS: Do you see any use at all for traditional classroom structures?
RDP: A system that may be reasonable for the first four to six years of primary school shouldn’t be set in stone for a child’s entire school career. We need to stop relying on class-based instruction, in which children are grouped by age and forced to learn the same things in exactly the same ways. We know that the more children and adolescents feel part of a community, the more they enjoy learning. The question, though, is whether such communities need to be classes that are defined by age.
CS: If you don’t think classroom instruction is necessary past a certain point, what do you make of studies that show teachers are the critical factor that determines a school’s quality?
RDP: When teachers are involved, they need to be excellent, and most importantly, they need to be good communicators. Today, they focus far too much on didactics and deciding what students should learn. But if you don’t enjoy listening to someone, you won’t learn much from that person. I would hold teacher auditions and hire only candidates who could captivate their students.
http://www.thefinancialist.com/how-to-improve-classroom-education-get-rid-of-it/
This weekend is special for the Thai community because it is the start of their New Year.
Wishing you a Happy and Peaceful Songkran. (Thai New Year)
Sawasdi Phi Mai (Happy New Year)
All our best wishes,
Enjoy,
Adrian, Nok and Ken J
This all sounds fabulous, but it's not at all practical. How are societies supposed to function if everyone follows their "passion"? I think many young people wouldn't push themselves in areas they find difficult, but might be more likely to lead them in a productive direction, like science or technology.
ReplyDeleteIt also appears that this author contradicts himself when he talks about his own children. He distinctly says he'd steer them in a direction where they'd be more likely to be successful - meaning find employment! He mentions some of his former classmates who studied engineering or computers were unemployed, but overall, people who study those fields are more likely to be employed in higher-wage jobs than people in the humanities. Leading a fulfilling life can also mean contributing to your society in material ways, because we need it!
The reality is young people are expected to be successful in an increasingly competitive environment, & they need specific skills to lead comfortable, productive lives, both for their own benefit & for the benefit of their society. It's our job to prepare them for the world they'll enter.