Breaking down the problem
January 27, 2020
The average person would say it is due to the factory system. To an extent, it is viable to consider that the factory system was a catalyst.
The factory system emerged in the late 1700s to early 1800s. Otherwise known as the “Prussian Model,” it was the path to industrial development. Later on, it became the gold in finding universal public education for all.
In terms of public schooling, Hoarace Mann gave the United States that similar exposure during the 1840s. Alvin Toffler, the author of Future Shock, claims the brilliance of implementing factory-like schooling systems: “The whole idea of assembling masses of students (raw material) to be processed by teachers (workers) in a centrally located school (factory) was a stroke of industrial genius.”
In the early 20th century, the Committee of Ten began to establish universal standards in education. They decided on twelve years of compulsory education and the standardization of schooling. These expectations included standardized testing and class size. It was made to establish a foundation block to enhance the system further.
However, this “stroke of industrial genius” got stuck for the next 128 years. Despite the developments in technology and curriculum, the classroom continued to be as dry as the Sahara desert.
“We had old overheads. [The teachers] would put up the answer key and you get out your homework,” math teacher Collin Hayes said. “You could have done it all wrong, and it would be a wasted night. Then, there would be more material coming out at you in the next 15 minutes.”
In spite of the relationship between factories and the education system, it was only part of the educational dullness. Furthermore, educational reformers say that the system of an assembly line is a rhetorical foe. Granted, there are factory-like aspects of the American education system. But it is not the only definitive answer to educational withers. Society has grown to develop new mechanics of classroom instruction with new technology. Younger kids have increasing exposure to technology, and teachers are looking to reach for “engagement” starting in elementary school.
Information is at everyone’s fingertips: innovation allows this generation to push forward the standards to active learning. But it also leaves students impatient and disengaged not only with their society, but the capital of students’ educational careers. The emergence of technology can also expose students to the isolation of knowledge.
“I do worry about social media,” Longwood Elementary School teacher Deb Swieter said. “I worry about all this technology. All this information at your fingertips with these young minds. They expect immediate feedback. They expect to be entertained at all times.”
In addition, educators believe in sticking to the norms. However, traditional practices fall short of what the modern generation needs. It is supporting the practice of only fostering one answer with every discussion and it is embodying a disengaged generation.
Dr. Claudia Costin is the Director of the Center for Excellence and Innovation of Education Policies (CEIPE). In her essay, “Meaningful Education in Times of Uncertainty” she explains why teachers neglect to encourage active learning environments. “Facilitating a class where consistent participation is expected is extremely difficult for novice teachers that were themselves taught through the pedagogy that doesn’t demand students’ engagement.”
In retrospect, the problem is not the curricular standards. It is the classroom environment that sets students up for the “ideal” workplace, such as a cubical office.
Joshua Kim, author of Competency-Based Education, Technology, and the Liberal Arts, supports the idea that the education system is not always about the curriculum. “There is more to education than the demonstration of a narrow set of technical competencies.”