Saturday, January 28, 2012

Lets not be Dicks



Alright. I might swear in this one, but here it goes.

This entry really stems from listening and reading the news too much this past week. A major theme / question arose as I heard about all the major goings and comings, the actions, the conflicts, and behaviors of individuals, our institutions and political figures. Why can't we stop being dicks?

For example, one can hear about the conflict in Syria. At least 3,500 people have been killed. Assad is probably going to be overthrown eventually. He could surrender, escape with his life, but no, he's brutally suppressing his people; he's being a dick. Why can't he choose to not do so?

You hear about Egypt and the one year anniversary of the uprising that brought down Mubarak. Women in Egypt still get sexually assaulted quite casually and frequently. Now I'll admit, I too like breasts. But one must remember, we're part of society, and we're actually in the 21st century. Based on these precepts, it's actually quite unclassy, disrespectful and inhumane to grope people against their will. Sure, you can easily get away with it in Egypt, but you're still being a dick when you do so, and maybe you could choose to stop. You might even feel better afterwards because you can think to yourself, "I'm not sexually assualting people anymore, I'm not being a dick, and I feel better, because of this."

We've been hearing a lot about the presidential nomination and our upcoming election. Maybe some people find Mitt Romney to be handsome, I don't always. Regardless of how handsome and wealthy he might be, I don't want to keep seeing and hearing things about him. I don't want this process to be so damn long. I just wish everyone would shut their goddamn mouths about it. I'm sick of the hundreds of millions of dollars that get spent in these campaigns, truly making a run for major political office inaccessible to those with out significant financial means. I'm sick of hearing the talking heads constantly going back and forth over every minute things. I'm sick of experiencing this while knowing these candidates have jobs as governors and members of congress and should be fulfilling their duties. Our election process should not be so intense, expensive and last so long. So I say to politicians, media moguls, state official who make causcuses and primaries so early, political consultants, and whoever else is involved in ruining everything... let's calm down. Someone step up and do something to make this nomination and election process more reasonable, and let's stop being dicks.

I don't want to hear about this guy anymore.
Mind you, so much of consciouness is now wired and focused on these bloated, bombastic, and bantoring presidential candidates that I need to write about them and maybe be a little bit of a dick in getting sucked into this process. To Mitt Romney, I'm glad you've made so much money, and it's neat the way in which you worked as the head of a venture capitalist firm. It's neat that you're so wealthy and I am very confident you've worked incredily hard for it. I'm not disputing that. Nor do I think you've done anything illegal. You're probably way more conscientious, organized, and well-kept then I'll ever be. I know too you're getting called names like a "vulture capitalist" and now people are hyper-focused on the low rate of taxes you paid in 2010. Newt says things too a lot. Some of this might hurt. But how about this Mitt. Let's stop being a dick.

Now it's great that you've hoarded so much wealth and found ways to pay less of it to "the government", and I'm sure you've done many noble things, but really... stop being a dick. The millions of dollars you've made is great, and it's real neat you get to have plenty of homes and mansions, and it's so nice that you paid millions less in taxes because of the rate at which dividends are taxed and hey, you can say "It's capitalism, it's what we're suppose to do." And yes, I agree people should have to work hard and earn for themselves, but what I think is starting to become apparent that you should see Governor is that so many people don't have the opportunty to enter the ballpark of the American Dream that you have achieved.

There is so much that people don't have, that you yourself needed Mitt, to make it.  Everyday in America, people don't have access to reasonable health care, they work hard being paid very little, or simply can't find work. Everyday people are being drowned in debt or can't begin to afford a college education that is more necesarry for todays workforce. Lots of families send their kids to schools that are pretty underfunded and sub-par because that's all that's around. Many families can't really get out of a lot bad situations (both physical or financial) because they don't have the means.  Everyday lots of people can't meet their basic needs and actually live. Millions of Americans are pretty stuck.  This often, is not due to to lack of hard work. It's due to lacking any semblance of a foundation from which to start. I'm pretty sure you weren't stuck Mitt.


So Mitt, I actually like you're health care law that you helped pass in my state, and you seem more reasonable then a lot of other people, but think of how much you have (and yes you worked hard for it), but think about how much a small fraction of your wealth would make in the lives of millions of other people. Maybe a million of your dollars could renovate a school, or send people to college who can't afford it and don't recieve enough financial aid. Or it could provide medical care for people in desperate need and lacking insurance. But rather than advocating for our status-quo tax policy which you have nicely benefited from, stop hoarding you're wealth, and invest most of it in communities, institutions and people that really need it; stop being a dick. Please.


Newt, Speaker of the House, you wily devil of a man. I can't believe you talked about establishing a colony on the moon. I don't know what to say to that. I'm actually speechless. A moon colony. Yes you talked about that. You talked about the potential of this colony reaching 13,000 people and then becoming a state. The 51st state. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. The fact that you said that and might be our president is simply stunning. But a moon colony? That was talked about in the 50's I think, but that was 60 years ago... A moon colony. We have trillions of dollars in debt, you don't like taxes and are ranting a  lot about government spending, and yet you talk about a moon colony (I then actually read that you intend for the private sector to finance much of it, but still). For the love of god, stop being a dick. I remember just being so dumbfounded during the Bush administration when Bush Jr. talked about going to Mars. We were struggling then economically and in the middle of two wars, and we're still struggling now. Why should we divert hundreds of billions of dollars to do these stupid fucking things? Stop being dicks... everyone.


In my city, I wish things would get more affordable and accessible, but the price of renting an apartment is extremly high. Sure landlords, you guys can do this. Despite Boston's epic level of unnfriendliness, confusing roads, bad drivers, bad climate and overall temperament, a lot of people want to live here. There are a lot of jobs here. That demand is great, but, maybe stop being so dickish. Make it so people can reasonably live in our city and you might find that people who move here and begin to contribute actually stay. I've heard many friends comments "I would stay here but it doesn't make sense with how much goes to rent". Let's do the right thing, keep housing accessible (while still adhering to principles of the free market and making profit) and stop being a dick.

Now many people, including me, can and will be dicks from time to time. Sometimes, the devil inside of us get's the best of us. The culture that we're in might make it hard to not be a dick. If everyone's a dick around you then you probably will too. I'll first say, that it's always possible to improve on not being a dick. With effort, maybe some thoughtfulness or reflection, you can be less dickish. You can make some real leaps and folds in reducing dickishness like Scrooge did in "A Christmas Carol".


Really Became Less of a Dick


I dunno just a thought. Let's all together, work harder, at not collectively being a dick.


Thursday, January 19, 2012

SOPA, PIPA and FIFA

"Sen. Lamar Alexander likes to eat his cheeseburger with a side of internet!"
Last night as usual, I was hoping to look up various Icelandic mythological creatures and biographies of Jay-z during. I was shocked to find that I couldn't access the results of my search that I had worked so hard to find as wikipedia had blacked itself out! Azzah! Not only was this site blacked out, but apparently the whole internet might be in Jeopardy!

Upon further investigation, it was found that this black-out was due to some anti-piracy legislation that we have all heard so much fanfare about (I didn't of course as I was on a different plane of reality). There is the Stop Internet Piracy Act (SOPA) and the the Protect IP act (PIPA). This legislation, backed by many senators and congressman across the aisle, is intended to target rogue websites that infringe on U.S. copyright law. This might include movies, music, counterfeit watches. Imagine those guys who sell the counterfeit movies and fake Rolex watches on the streets of New York. The website version of these folks is who the government wants to be able to shut down. 


You can argue that the aims are good, and maybe there is a problem with copyright infringement. The language written in the bill is done so poorly. It would give too many broad powers to the Record Industry of America, Attorney General Offices and other copyright organizations. It would force sites like wikipedia to have to spend much time and effort policing their user driven content. It would potentially hurt start ups that would have to hire legal counsel in aims to make sure they were navigating through new legal framework, and many say it wouldn't actually stop the piracy that it originally aims to stop.

A couple of things. It can be similar to what's being done to stop "voter fraud" with more requirements for identification. Generally, republicans know that this will dissuade many (who don't have a state issued I.D.) from  voting, and from typically voting democratic. Many who might vote think that they can't get the I.D. to begin with as they have a criminal record, have traffic violations they need to pay and are afraid to engage in the process of voting or going somewhere to receive state issued i.d. Creating hurdles to go through so one can vote does a lot to further bring down turnout and I believe is undemocratic. This legislation, though maybe meant well, would be similar in just creating many hurdles that internet has to deal with to function, and for people's to engage in free speech.

As it continues to be, this legislation isn't about a popular will, or about representatives acting on behalf of the greater good. It comes down to special interest groups (RIAA, and other groups) that have some disproportionate amount of sway. I'm not saying the copyright infringement is not an issue, it is; but obviously this bill was just poorly written to the point where it harm the majority at the expense of the immense benefit of Hollywood and other's who've lobbied heartily to get this passed.

It's nice that this bill has been attacked, not by special interest, but by concerned citizens and a populace that spoke up and wrote their representative. Mind you we still have to see what will happen, but our voices were heard.

Slate has an interesting article, calling Wikipedia's action the "Nuclear Option". This was also a good read. This was an immensely extreme tactic that was reasonable based on the damage a bill like this could cause. However, Wikipedia can't keep doing this. The legitimacy of the act would be questioned if they continually shut down, and it would frustrate too many people. Also, there will be more action probably by internet groups in hiring lobbyists and engaging in the frustrating and more corrupt avenues of our political process. So at least for now, I like that we made a dent on stopping this bill because of popular action, not by a highly paid lobbyist group on K-street with a disproportionate of influence. Let's savor this moment, and remain aware and active in regards to the SOPA and PIPA bills. 


Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Schooling: Partnerships


The issue of teacher turnover becomes a huge problem that educator reformers are tackling. Turnover is especially significant in tougher schools where there are less resources for the district and the people living in the community. This is a whole issue I won't begin to address aside to generally say that teaching is very tough especially in areas associated with our "achievement gap", it can thus be incredibly tough to do the job well and to stay with it.

One piece of this is how much a teacher has on their plate. In our information age, a quality education demands much more from our education system to provide a knowledgeable workforce. I thus believe teachers have a larger and more complex task than they did in previous eras.

I would suggest that the concept of Teacher Partnerships become the norm. No longer should it be expected that one single individual can sustain and develop the intellectual, interpersonal, social, academic, cognitive and moral faculties of a class of up to 120+ students. On average, one person cannot do all that a teacher does, and do it well.

One average adult cannot do all the things that we expect out of our teachers in a modern day classroom:
  • Plan lessons for 180 days out of the years for up to 120 students with sometimes 3 - 4 different classes a day. 
  • Prep all the materials for those lessons; materials, readings, visuals, power points, manipulatives, lab materials and many other items.
  • Manage student behavior for a wide range of student's with a wide range of needs.
  • Differentiate instruction and create modifications while staying on top of the student IEP's
  • Maintain regular communication with parents (ideally with some home visits).
  • Assess student data providing learner's with regular feedback.
  • Develop soft skills in learners such as public speaking and teamwork
  • Ensuring that literacy skills are incorporated and developed in your lessons.
  • Ensuring some regular access to technology.
  • Conducting outdoor lessons to enhance student's connection with the natural world.
  • Collaborating with other educators and administration continuously.
  • Maintaining the physical space of your room; arranging seating strategically, having visuals, word walls, and an engaging but clear physical space to promote learning and the environment.
  • Attending after-school meetings and professional development.
  • Prepping student's for summative assessment and state-wide exams.
  • Teaching somewhere between 4 - 8 hours of (depending on length of school day and prep periods). 
  • Continually working to maintain a positive connection with student's, while maintaining high expectations from them.

There are plenty of extremely good teachers who do all these things or close to them. I also believe that people who are motivated can learn how to do these things, even the management piece. However, completing all these tasks  is often not sustainable and can thus lead to burnout. An individual can maybe keep up the job for some time, but at some point, it becomes enough and burnout can ensue which motivates them to leave the field or to stay in but not put in as much effort. The teachers who I know that are really good and completing most of these tasks are having a hard time imagining being parents. They often stay at their schools till late (7, 8 and sometime 9:00) and can't imagine being both parents and effective teachers. It is grueling work.

If you are in a school with students who are predominantly on free and reduced lunch and are dealing with issues of poverty, then the amount of work needed during the day is often much more, and the stressors your run into with your kids are might greater. We can choose to leave this to be a profession that is this extremely difficult to do well, or we can restructure it to be more sustainable.

I think you're starting to see the model of co-teaching being used in Special Education, but teaching should not be such an isolated act as it often is. You're alone from other staff, administrators and educators with many students with a wide range of needs and with the crucial task of ensuring the development of their education.

Having teachers work in pairs, or in groups could do an immense amount to make this task sustainable. With proper planning time, and with a reasonable system of matching fellow teachers, all these many important tasks to ensure a quality educational environment could be broken up logically, there would be support in delivering instruction and maintaining the environment, their would be greater flexibility in teaching methodology and finally, educators might not feel as alone as they often do. Mind you this is the norm with early elementary student aged kids.

One way to do it, I believe at least is to have one teacher be a content specialist and the other teacher be a student specialist.  The first would focus on the content and the latter would focus more on the needs of the students. The content specialist would be more trained in the nuances, the expertise of the curriculum and units of study. They would be more trained in the the teaching methods revolving around the content, relevant activities, examples and other such methods. They would know how to differentiate instruction, what opportunities for media and out of the classroom learning would be relevant and would maybe, at first take the lead in delivering instruction alongside  the student specialist.

The student specialist would know their student and their ins and outs more succinctly. They would focus more on the management and relationship building in their classroom. They would focus on setting up a positive classroom climate and setting up routines and procedures. They might be more responsible for parent and family communication and working.

However, there would be ample time set up in schedules for these individuals to co-plan daily, both teachers jobs would intertwine to the point where at point both could manage either individually when needed. Often, the content specialist could come from outside organizations which is happenings a lot in the education field already (there are a number of non profits in Boston that do this).

Either way, making the field of education more community and team oriented would do a lot to improve the outcomes of education and make the field more accessible for skilled and talented individuals. If we are serious about the state of our educational system than we need to take the steps and investments to ensure that those who work in it can sustain themselves and have the chances to improve and grow. It needs to be a job where teachers are not left so alone from other adults that could benefit them, day in and day out. 

Sunday, January 15, 2012

Schooling: The Curriculum


Alright. This one will be much shorter as idea for education reform. I just want to focus on an idea I have revolving around the access of curriculums and lessons which, planning and prepping for, is one of the most significant work endeavors of a teacher. 

With all the state and federal standards that have been developed, why is their not more excellent and evolving curriculum that is easily accessible, downloadable and usable for teachers? Why has this not been done? This baffles me. 

Part of the answer is there are... sometimes. The American Chemistry Society, an organization that I would be more than happy to kiss, put out this gem that I was lucky enough to find once. This was a full curriculum that was freely available. More importantly, it was good; being inquiry based, and guided by other modern teaching methods and state standards (from what I could tell). It was extensive and comprehensive, including all relevant handouts, relevant activity sheets, clearly listing materials needed, including videos that you could not only use, but download and background information for the teacher. This was great. 

A student squeezes a drop of water out of a dropper.  Illustrated water molecules are shown to comprise the drop through a zoom-in efect

If we're serious about education reform, this wonderful curriculum should be the norm. As a new teacher, you're told often not to "reinvent the wheel" when doing your planning, and to "beg, borrow, and steal" when planning. The lesson being, that it is very costly in time (which is a precious resource as an educator) to come up with a good plan, make a good worksheet, gather all the materials, find relevant reading materials, and engage in the other nuances one can do when they plan. The whole time you're doing all this work, there is probably something out there somewhere that you could and should use that is better then what you'll come up with and there for you to use for the betterment of you're students. 

So to be quick. I don't get why this is more available. Part of the issue is the nature of capitalism. There are curriculum writing organizations that expect to generate income. There is also the issue that often what us teachers will find on line doesn't quite fit with exactly what we want to do. At one point I wanted to conduct a fungus dissection and found a lab for one, but this lab involved all these questions and terms that I had to cross out or reformat to fit the needs of my kids. A partial solution for this might be for these on line curriculums to be malleable. A teacher should be able to find a lab, and be able to download it and edit things in and out (like a word file), but also be able to easily place diagrams and images (like a graphics program). 

A similar example to this idea is in the field of agriculture. Farmer's are strapped for time, and rarely spend time breeding their own seeds for growing a crops. They get, what are usually, a good sampling of seeds (usually) that they can plant. If expected to design their own seeds, and spend the time selecting from the best breeds of crops, this would be too costly for this in terms of time. There are issues with this in having a mono culture that is kind getting us as a society to put all our eggs in one basket, but generally, this is an important practice for farmers to free up some of their workload. They don't have the time to design their crops like teachers should be supported and freed of at least some of the time needed for them to generate their own lessons. 

The curriculum and tools for learning that are available for students. If you can freely teacher yourself German over the Internet for no cost, then teachers should freely have easy access to great lessons. Mind you, this curriculum should not be rigidly forced through the throats of a teacher, but excellent  tools for a successful delivery on instruction should be readily and easily available. 


Saturday, January 7, 2012

Schooling: The Nature of Learning



Alright. Here is one of several pieces on education that I'd like to write about; just to get some ideas out. I want to start off by sharing a video that I worked really hard to find. Watch this video below and think about it for a bit.



I first saw this clip from the controversial movie, Waiting for Superman. The movie, made some coherent points but did more to frustrate many working in the field of education rather then be of help. Other things bothered me about the film, but it was this 20 second clip which destroyed it's legitimacy and perpetuated a view of teaching that I believe is obsolete and harmful. It was this clip, that relegated the film to the many other parties in education reform that talk a lot about what specifically needs to be done but don't have the experiences to know what they're talking about. Others felt similarly about this clip.

Our schools should absolutely be doing much more than having teachers "fill their student's heads with knowledge". This clip espouses what some call a Teacher-Centered classroom and I will use this term for this article. The idea views a teacher as one that transmits knowledge to a student. Little concern is given to what the students are doing during a lesson or what prior knowledge/ experiences they  come in with; they are passive vessels and receive education from a teacher that they need to remember.

This view; and much of our public education, has it's origins industrial era. Schools were viewed as factories, where teachers were workers generating students who were products that should efficiently be produced. This video supports this outmoded view, and I would like to elaborate on what can be termed a "learner centered classroom" which is a more valid lens in which we should view education.

What Drupal training could be
Somewhat silly, but this diagram contrasts a potential learner versus teacher centered classroom

We live in a different age then the industrial era. For the most part, factory jobs in our country, where individuals can work and do much of the same tasks day in and day out to make a living wage are not as available. An "education" is a general requirement to be able to support a family comfortably. We expect an educated workforce. There is thus more of a need for education today then when our public system of education was founded.

Information changes as we learn more about our world. "Facts", one comes to learn, can be factual one day, but be false in others. Pluto isn't a planet anymore; our classification system that we've relied on doesn't seem to fit in places in the light of DNA evidence; historical facts become questioned and picked at when different perspectives emerge. We need to do much more then simply memorize facts if we're to succeed in our educational endeavors. Life changes, facts change and evolve, and we need to be able to handle this. This video elaborates on some of the ideas that follow (and most of my ideas... ok, I stole some of these ideas from these videos) nicely. It's my belief that most teachers (especially elementary) can't predict what the world will be like, and what skills and knowledge base will be necessary when their students graduate.



The infusion of technology has become so immense in the lives of students. Many complain about ADD epidemics, but the realities are that because everything is so much more  instantaneous, there is evidence to support that we can't sit still as long to receive teaching and information. Between the shortened time of movie and television and film scenes, the massive interactivity allowed from computer games, texting, iphones, facebook; the interactivity that is so commonplace OUTSIDE a classroom all lends itself to the idea that the nature of teaching needs to catch up to our modern, technological and quickend world. This video, an animated talk by Phillip Zimbardo, takes a look at the nature of time and education.


There is also an immense diversity in the way students learn. There is evidence that there are rising rates of student's with special needs (partially do to increased diagnosis, but also potentially due to our increased ability to keep kids alive during child birth). How can this teacher centered view accommodate all the different ways kids learn? How can a statement, fact or idea presented by the teacher resonate and connect to all of the different students in our modern classroom? I don't think it can. A teacher-centered classroom, born in an era where standardization was valued for it's efficiency, is utterly unfit for  accommodating all the needs of our learners.

You can see instances where  teachers are barriers if they are the center of their class. Classrooms, I think can be naturally boring environments, lacking the richness of a plot of woods, a science lab, a mechanic shop, some modern day offices, or even a computer with reasonable internet access. There is much a student can learn, but if they are limited to learn to what a teacher can speak or present on, then we're robbing students of their access. Student's need have direct access to powerful instruments of learning which can vary from the millions of possible excellent lessons that have been and can be generated. Teacher's should not be the gate-keeper to learning.




A teacher-centered lesson cannot compete for the richness and power of a good learning tool or student-centered experience. A teacher intending to have their student's master Shakespeare would fail, I believe, if he spent more time lecturing then allowing the student's to read Hamlet. A science teacher that mostly lectures about the behavior of an Amoeba will fail miserably against a lesson in which learners can view and potentially experiment with such a creature. A history teacher only telling students what happened throughout the civil war will lose against student's that have access and supports to primary source readings or multi-media tools reenacting battles and sharing their experiences from the actual time period.

The question of why and to what ends do we educate our populace is a central question when developing our public education system. How People Learn, and Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, which present research and suggestions for human learning are my favorite current resources that explore this question effectively. You can actually read parts of them at least on the previous links. But here are some final thoughts on what needs to be taken into account when deciding on what and how to teach.

A friend of mine is an Architect. He was commenting during lunch about all the frustrating things he notices about ceilings. Lights are put places, clearly without thought, space is not maximized, simple steps to prevent leaks are not taken resulting in a buildup of moisture. They're ugly and do little aesthetically. As an expert in his field, my friend notices all these nuances about something as mundane as a ceiling that the rest of us at our meal clearly don't. Upon noticing these nuances about ceilings, this Architect canoffer up a multitude of ways to design a better ceiling for the same cost. As an Architect, based on his years of experiences and prior knowledge, what he sees in a ceeiling, or an entire room, is exponentially richer then what I can see, and his skill sets to improve, or create a novel design are vast.

My point with this is that we want to develop these mindsets of expertise in our learners so that they have algorithms, schemas and methods to be able to do something, not merely know things. Education needs to not concern itself simply with the amount of facts that our students know, but the way information when conceptualized by the learner, is used.

Students need to be more willing and expected to try and figure things out on their own. They need to not just be told a fact by a teacher and expected to recite enough to remember it correctly on a test. Although a teacher will say "there is no wrong answer", they will more  then happily not value a thought, idea, or hypothesis simply because it doesn't match with our current notions. Teacher's need to put more value not merely on what notions a learner has, but the process they used to come to these ideas. This counts for a lot, as it's what we need as a society to be able to do. Having classes where students are expected to figure things out for themselves (not all the time and not without supports) will give them chances and practice to develop their methods for discovering, for critical thinking and innovation, which are at the very least traits we can bet strongly that are important in our modern economy.

There are more nuanced reasons for this inquiry based education. There is more opportunity for buy-in and meaning if the students drive at least some of their own learning. With supports and good design by the teacher, a student can "buy-in" to their learning more so, and have more meaning when they figure out for themselves what a plant needs to grow, or what is happening when you divide something. The finding a student comes too is more meaningful if they, to some degree figure it out themselves. It also means that what they found is conceptualize and connects with their prior knowledge, whereas a teacher telling facts to students is more likely to have less meaning. Most people don't want endings of movies spoiled for them, and in the same sense, we shouldn't want our educational endeavors spoiled for us.

More crucially, we have to realize that because a student may memorize a set of words, it does not at all means that it meaningfully changed the schema, the imagery, and the actual understanding that they have. Because student's can state "Photosynthesis is the process by which plants convert sunlight, carbon di-oxide, and water into glucose" does not mean they have a conceptual understanding of the process. It's very possible they don't have a meaningful basis for the some of the terminology (CO2 or glucose) semantically, but even more so, they don't have a physical, meaningful experience to back up this statement. My guess would be many students, if asked later on, would say that soil is necessary for plant growth, or believe that water / soil level might decreased as plants grow.

Our learners need to be able to use and transfer their learning to novel situations. They need to be able to take what information and experiences they've had in a learning environment and be able to recognize similar situations out of their original context. We want students, learning probability in a math class, to be able to apply their new skill in a later game of monopoly, or poker, that they would play with their cousin. If student's are developing their understanding of what makes something biotic, versus abiotic, they should be able to apply these definition to novel objects and organisms.

Partially, this solidifies their budding skills, but, if our student's can only demonstrate their understandings in their original context, they can't be useful with these skills in a novel situation like the workplace that they should be entering into. If they are dependent on the teacher for having a set amount of facts presented to them, their outcomes for learning are much more rigid, and transfer less likely.

Our schooling and our populace that affect the nature and direction of our schooling system need to adopt a more learning-centered, more modern view of education, where the purpose of learning focuses on the development of skills, methodologies and processes; where students develop a willingness and enthusiasm for delving into learning experiences independently; where our curriculum focuses in depth in a certain domains of knowledge rather then covering a wider net of facts, and teachers expect their learners to be doing the cognitive heavy work in their learning situation. Contrary to the clip from Waiting for Superman, education in an incredibly complex endeavor. As our world is incredibly complex and changing, how could we expect any less from an education?