Form should follow function!

     In Chapter 4, Heidi Jacobs makes excellent arguments for 'dumping the box' of our current schools and creating new learning environments. I think it only follows if we constantly say our learners of today are different (digital natives) and that they actually think differently than most of us 'digital immigrants'. Often the design of our schools today make me feel as though we are trying to fit a round peg into a square hole. Most of our students are much more tech-savvy than we are and I would certainly not know about Instagram, Snapchat, or other popular apps if it were not for my high school students keeping me up to date.  That said, I do also think it is our job to teach them ways to be ethical and appropriate with their digital footprint. Perhaps this is where the tech generation can learn from the etiquette generation. We were taught how to politely answer a phone, properly shake a hand and look someone in the eye as you greet them, and wait your turn in a conversation. All these things are still important in this very tech-savvy world and I find that it is no longer taught at home around the dinner table (perhaps because even the concept of the whole family sharing a meal together is rare too.). But I digress...

     "To move our school structures into more open, fluid, and correspondingly inventive forms, we need new forms, not reform. ...Arguably, a pivotal reason why schools have such difficulty functioning is because decisions regarding any one of these factors are made in separation from the others" (p.62). This seems to be the greatest hurdle in education- the people that need to be talking to each other and making these decisions are NEVER at the table together! And I mean that as a proverbial table if need be- in this day and age there is no reason that group from even different countries can't be 'at the same table' via Skype, Google Hangout or Go-to-Meeting. It seems to me that our state and federal laws are still from the original industrial age where educating the masses seemed a daunting task. Well, we are far beyond that ladies and gentlemen, and it is time to find a new 'box'. It seems that there is a disjunct between the institutional grouping designs and the instructional grouping designs. I wonder how different our schools might look if we asked teachers how they would love to teach if they could, if we asked students how they would like to learn if they could, and then designed the structures based on that information? I imagine, the 'walls' would be very different, if they existed at all. Unfortunately, our state laws will only pay for certain footage of a room based on student enrollment, and our graduation rates are determined by those students that actually enter high school and graduate within exactly four years. These boxes needed to be scratched and as Heidi Jacobs says, we need to find NEW ones! 

    However, I do recognize after over 20 years in and around education, change comes all too slowly. And while I believe there are changes that need to be made, there are some very effective and successful programs working within our current structures.  Those need to be maintained or carried along to new designs. So, like yoga, I guess there needs to be a balance- hold onto to the parts, like hands-on educational designs, dynamic grouping in elementary and middle school, career development, and many others, while we consider what the future 'school' might be.