In this video, Seth Grodin asks us to reflect on the question, "What is school for?" He asserts that we should ask this question at every step when we make choices about how to reform education. He posits that school's central purpose used to be to teach obedience and respect, to create conformist future workers who would be prepared to work in an industrial economy in which they were expected merely to take orders and follow instructions. Grodin suggests that knowing merely knowing how to follow orders is not valued in the modern workplace, which now seeks workers who can create, innovate, and think for themselves. Moreover, schools that teach students to memorize facts are doing them a disservice; with today's technology, students can quickly and easily look up any fact they want to know.
With that background, Grodin offers educators some provocative recommendations about reforming schools in ways that reflect the technological and economic changes of the last few decades. These include:
(1) Let students watch world-class lectures online at night, and dedicate class time to student work under the guidance of the classroom teacher.
(2) Tests should be open book, open notes all the time. Students should not be memorizing facts.
(3) Students should work cooperatively, not in isolation.
(4) Education should be precisely tailored to each student, not one-size-fits-all.
(5) Get rid of textbooks. They are boring. Let students read something interesting.
On some points, I agree with Grodin whole-heartedly. School should not be organized around the central principle of training students to be obedient. In my own teaching, I do not establish numerous arbitrary classroom rules. I believe in being flexible, and treating students with mutual respect and understanding. I also agree with Grodin that memorization should not be a central feature of teaching (except perhaps in world languages classes, because quick recall of words and language features is essential to smooth communication). I also embrace Grodin's view that assessments should be open book and open notes. In my own teaching, I try to create assessments that primarily measure students' critical thinking skills. I also avoid reliance on textbooks, and choose readings that are engaging and that allow students to develop their own perspectives about historical events and people.
Where I disagree with Grodin is on idea that students should watch online lectures at home at night, and then do homework in class. Online lectures, even of they are very good, are not interactive. In-class group instruction, if delivered properly, should involve extensive interaction between educators and students. If education is to be precisely tailored to each student, as Grodin advocates, then students need the chance to interact extensively (and in person) with both educators and peers.