Some high rollers, a lot of money, permission to experiment on students, a charter school rubric--has anyone even considered how sustainable such a plan is?
I think what is really going on here is the birth of a new model for schools that fits connective, networked students alongside a teacher who represents a new breed--"questioner, facilitator and reflective agent." I can only guess what a reflective agent is, but I think I try to be both a questioner and facilitator in my changing role of teacher as learning concierge.
But I have to ask again, where is Plan B for the rest of us. And where is the continuous training and reflection that is needed to become the teacher they describe? I think this is a trojan horse to use public education as a tool of larger forces. Wouldn't Bill Gates just love a system that churned out lots of workers who were very narrowly capable of jumping right into the new corporate assembly line? What makes this any different than the industrial model we have pursued over the last century?
And they cloak themselves with all the right cloth--Common Core, STEM, "classroom of the future", and charter school-dom. All I can ask is that you follow the money like Andrew Miller in this article and ask yourself, "What do Bill Gates, AT&T, and Lucien Vattel (executive director of Game Desk) really want? What have they always wanted?"
GameDesk By Andrew Miller GameDesk, an organization that's developing a variety of game-based learning initiatives, is venturing into new terrain wi...