This past week quite a few educators I follow online attended the Educon (search #educon in Twitter) conference in Philadelphia. Even more attended virtually from their computers using their slick website and Elluminate. I found just watching the folks I know already via Twitter was a cool enough way to see what was going on. Among the things that popped out was this diagram from David Warlick.
Picture it: a bunch of educators are in a room trying to define what “smart” is. No, not the boards, but the concept as it relates to school. One of the suggestions that really pops-out for me is the concept of smart being “specialization” and something you follow because you are “passionate.” When you think about it, successful people (also something that appears in the diagram) are also passionate. I am sure one is likely to find exceptions to this, but generally speaking, people who find success in life find something they are passionate about.
Which, of course, brings up some good questions.
- Should school be organized in the “liberal arts” tradition where students can experience a variety of learning experiences in the spirit of becoming well-rounded?
- Should school be specialized so that students can gain fast expertise in one area they show early interest?
It seems to me that American schools better embrace the first option, despite the fact that almost all the learning experiences we have in school are very similar, i.e., we learn about the world passively in rows of chairs, guided by a expert-mentor. While the second one scares me, because I can’t imagine a fourth grader, let’s say, know what area of specialization he/she needs, it is the model prevalent in other cultures. My good friend who attended school in China through college didn’t choose his area of study. His schooling filtered him through into a world of finance, then eventually economics. The two areas of employ he expressed interest in early on was a theatrical performer and a librarian. While a successful economist today, and generally referred to as “smart,” I can’t say he’s necessarily passionate about his field. One example, of course doesn’t make a rule.
I can only imagine why all these educators gathered together to discuss “smart”ness. As educators, we often use the term. “This is a smart group,” or “she’s a smart one!” Does it mean they earn good grades? Does it mean they seem to be successful at what they attempt to accomplish? Does it mean they exhibit a passion about their pursuit of knowledge?
I am not sure any of this matters. We can’t change what people think about the term smart anymore than changing their minds about big social issues. What does matter here is that we ought to be looking for students who haven’t found a passion in life and help guide them on a path to find it. It need not be a prescription for the rest of their schooling, but it may help them grow intellectually. I know kids who don’t find something they are interested in are often bored, over-challenged, or un-motivated in our schools. Whether or not we’re following path #1 or path #2 here in the U.S., we ought to be flexible enough to both provide more specialized instruction that caters to the interests of students and maintains the best facets of a liberal arts education.
Doing so will be expensive. Not doing so will be more expensive and detrimental.