The Broken Model chp.2 – Khan

Quotes & Analysis:

“Compulsory, tax-supported public education was seen as a political at least as much as a pedagogical tool, and no apology was made for this. The idea was not to produce independent thinkers, but to churn out loyal and tractable citizens who would learn the value of submitting to the authority of parents, teachers, church, and, ultimately, king….‘the whole system was built on the premise that isolation from first-hand information and fragmentation of the abstract information presented by teachers would result in obedient and subordinate graduates.’”(Khan, 76 / Gatto, 77)

In his opening chapter of this section, Khan begins by presenting his readers with the challenge of imagining that the currently held beliefs and traditions with regard to K-12 education are not inevitable products of some sort of evolutionary pinnacle of pedagogical truth: they are the product of a model of education developed in the 1800’s by Prussia, for the explicit purpose of nurturing an obedient and generically competent society of industrial workers. His use of the quote by Gatto further implicates the Prussian model of education that was adopted in the US in the mid to late 1800’s, unpacking some of its specific features (subject area fragmentation, short subject-periods, emphasis on rote memorization via teacher lecture, etc) tend to intellectually subordinate students and rewards obedience rather than curiosity or individuality.  

“…economic realities no longer favor a docile and disciplined working class with just the basic proficiencies in reading, math, and the liberal arts. Today’s world needs a workforce of creative, curious, and self-directed lifelong learners who are capable of conceiving and implementing novel ideas. Unfortunately, this is the type of student that the Prussian model actively suppresses.” (Khan, 80)

Further exploring the limitations and consequences of our antiquated educational model, here Khan contrasts the intended outcomes of the Prussian model with what he identifies as the imperatives of our modern educational context: among them creativity, individuality, and novel thinking.  Given the challenges global society currently faces – including shifts in climate and resulting human displacement; upheavals in the economy brought on by AI, climate change, and geo-political instability; the rise of authoritarian and fascist ideologies expressing themselves in global politics – we do well to consider the implications of either arming future generations of students with the novel thinking and problem solving skills that can meet such challenges or sticking to the status quo of our current educational models which discourage novel thinking in favor of promoting a “docile and disciplined working class.”

“What are we actually accomplishing when we hand out those A’s and B’s and C’s and D’s? …what we’re not accomplishing is meaningfully measuring student potential…what we’re doing very effectively is labeling kids, squeezing them into categories, defining and often limiting their futures… the troubling fact is that our current system of testing and grading tends to filter out the creative, different-thinking people who are most likely to make major contributions to a field.” (Khan, 93, 98)

Here I have paired two quotes which relate to the disservice that our testing and grading systems impart, both to students as individuals and society. On the individual level, the labeling and limiting outcomes stifle student potential and can create barriers to achieving full self-actualization. On the societal level, by limiting individuals through arbitrary categorizations and classifications we also run the risk of discouraging rather than nurturing the types of thinking which can lead to paradigm shifts in various fields of knowledge. When we study such shifts, we can see that they are often attributable to the work of thinkers who were so bold and imaginative in their approach to novel problems that they are often marginalized or disparaged in their own time, only to be acknowledged as progressive geniuses when the rest of the field catches up to their insights generations later. 

My reflection question: In attempting to imagine major shifts in our education system, a concern that comes up for me is how to ensure innovations are driven by inclusion and equity, rather than tech corporate greed? My fear is that if companies like Google have their way, privatization of K-12 education will lead to some sort of AI driven online streaming service where economics determine access, school will be delivered primarily through a screen and lack human to human interaction, and poor or working-class students will be further disadvantaged: all in the name of liberating us from an outdated education model.

Further Learning: I was able to identify that this chapter came from Salman Khan's 2012 book "The One World Schoolhouse." Here is a link to a Google talk from that same year where they discuss many of the books ideas and the potential impact of Khan academy in general.