One narrow train of thought I've been exposed to is that the purpose for school is that it should be a place in which we skill children in things that don’t come naturally for humans. Things that are hard to learn, that biology and natural selection hasn’t had the opportunity to build into our DNA. Coding and decoding language, understanding scientific methods and mastering mathematical principles are not passed down genetically. Evolutionary processes take much longer timelines than the speed in which the human species has dominated the planet. These 'basics' must be taught, and schools are the place to do this, is the train of thought.
The implication for this seemingly logical idea means what can be learned through our genetic code should be left to nature. This includes artistic abilities, fostering curiosity, creativity and collaboration. What this does is reinforces the established hierarchy placing literacy and numeracy at the top, and creative endeavours elsewhere. Some even suggest that schools should not get distracted by ‘the easier stuff’ and focus only on the subjects at the top of this hierarchy. This is another False Dichotomy prevalent through my career in education.
There is an opportunity here though. Literate and numerate does not rule out curiosity and creativity. These things are not mutually exclusive. High reading levels in prep, or ‘A’s on a report card for mathematics are measures in themselves that don’t mean that much in life.
What I believe is needed are school leaders willing to be courageous in starting to change the narrative about schooling. This requires them to be learners, to challenges their own mindsets, to enable Meso Level Activity in their schools and our education system, and in doing this, Finding Courage to experiment, to challenge the status quo.
Next: Finding Courage
DOT FROM preview-next-diagram STATIC strict digraph {rankdir=LR