Khan One World Schoolhouse Writeup
Khan One World Schoolhouse Writeup
Khan One World Schoolhouse Writeup
Print.
Salman Khan, innovator of the Khan Academy education site online (www.khanacademy.com) has
written a book that raises some great questions for educators. Perhaps the best thing is that he has
generated these questions as an "outsider" to education, not within the professional ranks. I believe
that his answers are spot on in places and in others, misguided. I think some of his historical
investigation into the sources of our current problems are too shallow, but he still paints a clear picture
of where we are.
I initially entered this book with low expectations. I was pleasantly surprised by how much I agreed with
the author. I am not a one given to technology, though I do use it when I have to. I expected someone
who was the founder of such a huge online product as The Khan Academy to press the technology a lot
more than he does. Thus I am taking the time to give the book a decent review, because he raises some
great questions.
Teaching Nadia
"Quicker isn't necessarily smarter and slower definitely isn't dumber. Further, catching on quickly isn't
the same as understanding thoroughly. So the pace of learning is a question of style, not relative
intelligence. The tortoise may very well end up with more knowledge --- more useful, lasting knowledge
--- than the hare." (p. 20)
Mastery Learning
"At its most fundamental, mastery learning simply suggests that students should adequately
comprehend a given concept before being expected to understand a more advanced one." (p. 37)
"...personal responsibility is not only undervalued but actually discouraged by the standard classroom
model, with its enforced passivity and rigid boundaries of curriculum and time. Denied the opportunity
to make even the most basic decisions about how and what they will learn, students stop short of full
commitment." (p. 43)
Questioning Customs
"Entire industries and some of our very largest professions depend on the persistence of our current
[educational] system. Other social institutions - like giant publishers and test-prep companies - are
synched to its workings...Thus the powerful tend to have a bias toward the status quo." (p. 63)
He argues at some length against classical education on the basis of two ills: it is elitist and it looks down
upon anything practical. I can argue both of these out the door, so did not really catch me. (pp. 67f.)
Tracking Creativity
Main point here is that testing cannot measure the intangibles, such as creativity. He sees the confusion
of "arts and sciences" without saying it as such. I view the confusion of arts and sciences to be one of
the most difficult aspects of modern education.
He spends sometime on intuition which is flavored along the lines of James Taylor's Poetic Knowledge,
though Taylor does a much longer and better job of dealing with it. Without poetic knowledge,
creativity is hamstrung.
Homework
Believes as I do that much homework is pointless because it is purposeless.
Nice distinction between rigor that comes from quantity vs from quality.
Blames a lot on Sputnik
"The answer, I think, lies not in the perceived virtues of homework but rather in the clear deficiencies of
what happens in the classroom. Homework becomes necessary because not enough learning happens
during the school day. Why is there a shortage of learning during the hours specifically designed for it?
Because the broadcast, one-pace-fits-all lecture - the technique that is at the very heart of our standard
classroom model - turns out to be a highly inefficient way to teach and learn." (p. 114)
Embracing Uncertainty
Main point - the idea that education prepares us for a making a living is inadequate to reality. In reality,
65% (p. 179) of the world's children starting grade school this year will be working at jobs that don't
even exist at the moment. So education should teach children to learn, not just how to earn a living.
My Background as a Student
Here he relates his experience at MIT:
"We soon became acquainted with some upperclassmen who were taking eight or nine courses a term
(about double the typical MIT student's already rigourous course load), and who challenged us to take
extra courses as well. Without doubt, these guys were bright, but not freakishly so; their argument, in
fact, was that any of us - not just at MIT but at every high school and university - should be able to
handle twice as many courses if we avoided the seat time and simply pursued whatever actually helped
us learn. There was no hocus-pocus here, no miracle shortcuts to academic success. It took discipline
and work, quite a lot of each. But the idea was to work effectively, naturally, and independently." (p.
188)
Redefining Summer
Calls for us to abolish the agrarian schedule of school. He has my full agreement here.