Rationalizing Those “Irrational” Fears of inBloom
Audrey Watters

How Do You Create the Future?

I bet inBloom supporters would acknowledge a challenging history but would respond that we just need to do more and better this time; just give it some tweaks. No! A deeper level of analysis is needed that links varied concerns expressed by Audrey above. We can never reach the next level of education by bolting computer science on to recent failed practices. They must be rethought from the ground up based on a historical understanding of education and pedagogy. Current data and evidence-based conceptions of education are not reasonably linked to how teachers grow the next Hamiltons, Emersons, or even to recognize the next Einsteins. Current conceptions of educational science are leading to too many (as Michael Inzlicht puts it) false or even absurd hypotheses and programs. Current conceptions are viewed with blinders of scientific ideology. We need to reasonably link history with the future. Where would we find other approaches? Likely not in the current literature. As John Sowa says:

. . . major breakthroughs are most likely to come from unpopular sources, either because they’re so new that few people know them, so old that most people have forgotten them, or so unfashionable that nobody looks at them. (Sowa, 2006, p.12)

I’ve tried to be appropriately unfashionable here.

Do you have any ideas about the creating the future of Ed and Ed Tech?