In Response to Ian Juke's Paper

Dear Ian
I found your paper very enlightening with respect to its ability to laconically address what is without a doubt some of the major challenges facing educators in the 21st century – What do we teach? Where do we teach? How do we teach it? Why do we teach it? I believe that the main focus of education, in the 21st century, needs to be on a new skill acquisition – critical thinking skills. And coupled with this, in order to address what you have touched upon we need to deal with the legacy, left over from the 'Industrial Revolution', that of authority.

When individuals moved away from an agrarian, cottage based industry, to one of an industrial based society there would have been an expectation on those engaged in society to undertake their daily tasks so that those tasks reflected the dominate view within society. That dominate view was later promulgated, within the education system, to ensure that all members of that society maintained their status within their respective positions. Hence, children were seen and not heard, the man was the head of the household etc. all of these viewpoints emphasized how each individual was to conduct themselves within society and thereby, ensure the smooth running of that society. Individuals acquired skills to survive in this new world and the most seminal skill was the one of 'follow orders and don't question those in authority'. It has been this skill that for the past 200 years has had a major influence on the way in which we teach. The concept of authority, for example, implies that one needs to have someone who has the answers, so that we in the sub – servant role can be assured that for every situation there is an appropriate response – the right answer but not quite possibly the correct one.

However, that response was articulated by the authority figure who was in the eyes of those under them omnipotent. Hence, all knowledge, understanding and most importantly the evaluator of information was the authority. Teachers have, like the authority that created their working environment, attempted to maintained and in some cases substantiate this view for nearly 200 years. However, with the decline of authority we have also witnessed the decline of teachers because their role has under gone a metamorphosis but instead of reinventing itself teaching has become more of a catalysts attempting to engage in the change but unfortunately in doing so has failed to undergo change itself. As a consequence the survival skill, of follow orders and don't question authority, that was developed within the Industrial Revolution no longer has a place in the 21st century Information Age society. Why is that the case? Well I believe it is because of technology. Technology that allows for
1.
the rapid acquisition of information without the need to have to be constrained by the barriers that confronted the workers of the Industrial Revolution – a building.

The Industrial Revolution created cities and therefore, the buildings that housed the individuals who worked in the factories that helped to man the factories that created the cities that built the buildings that housed the individuals who worked in the factories, and so it goes on. The problem for us is that we have this fixation with buildings – Why? Because it is a legacy of the Industrial Revolution. Schools by their construction, a big bunch of buildings, are therefore apart of that legacy and are viewed as a continuation of authority. The 'White House', Parliament House' these are two buildings that represent, by the very nature of their appellations, a extension of authority that is present in those who occupy each building based on the previous occupants. Which in some cases, like the White House, could extend back 300 years. Schools are not dis – similar 'The High Grove Academy for Young Women' or 'The Geelong Boy's Grammar School' all reflect this notion of authority. Whilst the names indicate who attends these institutions the buildings, associated with these institutions, represent a long tradition of success and continued development. The problem that we encounter here is, 'How do we mesh the long and very successful history of institutions, that have over the centuries delivered, via the assembly line, their graduates with a 21st century society?' Clearly, we need to look at, 'How we teach' and 'What we teach'.

What we need to teach is critical thinking skills. The key areas of literacy and numeracy are directly linked to the acquisition of critical thinking. Critical thinking entails looking at the world from all types of perspectives and then attempting to make sense of what you have learnt. Its about asking 'why?' and not just simply accepting the first answer that you get but rather exploring and investigating further. Once we start moving in to this realm we begin to encroach on authority; to question without thought is not really questioning it is simply a way in which individuals approach authority. The 1960s highlighted this when people began to question authority. Whilst they may have undertaken to encourage change, with respect to authority, we still find that, for example, governments continued to spread false information. By simply asking 'Why?' to a question does not guarantee that you will get the correct answer.

Finally, how we teach needs to, as I've outlined previously, reflect a movement away from
2.

the lecture style that many teachers employ. To assist in the development of critical thinking skills we need to move towards a teacher facilitator approach with a view to eventually one that is totally student centered. The development of a student centered approach will culminate in creating an environment that will in effect be the point at which the Industrial Revolution's legacy of authority will no longer exist, in the form that it originally took 200 years ago. Without the ability to undertake critical thinking individuals will continue to be trapped in the lock step approach to education and the constraints that such an narrow approach as on society.

Regards,
Tony