Toymakers and Textbook Publishers In a Race to Keep Up with Those Pesky Astronomers

Could an extra planet mean that your kid's textbook is no longer valid? And what about their super-planetary decoder ring?

Quick tangent:  I've always wondered where all the old Soviet or East German history books went soon after the wall came down.  Imagine, a huge percentage of what your history teacher told you -- for at least a generation or more -- was to be radically re-written due to larger social/political movements afoot.  How much of their history had to be re-written?  Did parents and kids no longer agree on the 'facts'?  And did the past matter or was the focus so much more focused on the future...or simply did most feel 'frozen' between worlds? 

[Note: I have literally NO facts to back me up in the sense that I witnessed a single textbook thrown away or re-written; more of a thinking exercise or premise to explore; would love anyone's thoughts on this as both a literal question about history and a philosophical inquiry]

And now back to our regularly scheduled post about the addition of a few planets.  Well, according to a plan by leading astronomers, perhaps the rest of us will be joining in the rush by tossing our own science books (and a few super-space-alien-planet-universe toys) over our shoulders as we quickly try to come into the modern age:

The idea that our nine-planet solar system may soon join the obsolete world of eight-track tapes and slide rules should send science teachers, textbook writers and toymakers back to the cosmic drawing board.

"Does it make our products obsolete?" asked Kim McLynn, spokeswoman for Illinois-based Learning Resources, which makes an inflatable solar system and a Planet Quest game. "Wow, a whole new universe."

Though not approved yet, the 76-year-old lineup of the solar system's planets would grow to 12 under a proposal by leading astronomers. Their recommendation will be decided by a vote of the International Astronomical Union on Aug. 24.

For me, this has a lot less to do with planets.  Fascinating as that may be, the real uptake for me is the simple premise that in this day and age, even the 'absolutes', the 'universals', the 'pretty solidly proven facts' are up for grabs...and no expert (let alone teacher or textbook) can keep up with the intensification of information.  Or expect their kids to be 'learning' via memorization.

Teaching kids to memorize even the 9 planets suddenly seems silly.  Will 2+2 be far behind it?  Like being a modern day buggy whip manufacturer standing on the side of the LA Expressway?  (Okay, a slight exaggeration, but I'm feeling that groove tonight...)

But teaching them 'how to think', 'how to reasearch', 'how to question', 'how to evaluate'...well, planets or no planets, perhaps then they have a pretty decent chance of absorbing information at the speed of the future.

Comments

[Andrew Pass]

Christian, As knowledge continues to change much faster than it has ever before changed, it becomes increasingly obvious that the purpose of school should not be to fill students with knowledge. Isntead, its purpose should be to teach students how to think and develop their own knowledge based upon a foundation of ideas and principles. Now, clearly there are certain facts that are not going to change, such as the Great Books. But when students read the Great Books they should read them for the purpose of learning how to think about different ideas and new insights. Here's a question how should the physical space of a school that promotes knowledge creation and refinement through the use of critical thinking skills be different than a school that promotes the acquisition of knowledge. (Here's one suggestion: perhaps the first type of school should be more flexible, allowing both teachers and students to move walls and rearrange them in formats that make sense. Maybe the walls are a metaphor for ideas. Perhaps the view from the classrooms should be more inspiring, trees and bushes, maybe a garden that students can plant but that continuously changes form through the different seasons just as knowledge changes form. You are the expert, what do you think?)

Andrew Pass
http://www.Pass-Ed.com/blogger.html

[Christian]

Andrew, your comment early on reminds me of what came to mind immediately when I replied to Diana's comment about the Florida bill; while Jeb and Florida might disagree with you, I echo your sentiments that the purpose of school is not to fill a kid with facts. Clarity: a school of the 1950's or 1850's was,...but not of the 21st century. Fully agree with you!

Interesting point about the Great Books. The 'fact' is that they exist. "Great" is not a fact; it's a subjective phrase; but the existence of the collection of works by Plato, Shakespeare, Marx (what, a Commie snuck in the list? Tell Florida to get this guy off and replace him with a 'factual' writer, instead!) is a 'fact'. The 'value' of the Great Books, however, has nothing to do with facts, esp. with half of them being works of fiction in the first place (you mean that Homer fella didn't write all the 'facts' about that old Greek War? Well, he's off the Florida list, too!).

You wrote (and it caused me to smile): "Here's a question how should the physical space of a school that promotes knowledge creation and refinement through the use of critical thinking skills be different than a school that promotes the acquisition of knowledge." Bravo! If you get a second, go to this link and check out Nair/Fielding's book called "The Language of School Design: Design Patterns for the 21st Century" http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0976267004/ref=dp_olp_2/002-6095507-8011261?ie=UTF8&redirect=true&condition=all -- or go to Amazon and look it up. You'll find true experts in school design who will fully agree with you and take you down the rabbit hole of promise and show you what it actually looks like. You'll love what they have to show you around the world!