M.Ed. Thesis

Rather than comment on a M.Ed. thesis from the library, I wanted to talk about a point in the discussion about the M.Ed. thesis in the classroom.  I asked whether or not the M.Ed. thesis had any effect on the education system and was given a very vague response, one that seemed to say, no, the M.Ed. thesis, no matter how interesting the results, has little to no effect on the classroom.

Every teacher in every class I have taken this year - and I've taken ten - has urged me, along with my fellow education candidates to change the classroom when we become teachers.  They urge us to be creative and dynamic individuals, to develop new forms of assessment that address our students' individual interests and strengths, and to remake the classroom and the education system through revolution instead of reform.  So far, only one teacher has shown me what differentiated classroom actually looks like; the rest of my teachers have insisted that I keep my head down for the first few years of teaching because I will be powerless to change the system.  I asked them when I should change the system, and then couldn't give me a straight answer. 

It isn't that my teachers are wrong.  The education system is in need of something.  That something is not reform, according to Sir Ken Robinson, who states, "[Reform] [is] not enough.  Reform is no use anymore, because that's simply improving a broken model.  What we need...is not evolution but a revolution.  This [Education] has to be transformed into something else."  Robinson's revolution begins with society; he argues that as a whole, society must accept education's inability to predict success and happiness.  The education system works for some, he argues, but certainly not for all and most assuredly not for the majority.  Second, Robinson claims that we need to start respecting the creativity of our students and fostering that creativity rather than crush it.  He doesn't provide any explanation as to how we can accomplish either of these first stages of the revolution.  Three plausible explanations are as follows: 1) he assumes that his audience knows how both of these mini-revolutions are to be handled, 2) he assumes that each of these mini-revolutions are going to manifest themselves differently for each person, or 3) he has no idea how these mini-revolutions are to take place, but he certainly loves talking about them.

No matter what his response, Sir Ken's Robinson's idea of revolution is indicative of the rather slippery state revolution exists in.  In speech and in theory, revolution is a romantic ideal: men and women toppling heinous dictators and ideologies, moving society from the broken ideas of the past to the new, better ideas of the future.  In reality, revolution requires any number of things: a charismatic leader is a good place to start, one who has ties to the system they wish to change and to society as a whole; support is another, while the final two ingredients to a revolution are being in the right place at the right time.  An awful lot of luck also helps, but it's not integral.  Even with all these facets, real revolution is rarely ever as shiny and as glossy as speeches make it appear.  Revolutions are hard work and great ideas put into action, ideas that are often only great in retrospect. 

The M.Ed. theses in the library are the same as Sir Ken Robinson's speech: they're all great ideas with a lot of revolutionary potential in them, but none of them are ever given the chance to take effect on the education system.  Here is statistical evidence that the system is broken and needs improvement, but no one in the system wants to hear it or use the knowledge.  Educators are great reformers, but we have a long way to go before we're revolutionaries.  The first step would be to start taking advice from M.Ed. students and doctoral candidates and put their knowledge into action.