The Learning & Development District Scenario
It appears that education as we know it is changing greatly. The findings of Sir
Ken Robinson, along with a retinue of other analysts confirm this idea. When an
observation of this type is made about history, the second question to pose is: how will
the change procedurally occur? The first question is: will we attempt to direct the
change or will we abdicate at the opportunity? If we choose to abdicate, then we
become viewers, not participants, and so the second question need never be posed.
Through long-term inaction, we may end up with disfigured forms of education. General
education may continue to adhere to past methods, just as our supposed 'new world' is
being born. And the main demand of this new world is a new (world) education: all
societies require an initiation. A new global society is being inaugurated; so also must
our systems of education experience a re-founding. Their precepts are antiquated.
Curriculum and modes of delivery reveal a bias toward 20th c. modes of living and
learning, even toward the 19th c. in many instances. Past systems of education have
almost everywhere been founded on pre-suppositions of a national education
framework. How can a re-founding occur upon an emergent logic, which anticipates an
unknown but highly inter-connected global society? Buckminster Fuller argued that until
earnest experimentations in frequent electronic mass-voting begin, we can not be said
to have truly attempted at Democracy. So what of our subject: education? Can it be
argued that our present systems of education arose out of a nationalistic 19th c. Europe
and that until now we are yet to truly experiment with a global education framework
(GEF)? What does a GEF entail? The future delivery of education may become all the
more disadvantaged for being only an alteration of what is already an unfit and
irresponsive system. It is unfit in relation to our novel global reality. It is irresponsive to
the patterns and needs of this global 'New World'.3 If we take action, what risks do we
assume? And what do we stand to gain? It all depends on the nature of our action.
observation of this type is made about history, the second question to pose is: how will
the change procedurally occur? The first question is: will we attempt to direct the
change or will we abdicate at the opportunity? If we choose to abdicate, then we
become viewers, not participants, and so the second question need never be posed.
Through long-term inaction, we may end up with disfigured forms of education. General
education may continue to adhere to past methods, just as our supposed 'new world' is
being born. And the main demand of this new world is a new (world) education: all
societies require an initiation. A new global society is being inaugurated; so also must
our systems of education experience a re-founding. Their precepts are antiquated.
Curriculum and modes of delivery reveal a bias toward 20th c. modes of living and
learning, even toward the 19th c. in many instances. Past systems of education have
almost everywhere been founded on pre-suppositions of a national education
framework. How can a re-founding occur upon an emergent logic, which anticipates an
unknown but highly inter-connected global society? Buckminster Fuller argued that until
earnest experimentations in frequent electronic mass-voting begin, we can not be said
to have truly attempted at Democracy. So what of our subject: education? Can it be
argued that our present systems of education arose out of a nationalistic 19th c. Europe
and that until now we are yet to truly experiment with a global education framework
(GEF)? What does a GEF entail? The future delivery of education may become all the
more disadvantaged for being only an alteration of what is already an unfit and
irresponsive system. It is unfit in relation to our novel global reality. It is irresponsive to
the patterns and needs of this global 'New World'.3 If we take action, what risks do we
assume? And what do we stand to gain? It all depends on the nature of our action.
