Roger Schank’s Post

What about the divergent kids like me? Montessori has figured out a lot of self-directed education issues you describe. The ability to self-direct needs to be supported in education practice. Children are multi-sensory and different paths bring information through those brainpaths that are strongest in each individual whilst continuing to build matter. The current public sshool paradigm was created in the industrial revolution to create young adults who could read and be skilled enough to be better workers. True education was designed for the elite college bound population who often did not attend public school. The format of primary and secondary education has changed little-yet this archaic platform is still funded publicly. Change comes when votes decide the value of a weak education  system should not be funded...or, perhaps the quality of public education will improve dynamically when it is compared to the quality of other countries. Where are we on that list? I think 28th? We hire engineers  and chemist and mathemeticians from India and Pakistan. How have we arrived here? Perhaps it is because of these outdated standards of our education system intended to develop workers with basic skills. Here we are with the best science and technological advancement being developed by an educated populace in American post secondary institutions who are often not American. I say this puts at risk our National sovereignity. Who is designing the software on our satellites? There are big issues that Bill Gates in his well-intended philanthropy has not addressed.  Public education needs to direct its goals beyond testing for core skill outcomes. Education is the great economic leveler, the question is...Is education designed in the U.S. to be the plaform to for the U.S. to continue as an economic leader if our monetary foundation is in the minds of our people, not in Fort Knox? I dare not say. There are so many great methodologies to produce better education outcomes. Children are not born to be chained to desks. This is a contrivance of  dictatorial Victorian educators who enjoy a pulpit. Mr. Schank I believe you can start an education revolution...Pods. universal design, self-direction, multisensory learning. What would you like to do? 

How about the impact that assigning such labels might have on kids, isn’t that too early to put them into boxes and telling them which “type” they are? Same concern as with personality types (MBTI and such), except that this may have much bigger impact at this young age.

Just like your "toy truck" curriculum idea many years ago, this is a brilliant insight. However, the common-core seems to be more an instrument of measurement rather than learning.

When do we change Roger Schank

There seem to be more didactic claims in your post than Socratic questioning of the systems you are proposing to critique. This leaves us with questions. Based on which learning principles are you making your claims to organize teaching in this way? Where was it tested? Do you have citations? Who came up with the categorizations, or labels you want to assign to your learners? How will your idea lead to better outcomes? Why use Bill Gates as a thinker to look to for ideas on learning? Can we not find great educational development specialists to quote from? Will separating into pods create a natural hierarchy, or tribalism? What are the long term effects of this kind of learning? How will we teach diversity of perspective for problem solving if each pod has its own project type? Sadly, I am left with more questions than answers in resolving common core with this tack, but glad you are stirring the pot of conversation.

Intersting post. Thank you. this touches on the ideas of 'communities of practice', 'action learning groups', 'peer-peer' learning etc - all of which are well-documented in academic literature. The trick seems to be in how they may be combined, used or encouraged, and unfortunately many well-meaning initiatives try to 'deliver' them using sage-on-the-stage pedagogy. The idea of 'types' is akin to #belbin Team Roles which suggest that there are nine naturally occurring team role 'types' that we tend to fall into when working with others. No team role is any 'better' than any other and research shows that in order for groups/teams to work successfully together a mix of roles is required, not parity. I have used Belbin with learners of all ages as is brings about self-realisation, promotes self-worth, acknowledges difference and encourages groups to learn about each other as well as any topic or task. Is Belbin perfect? No it is not. Is is the only way? No it is not? But there are excellent parallels to Rodgers suggestions so let's keep sharing knowledge and insight. Jo Keeler Lisa Ward

I like the homogenous pod idea to build critical mass...all boats rise per the same tide. I would caution though it is essential the rule breaker spend some time in the helper pod and puzzle solver in the performer pod. Range is a life hack and the broader one's experience and exposure to ways of making sense of the world different than one's own, the better able they will be to deal with the increasing complexity of life.

Great idea to organize pods around kid types! Another idea is to keep the pods, with a recognition of these types, and use student’s individual strengths & differences during problem-based learning (PBL) projects to help them learn 21st century skills like teamwork, effective communication with diverse others, empathy, adaptive leadership with humility, etc.

I sure wish my early schooling had supported me in my differences from the mean. Can “our school system” do it? Better ask, was this Coal-Age monster ever intended to confer such a benefit? Pods? Deck chairs!

Interesting perspective! They can be productive and powerful when they understand that it truly does take all types of people to make things work!