In another post on YPP, I discussed how the current model of public education is stuck in the industrial era- how, as Rabbi Stone put it, the best thing which could happen to the Philadelphia public schools would be to go back 50 years. I then said that we need to create a new model of public schooling for the post-industrial, information era. I wondered whether or not Microsoft's High School of the Future in West Philadelphia was such a model, and made an aside about how I would prefer an open source model- an aside which I noted was more than merely a gratuitous jab at Microsoft.

I'd like to pursue the metaphor of open source schooling a bit. To begin with, we need to define our terms. Open source programming is easiest to define in contrast to closed source programming, so let's define the latter first. Closed source programming is where the source code is accessible only to the people who write it, who own it, or who pay for the privilege. Microsoft products are a perfect example of the closed source model: if you ever read the End User Licensing Agreement which comes with any MS product, you'll see that it explicitly forbids you from reverse-engineering or decompiling the product so that you can have a look at it. It's very much a black box model: you see what comes in and what comes out, but you have no idea what happens in the meantime. Diebold's voting machines used closed source code; we have no idea how the votes are tallied internally. I note this because, in 2004, only the states which had Diebold voting machines wound up with official counts that diverged from the exit polls.

In open source programming, by contrast, anyone can see the source code- it's published, and free to modify. People refer to open source as having a copyleft as opposed to a copyright- you can edit the code to your heart's content, and even sell the fruits of your labor, provided you keep the code accessible to all. Some of the most famous open source products are the linux operating system- in all its iterations- and the OpenOffice.org office suite. The Drupal system on which YPP runs is also open source. To refer back to the Diebold voting machines, if they had used open source coding, people who found the 2004 results suspicious could have inspected the code to try and ascertain why the official counts disagreed so wildly from the exit polls. But, since they were closed source, this inspection was not an option.

Now that we have defined open and closed source, how could we apply this metaphor to education? I suggest that the standard, industrial-age model of education used today- strict class structure, divided by subject matter, a teacher lecturing in front of the class, kids snoring at the back of the class- is the closed source model. Why is it used? Because it's always been used. Textbooks? Well, there's your closed source software: you get them, you unwrap them, and you use them. In most classrooms, the textbooks determine the class' content.

As I posted, this is no longer a viable system. More to the point, I think that most of us can agree that some of the most boring classes we had were the ones which were taught in the most 'traditional'- closed source- way, and that the most interesting ones were taught by teachers who strayed from the model a bit. I recall a HS history teacher who made a point of tying current events into history so that we could see more clearly how learning the past helped us better-understand the present. I recall my HS calculus teacher who had no problem with my dozing off in class- provided I could solve a calculus equation on the board if he asked me to do so (I did- I used to be reasonably bright as a kid). I would suggest that these are teachers who are adding open source techniques to a dead closed source system.

But how would we define open source education? I gave one example above: current events are an exceptional teaching tool. Primary sources are another: there's no better history book than the actual historical documents. Kids could study Thomas Paine's or Benjamin Franklin's writings on the American Revolution, or the Federalist Papers to understand the Constitution. They could read Lenin's "What is to Be Done" while studying the Russian Revolution. And they could read history's first drafts: newspapers from various historical periods.

Science lends itself quite well to open source education, because science really needs to be taught in an open source method: you get your hands dirty, burn yourself with a bunsen burner, blow up a few things, get a few mild electrical shocks, dissect a frog, and, in the end, you learn a bit about applied physics, chem, bio, etc. Ditto math: you can't learn without doing the work. For sciences + math, the job of the teachers is quite simple: give the students the tools they need to learn by doing. This is the essence of open source education.

Open source literature? Simple: give the kids a stack of books, + tell them to come back at the end of the semester with a stack of papers. OK, maybe not that simple, but that's the essence of it. Don't use a textbook which tells them what to learn out of each book: let them discover it on their own. If they need help- with the grammar, with the vocabulary, perhaps with the historical or scientific context- that's where the teachers come into play. It's also where you break down the barriers between subjects.

Another fact: not all kids are college material. This isn't to say that they're stupid- not even close. But not all kids *need* to go to college to make a living. Plumbers, electricians, roofers, mechanics- these are the kinds of jobs with which a person can make a decent living, and which can't be outsourced overseas. What are you going to do when your sink leaks, call a plumber from India? I don't think so- you need someone here. Unfortunately, we're closing vocational-technical programs- both as independent schools and as programs in comprehensive high schools- at precisely the time when they're most necessary. Open source vo-tech education is simple: apprenticeship programs. Have the schools provide basic training in the various fields, and then arrange programs with the various skilled trade unions- electricians, plumbers, etc.- to have kids of 16 years of age and older go out to work with a mentor- and be paid to learn on the job. This achieves three goals: keeping the kids in school, giving them new job skills, + getting them a job which pays decently while they're in school, + a lot better than a McJob after they finish. Learn by doing: that may be the essence of open source education.

The key to open source education- indeed, the key to post-industrial era education- needs to be teaching kids how to make a living in the 21st century. They need to graduate high school with the intellectual tools or professional skills necessary to make a living. I welcome more discussion of this concept, since I can think of few things which matter more for the future of the United States than how we educate generations to come.

Teach our children well,
-Z