The World is Sort of Like Montana

After reading much of what Thomas L. Friedman had to say in the third edition of his book "The World is Flat," I am struck by the specificity with which he hones in his very board, but very powerful thesis.  As he states in the Introduction, "Whenever you opt for a big metaphor like 'The World is Flat,' you trade a certain degree of academic precision for a much larger degree of explanatory power." (Friedman 2007)  It is clear that such a title allows for limitless imagination, exposition and originality.  Friedman does not fall short.

The first of the three "learning/insights" that I picked up from the reading was based around the first of the ten, "Forces that Flattened the World," Flattener #1...The New Age of Creativity: When the Walls Came Down and the Windows Went Up.  Here Friedman discusses the power of common standards in the world of technology.  With these common standards, people were able to meet at the same level, author their own work, and become participants in a global shared experience.  The microcosm of this idea, when placed in the classroom, could be channeled through the use of rubrics in grading any subject.  Very simply, this places students on a level playing field.  As a co-teacher of mine stated recently, "I want and believe that if my students follow the directions I give them, my students will earn themselves an A."  The expectation is no lower.  The rubric and/or the directions are not a standard that one must superceded in order to move to the top.  They are standards that allows for a sense of community and commonality in a group of individuals however large or small. Rubrics allow this same sense of achievement by giving all students open expectations and standards.

In the sub-section entitled: Flattener #2, The New Age of Connectivity: When the Web Went Around and Netscape Went Public, I was able to connect Friedman's larger thought regarding the inter-webbing of different servers, programs, and web-based communication, with the inter-webbing of different subjects within one child's curriculum.  As a writer and a Humanities-based academic, I firmly believe in the concept of "Writing Across the Curriculum."  At my place of work, during our summer orientation before this fall school year began, we discussed how best to weave this into our classes.  I have the added benefit of teaching several subjects (English, Literature, Social Studies and Science) across one grade, and as a result I have been given the opportunity to make connections across subject-lines that are normally not crossed.  Just this week in Science class we began discussing Natural Disasters, and more specifically, Volcanoes.  Pompeii inevitably arose in conversation.  The fascination and questions flew, and as I spun around on my stool in the middle of the room, trying to field each curious question with careful thought, I realized that we were beginning to discuss the building of early cities in their Ancient History class that same week.  A class where Pompeii's social structure, economy and geography could easily be incorporated into the curriculum.  In addition, on my run along the Charles River this evening, I found myself looking into Boston's Museum of Science and seeing a huge sign for the "Pompeii Exhibit" that was to be on display until mid-February of next year.  The integration of Art and Literature through this kind of museum experience could certainly enhance the learning of students.  This cross-section emphasis adds a more holistic approach to education that I hope to enact specifically in regards to Pompeii, and more generally in regards to all of the subjects I teach.

Flattener #6: Offshoring, Running with Gazelle, Eating with Lions, is a section that I think speaks to all of the Charter Schools, Private Schools and Uncommon Schools that exist around the country.  In these schools, children in poor, and/or either extremely rural or extremely urban communities are given the opportunity to learn at the same level as those children that live in wealthier communities.  As a result, all children (rather than some children) have access to a solid education.  In the school I currently teach, girls from low-income families are given the opportunity to attend a private, non-profit school for little to no cost.  Where our institution lacks in funding, we are able to compensate with more one-on-one attention for our students.  In what some would see as a loss, we have found a gain.  In essence, moving this type of "any and every child, can-do" attitude, into places where it does not currently thrive, stimulates competition between groups and locations where it wouldn't have previously.  Similarly, Friedman writes that such actions on a more global, economic scale have, "created a process of competitive flattening, in which countries scramble to see who can give companies the best tax breaks, education incentives, and subsidies on top of their cheap labor, to encourage offshoring to their shores," (Friedman 2007,140).  To scale it back down again, the more we are able to level the playing field for students from every background, the more competition will grow between them, and the greater the incentive for students to push themselves harder.  Though difficult to instill on a concrete level, I think offering my students a general awareness of the quality of education they have access to, while not making them feel "less than" their wealthier counter-parts, can create a sense of healthy competition and drive within them, which could later lead to acceptance into a high-quality high school and then later on, acceptance into a competitive college.