| Well, I see now that there are two kinds of centralization. 1) The system is top-heavy, and administrators pick out what teachers teach. This is centralized planning. 2) The content that teachers generate (assignments, quizzes) is put into a centralized pool, which other teachers can browse through to come up with new ideas for their teaching. This is centralized content. I'm sorry I wasn't clear, but I didn't mean centralized planning, I meant centralized content. If there is some way to know what a teacher taught and how well it worked which other teachers could use as a reference, then it becomes a memory. Teachers can improve upon other teachers' previous works. Right now, each public school teacher is almost universally independent. My idea is that as each assignment is completed online, the assignment goes into the memory pool. Teachers can browse all content. Students and teachers can rate and comment on the assignments. This seems like it would encourage good collaboration and interaction. |
In class, similarly, there was very little pre-planned content. In Latin, we simply went through the previous night's translation, line by line, with discussion breaking out whenever someone was perplexed or intrigued by something.
In English, there was perhaps a bit more planned content, but not much: the teacher would have something to talk about, and start out talking about it, but within 5-10 minutes we would have moved out of the prepared material into our own discussion.
Now, in the sciences, yes, there is definite content, and there, surely, there would be value in a central content store, but it would need to be developed outside the institutional structure, or your 2) would rapidly become 1). (Yes, I'm a bit jaded: I went to an amazing program, but it was housed at a horribly administered school.)