Curious how the human world redesigns itself without official permission.
The government makes a noise about getting people back to work. Shortly afterwards, we discover that employers are as happy with home working as their employees.
"I'm not putting my team through public transport," said the head of a small firm. All the having-an-office money can be redirected into staff training, she told her interviewer. And they didn't (couldn't?) find a follow-up somebody to burble about the joy of offices. The balance tips.
All the commentary starts from the status quo. "The High Street" will suffer from the lack of commuter traffic. "The airline industry" needs support to tide it over - because how it was is how it will be, right? No wonder we don't innovate. "The old normal" is the standard, if not quite the ideal.
In The Socialist Case (1937) the politician Douglas Jay wrote, "In the case of nutrition and health, just as in the case of education, the gentleman in Whitehall really does know better what is good for people than the people know themselves."
Discuss with reference to that algorithm. In education today, we are presented with the binary choice between keeping children at home and sending them back to old-style classrooms. With masks, social distancing and lots of school rules, yes - but that's it. Months to think about it, and - that's it.
The measure of the government's ability to adapt to circumstances is that algorithm.
Look at adult education, where there aren't classrooms in quite the same way. Online courses, TED talks, interactive seminars on Facebook and elsewhere, books to download, any amount of written work, video, source material generally. Online courses in how to teach online courses. And in how to incentivise students.
Take groups of children out of the classroom and socially distance them in large empty office spaces where they can interact with online teaching. For example. With age-appropriate incentives to stay the course.
For example. If not that, you know, maybe come up with something else?
The brief is "educate children", isn't it, not "force children into classrooms"?
The government makes a noise about getting people back to work. Shortly afterwards, we discover that employers are as happy with home working as their employees.
"I'm not putting my team through public transport," said the head of a small firm. All the having-an-office money can be redirected into staff training, she told her interviewer. And they didn't (couldn't?) find a follow-up somebody to burble about the joy of offices. The balance tips.
All the commentary starts from the status quo. "The High Street" will suffer from the lack of commuter traffic. "The airline industry" needs support to tide it over - because how it was is how it will be, right? No wonder we don't innovate. "The old normal" is the standard, if not quite the ideal.
In The Socialist Case (1937) the politician Douglas Jay wrote, "In the case of nutrition and health, just as in the case of education, the gentleman in Whitehall really does know better what is good for people than the people know themselves."
Discuss with reference to that algorithm. In education today, we are presented with the binary choice between keeping children at home and sending them back to old-style classrooms. With masks, social distancing and lots of school rules, yes - but that's it. Months to think about it, and - that's it.
The measure of the government's ability to adapt to circumstances is that algorithm.
Look at adult education, where there aren't classrooms in quite the same way. Online courses, TED talks, interactive seminars on Facebook and elsewhere, books to download, any amount of written work, video, source material generally. Online courses in how to teach online courses. And in how to incentivise students.
Take groups of children out of the classroom and socially distance them in large empty office spaces where they can interact with online teaching. For example. With age-appropriate incentives to stay the course.
For example. If not that, you know, maybe come up with something else?
The brief is "educate children", isn't it, not "force children into classrooms"?