Revolution

There are two groups of issues in London so far from what I can tell - the real issues and the opportunistic crimes. The two groups of issues have become so intertwined that the underlying issue must be addressed before the opportunism is. But what are the underlying issues? What is it that really has people so upset? As Dr. Morgan Job put it quite succinctly today in a brief conversation, "those that have nothing have nothing to lose." And that statement says, too, that they can only gain. Thus, the opportunistic looting.

Does it help that marketing has become such a factor in societal expectations that people want what they cannot afford? The flat screen televisions and PS3s looted are hardly edible, though if one glues enough of them together one could expect that a structure could be built to protect people from the elements. As unlikely as the building of such a structure is - as ludicrous as the concept is - it should go without saying that there is a demand for them, enough so that these things are being taken. In London. Not in a third world country. In England.

That economics plays a role is without question. We could get into a discussion about classes, the erosion and perhaps extinction of the middle class, and even get to a level where Communists might be chuckling about the marriage of Capitalism and Democracy across the globe. When a majority of people are disenfranchised, we get angry people who want more than nothing. In that we could say that democracy is working - but to date I don't know that anyone has been brave enough to poll the angry mob. To do so would be making a potential Monty Python Skit:

"Pardon me, may I ask you a few questions?", asks a person with the clipboard.

Happy to be heard, the rioter and looter promptly places the items in hand neatly on the pavement, smiling broadly, saying, "Yes, most certainly. That's what this is all about you know."

"So are you rioting and looting because you feel disenfranchised?" "Quite so, quite so."

Checking a box, the person with the clipboard says in a very businesslike manner, "Very well, I'll put that down as a 'Yes'."

"Very good.", says the person politely as they recollect their loot, "I'll be off."

I've been quiet for a while because I've been considering some complicated things while juggling fragments of reality. This particular entry was brought on by advocates of a certain technology in education being unable to prove that technology in education has had a positive impact on educational results.

In one line, this could all be read as educational institutions wondering who moved their cheese. I'm just showing my working.

The societal definition of success arguably changes from one generation to the next. If we ignored the previous generations definitions of success, we could say that the definition of success is democratic. Unfortunately, this is not necessarily so since bureaucracy in institutions has a tendency to mitigate change, and the processes of bureaucracy are built upon societal definitions of success - sometimes surviving many generations.

Historically, this is where revolutions take place - not necessarily the violent revolutions but the successful revolutions. The Industrial revolution. The agricultural revolution. And, if we look at the course of the last century, we might find ourselves living at the tail end of a Democratic revolution.

But when is the last time there was an Educational revolution? A true change in the definition of what academic success is?

While at first I thought that technology improving education was putting the cart before the horse these days, I did not acknowledge that technology may be useful in evolving our definition of success in education.