More than a century ago, Irish playwright George Bernard Shaw wrote, “He who can, does. He who cannot, teaches.” Well, Elon Musk is a doer with a lot of children, and he’s reached the conclusion he doesn’t want his kids to learn from some has-been or never-was simply because they landed a job in a local school thanks to a lack of competition.
Over his lifetime, teaching fundamentally remained the same experience: an adult standing in front of a chalkboard instructing kids.
Of course, I don't know how they did things in South Africa when little Elon was a young emerald prince, but the "school has never changed" trope is tired and silly and a clear sign that someone knows little about what is happening in education, which has been highly interactive for decades.
But sure. There is still an adult in a classroom, much as cars are still four wheels, one in each corner. But perhaps that's because Musk appears bothered that the shifts in tech that are "upending the labor force" haven't yet touched teachers.
Musk calls for compelling, interactive learning experiences. His example is that, rather than teaching a course about screwdrivers and wrenches, have them take apart an engine and in the process learn all about screwdrivers and wrenches. I'm sure that my former students who learned about operating heavy machinery by operating heavy machinery, or learned about welding by welding, etc, would agree. I'd even extend his argument to say that instead of trying to teach students to read by doing exercises and excerpts, we could have them read whole works, even novels.
But just in case you're not catching who Musk blames, Hartzen notes that Musk says that the system failed students because "the talents of the teaching staff tasked with imparting this knowledge to their students were sophomoric at best."
Then Musk throws in an entertainment analogy. Teachers are like the "troubadours and mummers of yesteryear who traveled from one backwater to the next, offering their meager services to those desperate for their brand of amateur entertainment." Education today is like "vaudeville before there was radio, TV, and movies." Which compresses a variety of different developments, but okay.
Then along came Hollywood, and a critical mass of the most talented screenwriters, directors, and actors around joined forces to produce compelling and engaging content that can cost tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars.
So, what? We're supposed to inject hundreds of millions of dollars into education? And does this idea still work if we notice that the "content" cranked out by Hollywood is only "compelling and engaging" to some people.
Finally, Musk throws in a reference that Hertzen calls "bizarre"-- thespians entertaining the locals in Small Town U.S.A. with a "low-budget rendition" of the caped crusader couldn't compete with Christopher Nolan's Batman.
Are we sure? Are there not people who wouldn't be interested in either? Are there not people who find live performance far more compelling? I may be biased here, but we just spent two weekends playing to packed houses of folks who could have just stayed home and listened to the album or watched the movie.
Look, some analogies fail because they aren't a good match for what they're analogizing, and some analogies fail because they are wrong to begin with ("this is just like the way a hummingbird lifts tractors out of tar pits"). Musk manages to fail both ways. But, you know, he's rich, so he gets to have his terrible insight elevated by a major magazine. Add that to the list of things that interfere with meaningful education discourse in this country.