So much of how we talk about education today implicitly adopts a manufacturing metaphor in which schools are the “producers” of graduates who are “successful” in college and in their career.

We talk about the output we want — the “graduate profile” of students who come out of our system (graduate profiles define the competencies and skills they should have developed by graduation). And, borrowing even more overtly from the manufacturing world, we talk about “continuous improvement” in student achievement (in manufacturing continuous improvement is an approach to streamlining processes and reducing waste).

The underlying narrative is, “To succeed in the workforce, kids will need to be x, y, and z. Therefore, schools should be set up to make graduates who are x, y, and z. And, we should work to ensure our processes are as efficient as possible in creating graduates who are x, y, and z.”

In other words, “Teachers, here’s the profile we want — now go create kids who fit the mold. Oh, and by the way, we’re going to hold you accountable for making sure every child fits that mold through extensive ‘quality’ assurance testing”.

Seems obvious and rational, right?

But this is a poor metaphor for schooling, founded on a poor understanding of human development and what the role of schools is within it…

Source: Please Stop Trying to Manufacture Students! – Erin Lynn Raab, Ph.D. – Medium