The New London Group article really stuck to its thesis statement, “…define generally the mission of education…fundamental purpose is to ensure that all students benefit from learning in ways that allow them to participate fully in public, community, and economic life” (60). On the first reading, I thought it sounded run-of-the-mill; I think I must read this basic sentiment in nearly every school’s mission statement. But, Wow, when they boil it down, get to the heart of what each of those ideas mean (or have meant), in what ways those ideas have changed, and what needs to change (educational perspective and practice) in light of social and technological reconfigurations is a whole other story! Unlike anything I’ve read before.
It is easily recognizable that “At the same time, radical changes are occurring in the nature of public, community, and economic life” (61). There are so many facets of change, it becomes overwhelming to try to articulate into words the essence of those changes – plus too, as the authors observe, changes in all of life’s areas are individualistic, and therefore, difficult to compartmentalize, or as they indicate, standardize, into a general understanding. However, there must be a general understanding in order to address the variable issues that impact individuals, or members of multiple lifeworlds (still feels like a weird word), because change will require “…active participants in social change, as learners and students who can be active designers – makers of social futures” (64).
One of the best things about this article is it isn’t another theory proposal. They’ve identified the “how” change should be highlighted and implemented; “As designers of meaning, we are designers of social futures – workplace, public and community” (65) and suggest six meaning-process elements: Linguistic, Visual, Audio, Gestural, Spatial, and Multimodal with four pedagogical components: Situated Practice, Overt Instruction, Critical Framing, and Transformed Practice; with brief definitions of each. I like an observation that comes with related suggestions. As to testing, exemplifying, extending and reworking the ideas suggested within the International Multiliteracies Project, that will produce a curriculum development program of epic proportions.
Changing realities within working, public, and private lives in a direction of designing social futures (through education) within the contexts of identified cultures that already exist – such as fast capitalism and productive diversity, public pluralism and civic pluralism, invasion of private space and multilayered lifeworlds – will be a Herculean undertaking! I am awestruck a discourse has been arrived at to discuss these frameworks.
In fact, the ambitious scope of these aims leaves me a little anxious (a lot) at the responsibility placed on teachers – we are the deliverers of education – it seems a noble and daunting mission, maybe impossible, to please all of the people all of the time (wish I could remember who said that couldn’t be done). I am reassured the authors recognize “We cannot remake the world through schooling…”(72). But sometimes people who make those statements discount the principle of tempering idealism with realism and practicality.
I believe if educational change is going to come about, it will require more than making mission statements authentically meaningful, and will require the same type of dedicated perspective by those outside of education, such as social and media public, community businesses, parents, and most relevantly, students themselves and their participatory contribution.
Academics 