Paul Banksley argues for the freedom to paint in shades of pastel possibility
“Sometimes I’m not sure you understand educational innovation,” he began. “We inhabit an aspirational praxis, one where we envision transformational potentialities and nurture them via a deep-seated, future-facing belief in the urgency of now. That requires language that summons untapped opportunities to unlock crucial philanthropic support.”
“I see,” I said. Though I’m afraid I didn’t. Not really.
“We can’t do that while hewing to narrow, pedantic, legalistic notions of demonstrable truth. Don’t you see? We deal not in likelihoods but in the exploration of wondrous, untrodden paths of progress!”
“Oh, I get it! I exclaimed. “You need to be able to prevaricate and exaggerate.”
He sighed wearily. Guess I still didn’t get it. “Look, we need to be free to paint in shades of pastel possibility,” he said. “Just because a program hasn’t worked in the past and doesn’t work today doesn’t mean it won’t work in the future. Take 22nd Century Skills. Can we technically ‘demonstrate’ or ‘prove’ that they lead to better academic outcomes? Well, no, not as such.”
He paused.
“But we can make the case,” Banksley continued, “that there are hints that some applications of our core intuitions may lead to an exciting array of innovative practices with regards to emotive and equitable benchmarks. And this, of course—supported by best practices, AI-infused classrooms, and added investment—is the way to usher in a future of personalized, permissionless educational transformation.”