In one way or another, we all have experienced apart of the Tyler rationale in our school lives up to university every day, being excused by the bell. With the roots that the Tyler rationale has in behavioural psychology, we are similar to that of Pavlov and his dogs, with the ringing of the bell. As a response to the bell we make assumptions of what should happen next, which is to continue on to the next class. Even in university, we still have this mindset that we are excused by the clock, rather than the teacher. As many professors notice and comment that as class begins to wind down and it seems as thought the lecture is almost over, we began to start packing up or in the case of online classes tune out of what is being said, because that’s how we have been brought up. Bells and time have controlled us from the time we were six or even younger, and possibly by using bells as reinforcement we were taught the proper behaviour, which was to calmly and quietly transition to the next class. This is a great example of one way that we have been encouraged to have good behaviour, and to be like good citizens, and always on time.
(b) What are the major limitations of the Tyler rationale/what does it make impossible?
The Tyler rationale completely excludes the importance of the individual person, and instead focuses more on molding children into what society needs them to be again leaning into the idea of “common sense” (molding the child into what society at the time deems worthy and correct). The use of manufacturing references compares a child to something that can be built into what is needed by others. The article says, “People are first members of society and second individuals.” (Schiro, 2013, 7), which is probably why artistic capabilities was so unimportant to the class and is sadly to this still considered something that is unimportant. In society we people feel as though we do not really need art, and so the people who create art are sometimes seen as non-functioning members of society. Even though they can work as hard as others, their contributions are not always seen as important as maybe someone who creates new technologies.
The Tyler rationale also lacks room for creativity. The steps in which to take are very laid out, and basically are: the educational purposes, what to do to accomplish them, how to organize them and assessment (Schiro, 2013, 2). As good as it is to have structure, this layout is very stiff, and does not leave much room for creativity or student accommodation as it seems as thought our society has not figured out that there isn’t just one kind of learner. I think that with this rationale, if a student did not fit, or was not manufactured properly, then they would be left behind. If the classic ways of teaching do not work for a student, then they are not able to be built into the society members that Tyler says we need. Maybe if we had less structure, and more creativity, we would have more people in jobs that they are passionate about, and less that hate their day job.
Another statement that I do not agree with is that childhood is only preparation for adulthood (Schiro, 2013, 7). Yes, we do teach children to survive in the real world, but I do not think that is the only purpose. Children have their own ideas, interests and hobbies. To say that means nothing is taking away a part of their identity. Also when you look back on your childhood, do you remember all of the things that you learned in school, or do you remember the friends you had, the games you played, and the stuff you liked? While we do use this time to prepare somewhat for adulthood, I do not think that is the sole purpose and is backed by the education system in Finland in how they address teaching and school an their purpose.
(c) What are some potential benefits/what is made possible? Be sure to refer to the assigned article in your post; you may also include information from lecture if you wish.
The efficiency created by the Tyler rationale is definitely a benefit. By having a laid out curriculum that everyone uses to teach all students has good results for the most part. It attempts to make education more neutral (even though it is not as neutral as we think and to an extent will never be able to be neutral as the people that teach the curriculum and the curriculum itself isn’t neutral), and gives everyone an equal chance to learn the same material. This method is also really good for society, because it creates exactly what is needed to keep moving forward. Technology and computer science, for example, are fields that may not have been as important in the past, but now are booming and a lot of people are needed to fill the jobs there. Computer skills are now taught in schools because most jobs that you will have need computers, and it is important to adapt students for that. the Tyler rationale makes room for these adaptions, which is a good thing for the ever changing society that we live in.