Читать книгу Out of Our Minds - Робинсон Кен - Страница 12

Education is not always a good word to use socially. If I’m at a party and tell someone I work in education, I can see the blood drain from their face. “Why me?” they’re thinking, “Trapped with an educator on my one night out all week.” If I ask them about their education, or about their children’s schooling, they pin me to the wall. Education is one of those topics that run deep with people, like religion, politics and money. It should. The quality of education affects all of us: it is vital to our own fulfillment, to our children’s futures and to long-term global development. It stamps us with an impression of ourselves that is hard to remove.

Some of the most eminent people did not do well at school. No matter how successful they’ve become, they often worry that they are not as clever as they seem. They include teachers, university professors, vice-chancellors, business people, musicians, writers, artists, architects and many others. Many succeeded despite their education not because of it. Of course, many people loved their time in education and have done well by it. What of all those who did not? Given the changes that are now engulfing us, governments everywhere are pouring vast resources into education reform. This is good, but it is not good enough. The challenge is not to reform education but transform it.

As the technological and economic revolution gathers pace, education systems throughout the world are being reformed. Most countries have a dual strategy. The first is to increase access to education, and especially higher education. The demand for educational qualifications grows annually; education and training are now among the world’s largest businesses. The second strategy is to raise standards. Educational standards should be high and it is obviously a good idea to raise them. There is not much point in lowering them. But standards of what? Educating more people and to a much higher standard is vital, but they have to be educated differently.

Education is not an impartial process of developing people’s natural abilities and it never was. Systems of mass education are built on two pillars. The first is economic: they have been shaped by specific assumptions about labor markets, some of which are now out of date. The second is intellectual: they have been shaped by particular ideas about academic intelligence, which often disregard other abilities that are just as important, especially for creativity and innovation.

Before the middle of the nineteenth century, relatively few people had a formal education. Being educated was mainly for the privileged few who could afford it. Mass systems of education were developed primarily to meet the needs of the Industrial Revolution and they mirror the principles of industrial production: linearity, conformity and standardization.

In almost all of them there is the same hierarchy of disciplines, which shows itself in the time given to them; whether they are compulsory or optional; whether they are in the mainstream curriculum or after school; whether they are included in standardized tests and how much they feature in political polemics about raising standards. At the top of the hierarchy are mathematics, languages and sciences; next come the humanities – history, geography and social studies – and physical education; at the bottom are the arts. There is another hierarchy within the arts: art and music usually have higher status than theater and dance. There is hardly a school system in the world that teaches dance every day as a compulsory discipline in the way that mathematics is taught. This hierarchy is not accidental: it is based on assumptions about supply and demand in the marketplace and about intelligence and academic ability in particular.

Many government reforms in education have been doubling down on this model. They have reinforced the hierarchy, imposed a culture of standardized testing and limited the discretion of educators in deciding what and how to teach. This is not a party political strategy. Politicians are curiously united in this respect. They argue over the funding and organization of education, over access and selection and about the best ways to improve standards. It is rare to hear politicians of any party raise questions about the absolute importance of academic standards or the need for standardized tests to secure them. Ironically, they promote these policies in the interests of the economy.2 I say ironically because these reforms are stifling the very skills and qualities that are essential to meet the challenges we face: creativity, cultural understanding, communication, collaboration and problem solving.

All organizations are competing in a world in which the ability to innovate and adapt to change is not a luxury: it is a necessity.3 The consequences of being inflexible to change can be severe. Organizations that stand still may be swept aside: corporate history is littered with the wreckage of companies, and whole industries, that were resistant to change. They became stuck in old habits and missed the wave of change that carried more innovative companies forward. It’s not only companies that risk decline.

Few would dispute that in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Europe, and especially Great Britain, dominated the world culturally, politically and economically. Britain was the crucible of the Industrial Revolution and its military forces secured the colonies as surely as the English language invaded their cultures. When Queen Victoria ascended to the throne in 1837, she presided over the largest empire in history: the empire on which the sun never set. If you had gone to her court in 1870 and suggested that this empire would be over within a generation, you would have been laughed out of the building. But it was true. By the end of World War I in 1918, the empire was fatally wounded and, by the time I was born in 1950, it was a memory. Culturally, politically and economically, the twentieth century was dominated by the United States, as surely as Europe had dominated the nineteenth. Whether it will dominate the twenty-first century remains to be seen. As award-winning US scientist Jared Diamond has shown, empires tend to collapse rather than fade away.4 Think of the Soviet Union and its rapid dissolution in the 1980s and 1990s.

All organizations are perishable. They are created by people and they need to be constantly revitalized if they are to survive. When organizations fail, the jobs and communities that depend on them falter too. Among the worst affected these days are young people. Youth unemployment rates are more sensitive than adult rates to economic turbulence, and the recovery of the job market for young men and women tends to lag behind that of adults. For millions of young people, the future seems bleak and despairing. They have no work and see no prospect of it. The International Labor Organization consistently argues that creating jobs for the millions of young women and men entering the labor market every year is a critical component in the path towards wealthier economies. It is not only the quantity but also the quality of jobs that matters. In a world of headlong change, where lifelong employment in the same job is a thing of the past, creativity and innovation are not luxuries, they are essential for personal security and the health of communities.

Thomas Friedman, author of the World is Flat, argues that, “Those who have the ability to imagine new services and new opportunities and new ways to recruit work … are the new Untouchables. Those with the imagination to invent smarter ways to do old jobs, energy-saving ways to provide new services, new ways to attract old customers or new ways to combine existing technologies will thrive.” The solution is better education and training. Here, too, the future cannot be business as usual. “We not only need a higher percentage of our kids graduating from high school and college – more education – but we need more of them with the right education. Our schools have a doubly hard task, not just improving reading, writing and arithmetic but entrepreneurship, innovation and creativity. We’re not going back to the good old days without fixing our schools as well as our banks.”5

“The challenge now is to transform education systems into something better suited to the real needs of the twenty-first century. At the heart of this transformation there has to be a radically different view of human intelligence and of creativity.”

One of the reasons the old systems of education are not working now is that real life is not linear or standardized: it is organic, creative and diverse and always has been.

Some weeks before our son started at university in Los Angeles, we went along for an orientation day. At one point, the students were taken away for a separate briefing on program options and the parents were taken to the finance department for a form of grief counseling. We then had a presentation from one of the professors about our roles as parents during our children’s student days. He advised us to step out of their way and spare them too much of our career advice. His own son had been a student at the university some years before and had originally wanted to study the classics. The professor and his wife were not optimistic about his job prospects. They were relieved when, at the end of the freshman year, he said he’d decided to major in something “more useful.” They asked what he had in mind, and he said philosophy. His father pointed out that none of the big philosophy firms were hiring at the time. His son took some philosophy courses anyway and eventually majored in art history. After college he found a job in an international auction house. He traveled, made a good living, loved the work and the life. He got the job because of his knowledge of ancient cultures, his intellectual training in philosophy and his love of art history. Neither he nor his parents could have predicted that path when he started his college studies.

The principle is the same for everyone. Life is not linear. As you live your life you take or avoid opportunities, meet different people, have unexpected experiences and create a unique biography along the way. What we become in the future is deeply influenced by our experiences here and now. Education is not a straight line to the future: it is also about cultivating the talents and sensibilities through which we can live our best lives in the present.