Education

If individuals anywhere in the world, increasingly, can find any bit of information in an instant what then is the primary purpose of a teacher or even a school? This is a stupid question (or at least the answer should be obvious to everyone) but I am concerned that various governments – and hence schools – seem to see it as their job to push facts into the heads of students and then test them to see whether or not they can remember them. Given what machines are getting good at this seems like a recipe for oblivion.

iPads in schools?

I’m slowly putting together a piece on the use of iPads in schools (use by kids aged under 12 or 13 largely) and I’m interested in any proper studies showing positive or negative outcomes in terms of educational attainment. The issue appears to be that these devices are too new to have any rigorous studies attached to them, but I may have missed something.

I’m not especially interested in the use of iPads after the age of about 15/16.

Are we there yet?

No, not even close. Still a week to go.

Would someone please explain to me why we still have summer school holidays based on eighteenth century crop cycles.

If I see much more of my kids I may be forced to put them on eBay.

What Wikipedia Teaches Us About Education

Our model of education is broken. In most countries schooling is based upon a model developed during the agrarian era and adapted to produce workers for factory production. But most people now live in knowledge economies and the speed of change is such that much of the knowledge acquired by students is out of date by the time they leave school. But there’s a bigger problem. In the future, smart machines will complete with clever people for jobs, so if a job is based upon a set of rules or is dependent upon the accumulation and distribution of fixed knowledge it’s probably history in the future.

What can we do about this? I’m not for one minute suggesting that facts are unimportant. We need to learn historical facts because in so doing we learn how and where to find what we need.  This method also provides rules, context and questions (i.e. how to think).  Equally, I am not questioning the need for physical schooling. Distance learning is a fantastic development, but it’s an added bonus. Physical schools provide socialisation and a sense of community.  What I am arguing is that our education system is good at providing many of the basics, but we need to provide something else on top.

Once we have taught the basics, we need to spend time teaching students the things that smart machines cannot do. We need to teach students how to find problems (needs) and then teach them how to invent highly creative solutions. We also need to teach people how to interact with human beings and get the best out of other people.

Second, we need to redesign a system that is restricted by funding. Education is probably the most important factor influencing outcomes. It largely creates or restricts individual opportunities and it more or less defines national economic performance. So why do we continue to pay teachers so badly? If teaching is one of the most important jobs there is, why do we not pay teachers accordingly?

Moreover, if your aim is a fair and just society, asking people to pay large amounts of money for tertiary education doesn’t make any sense. If tertiary education is expensive, what happens is that individual students will naturally pursue courses that prepare them for the highest paying jobs in order to recoup their costs. In other words, costly education will result in large numbers of highly paid bankers, lawyers, doctors and accountants, but very few teachers, nurses, writers, artists, policemen and firefighters. Free or low cost education, in contrast, would result in a more balanced society in which individuals are more able to pursue their particular passion or work in professions that are poorly paid but which have a high societal value.

Third, current educational systems are too restrictive in the sense that there are too may rules and outcomes are too biased towards narrow measurement. Furthermore, the users of the system (i.e. the students) do not have enough say.

Consider the case of Wikipedia versus Encyclopaedia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica is written by experts and the information contained within is fixed in the sense that it is not easily altered, especially by those using it. It is also expensive to originate and to disseminate.

Contrast this with Wikipedia. Here we have a set of standards – an ethos and a set of values more than a fixed product. It is open, both in the sense that anyone can contribute to it, but also in the sense that it is an experiment that is not especially focused any particular outcome or metrics. There are very few layers of measurement, control or accountability, but it somehow works. Not only does Wikipedia contain more information than Encyclopaedia Britannica, it is also more accurate according to some studies.

So here’s my idea. Instead of prescribing a set curriculum, we should put in place an overall philosophy and let good teachers get on with it. We should remove many of the measurement systems and focus instead on the creation of an ethos or set of values that clearly describe what education is for.  Personally, I think that the purpose of education should be to make people think for themselves and to think empathically about others.

Second, instead of paying teachers the least possible amount of money we should pay them as much as we, as societies, can afford, but root out and remove any teacher that is not dedicated, talented and generally an inspiration to the young people they teach.

Third, instead of charging students large amounts of money to continue with their education, we should do the very opposite.  We should make quality education free (or cheap) at all levels, but remove any student – or parent – that does not support the idea or does not take the privilege seriously.

Finally, schools, colleges and Universities should become generative spaces where a generosity of spirit means that outcomes are measured not at five, eleven, sixteen, eighteen or twenty-one years of age, but over a whole lifetime.

TV viewing trends

Article in USA Today last week by Amy Chua (author of Tiger Mother) saying that the average American child spends 66% more time watching TV than attending school (no source quoted). This feels wrong to me. Screens perhaps but TV? I know TV viewing has held steady against the rise of the internet but it’s still high. Anyone out there from PEW research care to comment?

BTW, for all you German publishers out there, here’s a list of versions of Future Files sold to date. We have current interest from Japan and Iran, but we are missing one key market, namely Germany! Brazil would be nice too. BTW, double this because there are now two editions (i.e. original and updated version).

World English excl. ANZ, South Africa, Singapore and Malaysia (Nicholas Brealey Publishing);
Hungarian (HVG Kiado)
Simplified Chinese (Jing Hua Publishing House)
Complex Chinese (IF Culture Publishing)
Korean (Chung Rim Publishing)
Turkish (Yakamoz Yayinevi)
Croatian (Alfa D.D.)
Lithuanian (Verslo Zinios)
Portuguese (Caleidoscopio)
Arabic (Kalima)
Indonesian (Ufuk Press)
Russian (Eksmo)
Bulgarian (Locus)
Thai (True Digital Content)

Education wants and want nots

I’ve just been in Hong Kong experiencing, amongst other things, the power of the Chinese economy (nobody is interested in you in shops if you speak English or the local Cantonese. They assume you haven’t got any money. Mandarin is the only language that gets any attention from shop assistants).

I then flew to South Africa for the day (seriously). My lasting impression was being driven through Alexandria, a poor black township in Johannesburg, where I saw two things you don’t ordinarily see, especially if you live in a so-called ‘developed’ country.

First kids going to school. They were dressed in immaculate uniforms and looked as though they really wanted to go to school. They were not on mobiles. They were talking to each other in person. They were ‘present’ in a way that so many kids plugged into various devices in other nations, are not. They would be considered extremely disadvantaged by Western standards, but I got the lasting impression that they were happier, more focused, more balanced and more certain of where they were heading than most kids of a similar age in England, for example.

OK, this exists in a few other parts of the world but wait for this next bit.

Every time the taxi got to a red traffic light and stopped people started walking between the stationary cars and attempted to sell things to the occupants. Nothing unusual in that. It happens in London, New York and Sydney. The difference is what they were selling. It wasn’t an unwanted windscreen wash, wilting flowers wrapped in plastic or newspapers. It was educational products. They were selling world maps, globes, charts of the human body, times tables, alphabet charts.

If I had to choose between investing in education in poor townships in South Africa or underprivileged areas of the UK it would be a no-brainer.

No right side of the brain left behind

The emphasis of education is all wrong. We are obsessed with educating the left side of the human brain when it is precisely this side that computers are getting so good at copying. We should spend more time educating the right side of the brain, the side that computers are utterly useless at emulating.