Evolution vs. Revolution

It seems like almost everybody, in almost every country, thinks education in their country is not quite what it should be. People often disagree about what needs to be different, but they do agree that something needs to be different. Governments, and ministries of education are also affected by this need for "something different", so they continually make plans for change. They - and through them, we - try to get the existing system to evolve into a different system, with the help of change plans. We often call it "reform" rather than "evolution", but the idea is the same: Incremental changes, not rocking the boat too much, will get us from here to there. But will they?

It depends on the extent and type of difference between what we have and where we need to have. If the difference is that we need to move from 36 students per class to 28 students per class, and that will solve our problems - it can be done incrementally. If we need to give the teachers a 20% raise - it can be done incrementally. If we decide we need to have half the teachers be computer literate - not experts, just literate... Getting tougher. It's possible to send even all the teachers to computer training, having appeased the ministry of finance, teachers unions, the lawyers of those training firms who lost the tender, etc. But getting the training doesn't necessarily mean many of the trainee really acquire the skill... Ok, let's be optimistic, and assume that this type of a difference can be dealt with in the context of the existing system, and bridged by an incremental reform. Just. Not much more.

Even with small changes, we need to be careful with fitting the change into the system - domesticating it. For example, putting computers into a school has great potential. In some places, one can see these computers being used by pupils to write their homework in a word-processor, and that's it. These computers were domesticated to fit the existing methodology of the school. Now they are just glorified typewriters, which itself is a glorified pen-and-paper. As such, these computers don't contribute much to the learning. If they were put into the school as an experiment, the natural conclusion would be that there is no advantage in putting computers at the disposal of the students. But the experiment did not really test what computers can do for the teaching and learning, since their ability to compute, to communicate and to visualize were not used. The experiment only tested domesticated computers, and these indeed are useless. When we decide we need to introduce a new tool or method, we should give it a chance. Putting it into the Procrustean bed of current knowledge and methodology is likely to prevent us from getting the potential benefit. This is a general problem, alluded to by Karel Čapek some 70 years ago in his story about "The man who knew how to fly", who had the misfortune of being domesticated into a guy who can jump pretty well. At the expense of zoological accuracy, we can say that a domesticated wolf is not a wolf - it's a dog, and sometimes we need a wolf, and not another dog.

There is likely to be a big difference between the existing and the desired system. We may decide we need a different way of teaching. What if we need the teachers to move from a position of all-knowing providers of knowledge, to a position of humble enablers of self-learning? How would we change the skills, attitudes, habits, beliefs and sense of self-worth of teachers who have been working the same way for 10, 20 or 30 years? We can't. On solution would be to start educating new teachers differently. If we do a great job and create the right skills and attitudes in these new teachers, after a few years, they will start graduating, and we will start having young teachers with the profile we need. Then we will face the problem of integrating very different teaching concepts into a single system, teaching the same students. Even if we succeed in that (I don't know how), it will take a few decades of just waiting until we have the new system. By then we are likely to have learned a few new changes we need, and we will have to start another sweep. We will have a chronically inconsistent education system, spending a lot of management attention just on keeping it together through the changes.

If we decide we need to expand part of the education system twofold - that would be easy. Every organization loves to expand. But what if we realize that any part of the system should be 50% smaller? Good luck convincing a government organization to shrink. Alternatively, good luck trying to retrain 30,000 employees with tenure, to do a different job.

As long as we want small changes, or expanding changes, we can easily introduce these changes to an existing establishment. As soon as we want a significant change, or a reduction in any part of an organization - we are in trouble. This is quite a limitation: If we can't make certain types of changes, we are not free to design the education system we need. One option - taken by most countries - is to settle for what we can push through the system, and forget about the rest. The price we pay for that is very high - pushing our children through the wrong education system. I don't want to pay that price. Do you?

Then we are out of the field of evolution, and in the field of revolution. Not in terms of bloodiness, but in terms of setting out to design a new system, without referring back to the old system as a starting point. Once we know what we want from the new design, we would have to think how we build it - again, not taking the existing system as a starting point, but building our design from scratch. If, by a happy coincidence, some parts of the existing system can be used in the new system without compromising the new system in any way - that would be great, because it would save time and effort. The existing system, having been there for centuries, can teach us a lot from its experience. We can benefit from historical knowledge, and from the living knowledge of people currently active in the existing system. But we mustn't let our emotional attachment to the old system, or our fear of political difficulty, to affect our thinking of what we need tomorrow.

Limitations of Data

A few days ago I set out to write something about the information overload, and ended up with just that: The very basic entry branched from Information Exposure to Data Crunching, and there is still more to cover - still within the "very basic" review. This present entry is concerned with the sad fact that even with the near-infinite amount of data accessible to us, the data is still limited, and often we don't achieve the understanding we seek.

Beyond relevance and reliability of data, critical thinking, as a skill and a habit, can help us identify when we are given incomplete information, rendered useless by its incompleteness. For example, a common news item: "The water reserves went up 2 centimeters over the last 24 hours." Without knowing the exact level right now, and the normal level at this time of year, and the level where we are in danger of dying of thirst - this information is just pseudo information. It leaves us at the same level of ignorance it found us. If anything, it clogs our thinking with a hairball of meaningless trivialities.

Another use of critical thinking in the context of looking for information, is knowing the difference between what one knows and what one doesn't know. Some explanation: Suppose I think - based on hair color - that some celebrity is dumb. I must be aware that this notion is a total guess. Suppose that I then hear a rumor confirming the dumbness of that celebrity. I may feel better about my guess, but should keep in mind the fact that I still don't have reliable information. Suppose further that I read a scientific survey of the IQ of different celebrities, confirming that the particular one is dumb. Maybe I can start marking that notion as reliable, but I need to look critically at the survey: Who performed it? Who financed it? What methods were used to measure IQ? And - not least - do I think that IQ has much to do with dumbness? The interesting bottom line here is that we need to keep in mind, together with each notion, how sure we are of it, and preferably exactly what sources we have supporting or refuting that notion. Academics already require this kind of discipline from themselves, taking care to make accurate and traceable quotes. Laypeople increasingly need it, too. This reminds me a time I was in London, before there were GPSs, so the cab drivers had to know the street names. I was looking for a certain street, and realized that the cab driver remembers full street names - Brook Road, Brook Street, Brook Lane, etc. are different places. Those of us living in smaller towns, think it's enough to remember where "Brook" is. But humans are adaptable, and we can remember the full name. Similarly, it is becoming increasingly useful to remember facts together with their associated source.

Knowing what we know is not limited to "knowledge". It is useful for skills, too. "Can I fix the car in my own garage?" Not anymore. Cars have become too complicated, and I didn't keep up. When humanity's knowledge and skills did not accumulate so quickly, it was expected from a well educated adult to know all that's important. This is no longer the case. It is the norm that people don't know everything, and even if one does know a lot about a specific subject, in a few years they will not know enough anymore, because much more knowledge has accumulated on the subject. Of course one could actively keep up their knowledge on a certain subject that might interest them, but then they will fall behind on other subjects. Dirty Harry said "A good man always knows his limitations." Bottom line, we should stop denying what we don't know. This will give us the opportunity to decide what we want to know, and - again - to keep learning.

So, we have too much data, and we are aware that we don't have enough. How do we make decisions based on imperfect knowledge? How do we avoid Analysis Paralysis - a state of continually looking for information. We must realize we live in a state of imperfect certainty at best, and almost-perfect uncertainty at worst. We, the graduates of the education system, must have the ability to decide at some point that it is better to take a decision now than to look for more reliable information. It's a risk that has to be taken - we never have indisputably sufficient information. Some tools for managing that risk can be borrowed from the world of statistics. Layman's statistics: Maybe the kind of statistics insurance people know - not high mathematics, just risk-management.

Whatever the technical or mathematical skills required to make risk-managing decisions in an uncertain world, these are not the main obstacle for most people. The main difficulty is emotional and intuitive. To function in a world swamped by information that is nevertheless imperfect, we need to get used to the uncertainty. To be comfortable with this uncertainty, and to be comfortable with the mistakes that come with it. Probably develop the intuition for knowing (or at least deciding) when we have "enough" information. This reality of insufficient information even forces us to use some intuition in place of missing information. A difficult notion for those of us who like to think of ourselves as rationalists, but maybe its time has come. Trying to rely solely on hard information in a swamp of imperfect information, is not a rational approach.

Data Crunching

When I was growing up, and until recently, there was talk about what it takes for a kid to start being able to read a newspaper. Newspaper reading being the standard for literacy: Mostly, enough knowledge of the written and spoken language, and also some general knowledge to identify cultural references. Today, children have available TV and Internet, with a barrage of information, pseudo-information, disinformation, drama and raw data. The bare ability to read is now a good start, but not enough. The necessary general knowledge has also changed. The full range of capabilities that will make everybody professional information hackers, is beyond the minimum requirements for a graduate, or at least beyond the expected consensus. My own opinion is that in the developed world, such abilities will be of considerable benefit for anyone, and the lack of them, a definite disadvantage.

It’s easy to come up with many examples - in any given week - where our common data sources require thorough filtering. Children of a very young age need the skills to manage all this data: The first step is critical thinking about the claims about data. To achieve that, we need to understand the claims, and the way they can - and can’t - be proven or disproven. With masses of data, this translates into a field with the frightening name Statistical Literacy - not to be confused with statistics as a mathematical expertise, with the associated Greek-letter formulas. The level of statistical understanding a layman needs, is basically statistical intuition: Understanding the advantage of large amounts of data, compared with singular anecdotes; understanding the critical importance of data sources; understanding the importance of who we ask a survey’s questions, how we ask, who answers, etc.

In a world steeped in data, there are two main characteristics of the data that we need to be able to determine quickly: "How relevant is it?" and "How reliable is it?" In that order. We need to identify the relevant results, and then we need to identify the reliable results. There are many possible strategies, and these strategies have to change as the sources vary and as the Internet search engines change. Different data-sifting strategies should be followed for searching different types of data. Once we identify some relevant results, we need to check their reliability. Again, many strategies.

For example, when looking for the weather, a possible strategy is to use Google as a general-purpose search engine. One could guess a good search phrase for a general search engine, such as weather Lapland, if we want to travel there, and need to know if we should bring our swimming suits. That's an easy one. Many of the results are relevant, and it's easy to determine that a result is concerned with the weather forecast for Lapland, rather than long-term weather patterns, for example. Now we need to check the reliability of the results. In the weather case, we could look at reliable-looking websites, such as the BBC, and believe it. Or we can look at several results, and make sure we get a near-consensus before we believe them. If the results are about 1-2 degrees from each other, we can average them; if a certain result is 10 degrees off, we can probably just ignore it - or the website in general.

Even this very easy data-handling exercise involved some non-trivial skills and knowledge: An intuitive understanding of how the search engine works, necessary to guess a good search phrase; general knowledge - familiarity with different sources, necessary to decide that certain websites are likely to contain reliable information; laymen’s scientific understanding that even relatively reliable sources should be verified against other sources; laymen’s statistics understanding of how to deal with outlying results - results that are very far from the average (maybe ignore), compared to how we deal with similar results (maybe average). In slightly more complex searches, such as for historical facts, the searcher needs layman's psychological understanding of semi-verbal communication: Reading between the lines, watching for choice of words that may indicate the writer may have an agenda to push, which would put the reliability in doubt.

The 21st century human needs to have many multidisciplinary skills just to qualify as a layman.

Now, if you think that I am exaggerating the complexity of looking for information, and that the example shows that searching for info is now trivial, please try and find out for how long a stork can stand on one leg. Really, my daughter wants to know that.

Information Exposure

Today, in the early 21^st century, we suffer from overexposure to information, much like our exposure to other types of pollution. Generally speaking, we also suffer from insufficient ability to deal with all that information. When we gain the necessary skills, the exposure may remain as a positive-only attribute of our lives. Dealing with the information overload was already mentioned as a desired capability of the graduate from a 21^st century school. But the information explosion is such a significant feature in the present and near future, that it warrants an extended discussion.

First, it is interesting to note that the information flood comes in three ways:

1. Active seeking of data - we go looking for information about something of interest to us

2. Passive subjection to data - information pushed at us by media, advertisers, spammers and such, without us asking for it

3. Outgoing information - data about ourselves that circulates out of our control

In the active channel, seeking - or pulling - data is already done mostly on the Internet, which is amazing, considering how little time the Internet has been in existence. Searching for almost anything produces an avalanche of results - millions of them - when we may need just three or so. Dealing with this type of information avalanche requires many interdisciplinary skills.

In the passive channel, data pushing is done mostly by the agents of the attention economy: Those who need our attention to thrive. The news-media throws at us information and images of what's new and shiny, and especially what's horrifying and gory. The drama driven media lures us with emotional triggers and good old voyeurism. The advertising industry, in order to get an idea into our mind, will use beauty, surprise, shock, fear, amusement, wit, captivity, envy, the subconscious and anything else we may find in lists like the seven deadly sins. Also, while surfing, or even while looking for something specific on the Internet, we are exposed to content we never intended to look at: Much sex; much drugs; not much rock and roll.

Outgoing information circulates more and more freely: Medical, financial, location of cell-phone (and us as cell-phone holders), Internet searches, emails, how our house looks from space or from the street, etc. The privacy issues are very disturbing.

What is the problem? What do we need to “deal” with? Well, for starters:

• Irrelevant information - mountains of it

• Unreliable information - lies, campaigns, half-truths, rumors, expressions of ignorance, errors, …

• Incomplete information - That's even worse than false information – “We may be facing an outbreak of a disease. Details at eleven.”

• Improper content - if we judge it as such: Pornography, violence, hatred, aggrandizing “improper” behavior, etc. Many people classify some content as improper at least for children

• Technically dangerous content: viruses etc. In the Internet, we are personally exposed to types of evil for which we used to need frightening legends: People who make an effort to hurt others, just for the fun of it

• Dangerous liaisons: Con artists, pedophiles, abusive forums, etc.

• Privacy - are we comfortable having our private life being public?

To successfully deal with dangerous liaisons and with privacy issues, we need people-skills, critical thinking, and for young children - some clear rules, like: “Thou shalt not give personal information to anyone without consulting your parents.” But this issue is too far removed from the main subjects of this blog.

Active seeking of data, and estimating the reliability and completeness of data, involve many interwoven technical skills, that can be acquired at school. They are worthy of their own discussion.

For the passive data exposure, the relevance test can be expressed by questions like "Does this affect my life?" "Do I need to know this?" "Do I care?" "Is the best thing I can do with my time right now, to watch/listen/subject myself to this?". As a rule, if data is being pushed my way, it means someone has an interest in my accepting it. It would be a coincidence if I also had an interest in accepting it. So that type of data may be considered irrelevant, unless proven otherwise. The news-fact that a plane crashed halfway across the world, killing all passengers, is horrible, but it does not affect the lives of most of us. There is really very little reason to care about the latest drunk-driving indictment of a celebrity. And bearing in mind that most of us have less than 100 years to live, there are probably many better things to do than to listen to an ad for a product we don't need. Often, it is very easy to see that data is irrelevant to us. The key skill here is the ability to ignore harmful information - if we judge it as harmful by taking up precious attention for irrelevant trivialities. For many of us, it is very difficult to ignore a moving picture, or a deliciously terrible story. The related key habit is the tendency to use the aforementioned skill, and ignore the irrelevant information. A few hundred years ago, this was probably not such a big problem: One could cooperate with gossipers, or not. Either way, what used to be at stake are a few moral issues (way outside the consensus) and a few minutes. These days, we can easily consume a significant amount of time paying attention to irrelevant information from radio, TV and Internet, in addition to good old personally exchanged gossip. It can easily be a few hours a day.

The skill and habit of ignoring harmful information is also exactly what we need to develop in order to deal with improper content. Note that these skills are morality-neutral and can remain within the consensus. The decision of what is proper and what improper, is a moral decision - outside the consensus - and may remain outside the school.

Education System Architecture

The most common definition of Architecture has to do with buildings, but in some professional circles, it has to do with the design of any complex system. In this context we hear about software architects, product architects, systems architects etc. A branch of architecture specifically relevant to education is Enterprise Architecture, which deals with the ways to build and maintain an active organization, situated in a dynamic environment.

The architect's role is to see the system as a whole, how it relates to its environment, and how its components relate to each other.

Any state's education system is definitely complex enough to warrant an architectural approach. An education system has a complex environment: Social trends, technology, politics, law, parents, pupils, teachers as individuals and unions, and probably more. Any education system is complex in itself, containing physical schools and classes, school administration tools and people, teaching methods and plans, teaching materials planning and production, testing methods and administration, control structures for the whole system including governmental agencies, regional authorities and local schools, financing methods, financial controls, IT infrastructure in the individual schools, IT infrastructure for the control structure, internal assessment and feedback mechanisms, teachers education and probably much more.

Let's consider the design of an education system as an architecture undertaking:

Suitability for the tasks

Having described the desired graduate of the education system - or indeed after putting much more thought into the issue - the education system has to be designed so that it tends to produce such graduates. The design has to take account of resources, most notably - financial limitations. Another major test for the suitability of the system, is its ability to correctly interact with all external stakeholders mentioned above.

Adaptability

The environment in which the 21st century education system is functioning, is extremely dynamic. If the system is not very flexible and adaptable, it will start losing its relevance as soon as it is set up. After a decade, we would need to start the discussion from the beginning: "What type of an education system do we need?" This would not be fun, so we have to design the education system so that it adapts to the rapid changes outside. Adaptability is such a basic requirement these days, that it could be placed together with "producing the desired graduates" at the top of the suitability category.

Maintainability

If Adaptability describes flexibility towards the outside world, Maintainability mean the same in relation to the internal structure of the system. The system (and it doesn't matter if we are talking about an Education System or a Software System) must be designed so that its components can be changed, without breaking the system. For a system to be maintainable, its structure has to be well understood. To achieve that, it's best of the components and their interactions well documented. Also, to determine what is going on within the system, in order to decide what changes and corrections are necessary, the various functions of the system need to be testable. (Being testable and being well-understood are related.) To be testable, a system has to contain inherent "test points": Places in the system where it can be probed and looked at, without interfering much with its overall activity. This is very common in electronic hardware design: Looking at electronic printed circuit boards, one often sees metal points and even metal hooks, designed to connect external testing devices. The analog in the world of enterprise or education system architecture, are observation and measurement mechanisms. Financial auditing is such a mechanism. System-wide or school-wide tests and surveys can be used. Passive collection and analysis can be such a mechanism, dealing with test results, school projects, communication between different people (E.g., between teachers and mentors), class activity (through video) etc.

Modularity

Modularity is an important aspect of Maintainability. If the interaction between components (modules) is well understood, documented and defined so that there is minimum dependence between different components, a system can be said to be "modular." This would mean that when a certain component needs to be replaced, it can be done with minimal interference with the rest of the system. For example, if we want to reform the way teachers education is handled, it would be good if we can do that without making massive changes in the education of children. Or, taking a more specific example of a subsystem within a subsystem: Changing the way we select candidates for teachers is part of the teacher education subsystem. If the interfaces between the subsystems are well defined, we will be able to make changes to the teacher selection process without changing the whole teachers education much. With a beautifully modular education system, meaningful change would take years. In a non-modular system, a meaningful change becomes so difficult that it is normally never done. Modularity, while being very useful in creating a flexible system, stands in contradiction with another useful guideline:

System-wide cohesion

There are great advantages to a holistic approach to an education system. A lateral example would be using material being taught in history class to augment the understanding of literature, and vice versa. A "vertical" example may be the integration of teacher education into the schools when would-be teachers practice in real classes. Clearly we can get better results from mixing and leveraging one component of the education system with another. I don't have a clearly correct way to balance modularity and system-wide cohesion. For now, I can only say that both approaches need to be considered and contrasted in every relevant case where there is a specific contradiction between these directives.

Incremental Growth and Scalability

Once we know how we want the whole system to look like, we need to build it. We can't do it all at once. In the process of building the system, one component after the other, we need to keep the new components relevant to the existing system. For example, if we change the inner workings of Year 12 of K12 education, we still need the graduates to be able to enter University. We must have the Year 12 graduates acquire the same matriculation level the university currently requires. Also, when we design and implement a component in a single school or a few schools as an experiment, we need to have a scaling-up plan: How to move from 3 schools to 300. Clear interfaces between an existing education system and a new one are required for smooth transitions.

Parting thought

How many people are there in any state's education system, who see the system as a whole? How many people are there, whose role and competence is to evaluate the whole, its components and its relation to its environment?

The Graduate

The education system has several significant side effects: The confidence the public has in the competence of the state can be deeply affected by the perceived quality of the education system. In addition to that, the education system can produce results by hightening the student's awareness of certain issues, such as ecology, and encouraging them to influence their family members who are outside the formal education system. Some sort of collateral indoctrination. Another side effect has to do with public health and similar issues: The very fact that all - or almost all - the children go through the system, enables mass innoculation, mass health checks, and easy surveying of basic social issues.

But the main effect an education system has on society, comes through the graduates the system produces. The profile of the desired graduate is the starting point for any discussion about education. Or should be. So, looking at the present - as much as we understand it - and anticipating the next century or so, what do we think the graduate should look like? The following thinking attempts to remain within the near-consensus.

The graduate must have high levels of literacy and numeracy. This should be achieved very quickly - the first few years of schooling. High levels of literacy and numeracy at a young age, are the basis upon which many other skills, and much of the necessary knowledge, can be built. For many, literacy should include a second language. It would be interesting to check the level of consensus on this issue, especially in the major English-speaking countries and in (other?) closed societies.

The graduate should be able to deal with information overload. This is a relatively new need. It used to be the case that in looking for knowledge about anything, the challenge was finding the data. In the past few years, finding data is in most cases easy - just Google it. Finding our way out of the data - that's the trick. Eliminating the mountain of irrelevant data, partly relevant data and downright false data, is a skill needed by any traveller on the information highway. For example, as of this moment, >700,000 Google hits for "information highway". Oh, and even more than that for "information superhighway" OR "information super-highway", which brings to our attention that even an avalanche of data (the first 700,000) doesn't necessarily contain even half of what we need.

The Internet is just one source for information overload. There are also the news media, drama-based media, and advertisement. Dealing with any of these sources requires the graduate to have the skill and habit of Critical Thinking. In many cases, a basic understanding of how large amounts of data work - I.e., Statistics - is necessary. Even just to distinguish between an anecdote (today it got hotter - 8⁰C above yesterday) and a trend (in the last century it got hotter - 0.74⁰C). Some feeling for statistics would help many of us ignore nonsensical claims by advertisers and politicians. An interesting indication that a society's statistics literacy level has increased, would be the demise of lotteries, whose success is based mainly on the lack of basic understanding of probability.

The desired graduate should be able to deal with rapid changes. Socially acceptable practices are changing: Political correctness, litigious society, etc. Nationalism comes in and out of fashion. But also changes in the work environment: Old skills and knowledge become obsolete; New skills and knowledge are necessary. The graduates of today's school will have to keep learning throughout their lives. They had better enjoy it, and be good at it.

The availability of information together with the rapid changes, creates a state of constant uncertainty: Things keep changing; we know they are changing; and we don't have all the information to anticipate what the change will look like. Dealing gracefully with uncertainty, and the skills required for Risk Management, used to be needed only by leaders. These habits and skills are now required by more and more people. Being uncomfortable with uncertainty becomes an assured constant discomfort. Some closed societies are trying to protect themselves from this trend, but even they can't expect to be insulated from urbanization, globalization, ecological issues, etc.

A related capacity necessary for any graduate, is the ability to make decisions in the face of uncertainty, and the ability to live with the results of decisions, even if the results are not what one wished for. One understanding which is not common enough, is that a correct decision may still bring undesirable results. Another, related understanding is that wrong decisions are unavoidable. Dealing graciously with making mistakes is an important capacity in an uncertain world.

Usually, I shy away from discussing values, since they seldom fit into the consensus. However, there are certain behaviors that any state discourages. Not because these behaviors are non-virtuous, but because they are disruptive. For example: Very little violence by the citizens is condoned. Also, most societies discourage victimization of one person by another. This would lead most societies to require that the graduate will not tend to be violent, hateful or dismissive towards the rights of other members of the same society. For similar reasons - of keeping the order - other traits are often encouraged: Respect for the law, and contribution to society. Though these last goals are pursued less diligently and less successfully. In less cohesive societies, these softer traits are not quite within the consensus. Of the habits that pretend to reflect values, the minimum consensual requirements of the graduate can include a level of self control and a capacity for anger management required to allow non-violence. Also within that minimum, there is a level of respect for the law. Such requirements are not quite as a consensual as literacy, numeracy, etc. They are also more difficult to measure, and therefore more difficult to regulate. To make things more complicated, these traits are affected to a large extent by the surrounding society, which makes it difficult to maintain pinpointed accountability for the education system's success in promoting them. Still, it is beneficial to try and promote these tendencies.

Back to clearer characteristics of the desired graduate: It is virtually impossible to ignore technology. Technology is all around us, changing and evolving, and it is a definite requirement for any member of society to be technologically literate. This doesn't mean that everyone should be able to create new technology. But to function comfortably in a modern (or post-modern) environment, one has to be able to use technology: Computers, automatic answering machines, cell-phones, cars, etc. One should also have a general sense of what to expect from technology, and even more so - what not to expect: The automatic answering service will not negotiate and will not respond to pleading - or anger.

Of all the desired attributes of the graduate listed here, one is worth reiterating: Being a lifelong learner. Expecting one's hard-won skills and knowledge to become obsolete within one's lifetime - maybe more than once. Expecting to acquire new skills and knowledge. And enjoying it.

Australia

A friend referred me to a website and a statement from the Australian Government, regarding its intention to revolutionize Education in Australia. One can see quite a few positive points in the Australian government's position, and I believe other governments can benefit from studying it.

Before looking at any details, major kudos (or shall I say good on ya?) is due to the Australian Government and the governments of the states and territories for succeeding in reaching a working agreement. I shudder to imaging the political hardship it must have taken.

The policies described in the document concentrate on outcome and not on inputs. This is already a good basis. Children may need to be rewarded for making an effort. Adults should be rewarded for results. A national education system had better be run by adults. Also, the Australian government, together with the states and territories, is committing to measurable targets - specific improvements to be achieved by 2013 and 2020. This is a departure from the "economics of good intentions", which is the norm in education establishments. It would appear that hard headed businessmen were allowed to influence the policies.

A great attribute of the Australian document is that it keeps emphasizing the need to raise public expectations from the education system. In the comfortable shade of low expectation, a lot of incompetence can grow. High expectations can drive news media interest, which can shame the establishment into action. Taken together with community involvement, high expectations make it more likely that parents, community activists and businesses will cooperate constructively with the education system. It becomes high expectations from ourselves.

Accountability and openness. Another big achievement, if it can be successfully pursued. Many teachers - and unions - believe their privacy might be compromised if information about their performance is released. I tend to agree with them. Many of them also think that this is a good reason to deny such information from the public. I disagree with them. The same goes for schools, districts and state education systems. Beyond the intuitive support for the idea, there seems to be also some research showing that school accountability tends to improve results. The emphasis on the accountability for results and level of service, rather than just on financial expenses, strengthens the sense that this is a constructive approach. The document also ties the transparency goal into evidence-based schooling, and allowing knowledge sharing between schools. Nice.

I am a bit bothered by the implicit emphasis on national economic development and personal economic participation as the worthy long term goals to be pursued. Some explicit discussion about what is important could be eye-opening. For example, the Indigenous Australians may have their own cultural preferences - other than personal economic progress. Many religious groups have their own values, and GDP may not be chief among them. It could very well be that after a discussion, economic participation will be declared a major goal, but it deserves that discussion.

Statistical analysis error: The fact that there is a correlation between not finishing K12 and being unemployed, doesn't necessarily mean that one caused the other. A plausible alternative explanation is that those personal attributes that allow people to complete K12 (commitment, intelligence, world view) are the same attributes that allow them to succeed economically in later life. In that case, forcing a change in one result (completing K12) won't cause a change in another result (lack of economical success). A glaring example non-causal relationship is also, very relevant to Australia: There is a correlation between the softness of the road pavement in different countries, and the rate of skin cancer in those countries. But changing the composition of the materials in the road pavements to harden them will not reduce the rate of cancer. That's because the soft roads don't cause cancer; the high level of sun radiation causes both pavement softness and skin cancer. Wear long sleeved shirts, and don't worry about the pavement. It would be good to conduct some research to check whether the right course of action is to directly improve Year 12 completion, or to provide another type of service or help.

The Australian document deals nicely with the blurry concept of school leadership, prescribing specific ways to encourage and provide incentives for those taking responsibility for innovative action. The document states that authority and flexibility will be given to principals, giving them the room for initiative and action not dominated by a distant central authority. Rewards await reformers - instead of the more usual slap on the wrist. Steps are taken to allow flexibility and accountability also on the state-level, reducing the level of central control over the states.

The document also emphasizes the basics - Literacy and Numeracy - as the basis for subsequent learning. This agrees with my own views, so it's obviously the correct view.

The issue of the long and thick tail of under-achievement appears repeatedly. Especially regarding remote areas and what is termed "indigenous communities." Specific effort is to be made in order to support students from such background, in order to minimize gaps. The document claims to "simultaneously deliver equity and excellence" but it doesn't seem that the issue of supporting both ends is really addressed. The question of how to best divide financial and human resources among the high end, low end and the silent majority, is far from resolved.

The Australian Education Revolution described in the document, proposes many changes to an existing system. This means that it is not a revolution, but an incremental reform. It seems that the word "revolution" was put there for PR purposes, so if a country is looking for an education revolution, it needs to keep looking. But there is much to be said for reform, evolutionary change and intelligent redesign. If one is looking for a blueprint to an education system reform, the Australian action plan is a great reference point.

Centuries 21 and 22

Disclaimer: This blog entry is a forward-looking statement, and as such, it is utter nonsense.

2000-2050

We know this reality. We are are already in it, and we can probably predict with some degree of coincidental accuracy what will happen. Of course, if humanity keeps behaving as badly as it does, a major disaster is likely to push the reset button on most of these predictions. But barring such a disaster, we can predict the present as follows:

• Information Overload - over 1.5 million Google hits for “information overload”. Over 34 million Google hits for “global warming” - which could kill us all… Or maybe it doesn’t exist at all… Either way, there is nothing a human can do with this amount of raw data

• Very little knowledge; way too much data

• Lack of respect for authority, stemming from the healthy availability of information and knowledge about the missing knowledge. Today, many people notice that the Doctor doesn't know exactly what causes a headache, back-ache, sneezing, high blood pressure, and other common health problems. Naturally, the doctor doesn't have a "scientific" way to deal with these problems, so the patient can just hope for a general blanket treatment: Take an Aspirin / Prozac / Ritalin / ... Medical doctors do know more today than 30 years ago, but the public's knowledge grew more quickly, and now the public is starting to be aware of the lack of knowledge. A similar situation exists with politicians (what used to be called "leaders") - we are now more aware of their failings

• Uncertainty. Life has always been uncertain, but in eras when people has respect for authorities, they relied on the leaders and experts to provide them a sense of certainty. A false sense, but that didn't matter. These days, more and more people are exposed directly to uncertainty regarding health, wealth, political stability, etc.

• Civilization War - There may be a disagreement about the term, but the reality is at least disturbing. The western world and the Islamic world, at the very least, see reality very differently. At the moment there is no sign of getting closer to a common ground. We can expect this to continue for decades - at least.

• Sensory Overload, accompanied by emotional strain, is quite common: Television programming and advertisement; street advertisement; the infinite cereal aisle of any supermarket; the barrage of news in the radio, TV, newspapers and Internet; spam in your mailbox; Internet banners; semi-relevant Internet search results; all the flashy gadget the Joneses just got; fear dished out by politicians and interest groups; drama dished out by TV, etc.

• Short Attention Span, as one of the results of the sensory overload

• Life expectancy: 100

• Demographics: More old people, and less young people. Creating some economic issues, but not yet enough to change the rules of society

• Demographics: More mixing of ethnicities and religions within the same living areas

• Rapid Changes: Technological advances cause skills to become obsolete, and other skills to emerge. Occupations disappear and others are created. This has been going on ever since the industrial revolution, and is being sped up by the currently budding information revolution

• As a result of the increasing lifespan, the increasing need for older people to keep working due to the changes in old/young people ratio, and the rapid changes in the skills and job-market, people will have several different careers during their lifetime

• Society in a hurry: There is a sense of "time poverty" - not having enough time. Dealing constantly with the urgent, not so much with the important

• Attention Economy - due to the general hurry, and the large amount of available money in the hand of many people, these people's attention becomes a sought-after commodity. He who has your attention, has a better chance of getting into your wallet. The war on our attention is the main driver of the sensory overload mentioned above

• Privacy Issues: Technology allows companies and governments to follow us around. It also allows service providers to give us much more customized service, based on that private information, if we are willing to give up our privacy. The battle rages on between those who value their privacy more, and those who value their convenience more

• Specialization is the mainstream in medicine and technology. A more holistic approach is the mainstream in many services: We like a one-stop shop

• Market economy seems to be winning, for now

These are the elements of the human environment for which an education system is being sought. The desired graduate of the new education system will have to be able to deal with information and sensory overload, with uncertainty and with rapid changes requiring constant learning. This can be expected to continue at least for the next few decades, so when a new education system is in place, it will still be relevant.

2050-2100

Barring a major disaster:

• Rebounding of religion: Possibly Islam expands; possibly non-Islam expands by raising its own religious awareness; possibly China remembers its own religious past

• Ubiquitous communication

• Ubiquitous access to information – Google’s vision "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" becomes a given - at least all the way until "and useful"

• Ubiquitous access to low levels of meaning, rather than dead data – semantic web: Internet Search starts to really work, and to produce 100 results rather than 10 million

• Supposedly ubiquitous immersive communication. Probably not quite immersive, in the sense that to get the full advantage of non-verbal communication, one will still have to communicate face-to-face

• Commoditized simulation – close enough for learning anything the senses can grasp, even if the person using the simulation will be aware of sensory inaccuracies in the simulation

• Personalized Experience economy: Already in the early 21^st century, there is talk about the experience being paramount. In the late 21^st century, together with improved immersive experience technologies, we may expect the coming-of-age of customization. All the basic needs are a commodity, so a customized personal experience is a minimum requirement to make a product or a service valuable

• Life expectancy: 200

• Demographics: old / young ratio keeps rising

• Rapid changes: If it gets much more rapid, society will have to fragment - specialize. A single suburb can’t handle at the same time the daily progress in entertainment, communication, information, work vs. free time, etc.

This is just more-of-the-same as the early 21^st century. The desired graduate may need a few more types of skills and habits, but a free market of schools can handle that. Communication, information and simulation technologies may change the details of how the schooling works, but the fundamentals can be expected to remain the same.

2100-2150

Barring a major disaster:

• Space colonization - fragments of society can find a new world. Much like America in the 17^th century

• Immersive communication - a la Asimov's The Naked Sun, only better, since we can include stimulation of all senses, not just visual and auditory stimulation

• Immersive simulation

• Life expectancy: 1000

• Demographics: old vs. young

• No-child policy implemented in some societies

• New social structures

• New religions and sets of values

• Pacifist societies

• Warlike societies

• Despotic societies

• Meaning economy: "Experience", no matter how finely customized for a specific person, may not be enough. To give a product or a service any value, it has to be conceived as giving meaning to the customer's life. this is not all that different than how it is in the present, but we can expect 22^nd century denizens to be more aware of it

• “Observation” emerging as an accepted lifestyle, for older people

With the new social structures and value systems, we begin to run the risk that any education system being thought of in the ancient times of the 21^st century would be quite out of date. The only hope is that market-based schooling will be able to adapt quickly enough, providing a valuable "product." The combination of a much higher adult/child ratio and the "meaning economy", may bring many adults to become interested in being active in the education of the young. "The Young" in 22^nd century context may be very different than 20^th century terms. It is possible that everybody under 60 will be considered a bit of a child...

2150-2200

A major disaster is no longer a threat to humanity as a whole, due to the prevalence of space colonization. Societies will be too scattered to be destroyed by a single disaster.

• Life expectancy: Not defined

• “Observation” takes hold as an accepted lifestyle

• Adults massively outnumber children, in most of the various societies

• Immersive discourse, using empathic technology: No science fiction - just brain-to-brain interface

• In any society that doesn’t shun technology - No need for “work” to be done by humans

This reality is projected to be extremely removed from current reality. Note, though that the human psyche would not have changed one bit in these two centuries. Any guess as to the desired graduate, and the expectations from the education establishment, would be too far-fetched. Each of the societies will create its own education system.

Example: Art Oriented Schooling

Illustrating the variety of possible schools under a single core mission & curriculum, would take more than one example. So, in addition to the technological school, we can consider an art school.

For parents who have faith in the human spirit as it presents itself through culture, and for parents who just noticed their child's artistic tendencies, it would make sense to consider a school that will give the child training in that direction.

Reading 19^th century novels, one gets the sense that many upper class girls were "cultured" by being taught various forms of art. This can be a good starting point for getting ideas of what and how to teach. Of course the attitude should be reexamined in light of modern thinking and needs: The aim is no longer only to groom pleasantly entertaining young women, but to give those people with a talent, a great framework to develop their talent to its fullest. We are also more likely to be more specialized in the choice of artistic specialty for the students.

There are many different forms of art, and with them there can be different emphases in an art-school: Music, literature, painting, sculpting, dance, and many new forms of art, such as Animation, Cinema, etc. For simplicity's sake, let's focus on literature as an example.

In a literature-oriented course of study in an art school, it may be a good idea to give children the chance to learn several languages. I am often frustrated that I need to read a translation of a book, and therefore to be limited to what someone understood of the writing, rather than what the writer had to say. It would be great to read Goethe in the original German, Shakespeare in the original English, Sartre in French, Sophocles in ancient Greek, Murasaki Shikibu in Japanese, etc. Being able to speak and read several languages may sound very strange to a modern English speaker, but it is quite doable - many people I know speak 3-4-5 languages. We can start at an early age - maybe 3-4 - and exposing the children to different languages through play.

Having the basic faculty for reading - the language - such pupils should have the time to read. This brings up a conversation I had with someone who went through a different education system than mine - a stricter one: I said that at school we once had to read a story by O. Henry. It took the other person a moment to ask "What do you mean 'a' story? We read every word the guy ever wrote." Maybe this was too much for general education, but it seems like a very good idea for someone making literature their main subject of study. Reading, going through paintings, listening to music, etc. All these can be done thoroughly and profoundly, almost at any age.

Those kids who are learning mainly literature can benefit from an expanded sense of history, to put the literature in context. Maybe also issues of politics, psychology and marketing. Ah! Marketing and Sales! Wouldn't it be nice if the students learn what it takes to become financially successful in the arts? They don't have to take that route when they grow up, but just having the option would be nice - we don't need this school to create only starving artists.

Public speaking is a useful skill. Not just for giving lectures, but for getting into a mindset of conveying ideas and emotions to others. Maybe also group discussions with an emphasis on philosophy, which seems to be useful when discussing art.

Another general skill is that of artistic criticism: Dishing it out, as well as dealing with it when it is thrown your way.

Beyond 'rithmetic: Most artists don't need any calculus, but they often deal with complex symmetries. There is some connection between music and mathematical patterns. Also, for the visual artists, geometry may help exercise relevant parts of the brain. This would need much more attention from people who have a great understanding in art and how the brain functions. I personally don't really know anything about the arts - I don't even always know what I likes.

... And lots of relevant practice in their own chosen domain: Writing different types of essays, stories, novels, haiku - anything - and getting the opinion of peers and of experts the children accept as such.

Still No Plan

A few months ago I declared that I don't have a plan - exactly how to improve education for all of us. Mass education is an unsolved problem, and a plan isn't going to pop up as soon as anyone decides to look at the problem. By now, I am starting to have a perception of what a new education system might look like. But there is still the small issue of how to get from here to there. No plan yet.

How are we going to get good teachers to come into the system and stay there? We know the quality of the teachers is very significant for the individual student's results.

How are we going to encourage charismatic leaders, and other potential contributors to be involved in education, even part time?

How are we going to maintain a centrally funded system, that doesn't use its financial power to try and determine the curriculum? Giving power to people or organizations, tends to tempt them to use the power to further their opinions.

How are we going to set up a regulatory body that is able to determine that every school and classroom behaves according to the defined rules? Even if the rules are quite basic, the task of checking their implementation is huge. This question is not specific for a new type of education system - it's very relevant to the existing education systems as well. Though, if a new education system allows a large degree of freedom, there are many types of schools, and regulation becomes even more difficult. In Denmark, this is solved by keeping regulation at - or below - minimum.

How do we convince the existing education establishment to change? Actually, that's an easy one to answer - We can't convince it to change. We are talking about moving from an existing education establishments, modeled in the early 19^th century, to a new education establishment, suitable for the late 21^st century. The changes are too dramatic to be done incrementally. Maybe the way to do it is to keep the current establishment, and start a new one in parallel. If we do a good job, the new establishment will - in a generation or two - replace the old one.

How do we enable teachers to make a major transition? Probably the answer is similar to that about the establishment: We don't. When we create a parallel establishment, we recruit new teachers with new training and new attitudes, which are more suitable for the new establishment. Some teachers from the existing establishment may want to make the shift to the new one. That would be great. Many experienced teachers will prefer to stay within the existing establishment - that's fine, too: They will be needed there.

How do we get the parents to agree to experimental research? The arguments for such research are considerable, but the natural emotional response of parents is very negative. Consider for example the possibility of video-recording the activity in a classroom. It has great benefits for research and consequently for improving the teaching methods, but many parents would cringe at the thought.

How do we get the public to believe a major positive change is possible at all? Most people don't expect much from their governments.

How to evaluate the results of schools, when their attitude, curriculum, emphases etc. are non-standard? The reason to evaluate is to give the public a service - providing information and basic analysis, so parents can make their decision regarding which school to send their kids.

How to facilitate movement of students between very different schools? When the schools are standard, moving from one school to another is not very difficult - 5^th grade is 5^th grade. But with schools that may teach different materials, with very different emphases, it may be tricky. For example, moving at 5^th grade from an art school to a technologically-oriented school or the other way around, the moving students may find themselves in need of picking up 3-6 years of material and practice. Without easy movement, the freedom of choice becomes a binding decision very early (probably too early) in the life of the child.

How do we raise the public's expectation from the education system? And
how do we do it while at the same time giving the public a better appreciation of the magnitude and complexity of the task? No answer yet, but this question may lead to an answer to many of the other questions above: Once people expect more, and appreciate the difficulty, it may create a positive push towards improvement. And when there is a push, humanity tends to find the way.

The Essence of Time

This text is intended only for those of us who are mortals. It is of no concern to those intending to live forever.

Carpe diem! Seize the day! Seize the moment! Tempus fugit. Time flies. Time is of the essence. And if not now, when?

We have many ways of expressing our great respect for the importance of time. But for almost all of us, this is just lip-service. Just look at the people commuting for hours to and from work. Look at the people at work, doing a job they don't like, and willing to wait "just eight more years" until retirement. Look at the people sitting in front of the TV for hours, watching programs they don't particularly like, just to kill time. Look a the people submissively waiting in line for the doctor, teller, waiter; waiting on the phone for the "next available operator", or for the mechanized answering service to complete its text before they can press the next key; waiting at home between 8:00am and 2:00pm for the cable guy, or for the washing machine technician. Look at the people putting a sticker on their car, saying "I'd rather be skiing", instead of going to ski. Look at people being presented with ads, and giving their time away 30-second-slot at a time.

Oh, and look at kids in school. What happens with the 13-or-so years of K12 schooling? Looking at the 13-year whole period, is it well used? How much more could we have given them? How much of that time was wasted on time-fillers? How much was spent teaching materials we know have no bearing on their lives - present and future? Ho much of that time got lost looking for the pencil, recapping last week's forgotten lesson, trying to appear awake (both student and teacher), trying to appear interested (ditto), trying to appear knowledgeable about something we don't understand and don't care to understand (ditto ditto), trying to avoid studying, trying to avoid learning? Where do the answers lie, on the line between "depressing" and "horrifying"?

How much time was spent looking wistfully at the clock? Actually, this last question is a very useful test. Whenever I catch myself looking at the clock, I know I am in trouble - I am not enjoying what I am doing, and I am not even convinced enough that it's necessary. I should get up and do something else, or change my attitude towards what I am doing right now.

Look at the people living in the mirror. Are they making the most of their limited time?

All of the above are important thoughts, especially for those of us who are not immortal. But in the context of education, there is another question: What are the habits we cultivating in the children? The children are the subjects of a system which conveys a very clear message that time is not very important: "The teacher is in a meeting, so just wait." "It doesn't matter that you already understand the material and getting bored; just sit through the class." "It doesn't matter that you don't understand the material and getting frustrated; just sit through the class." "It doesn't matter that the subject doesn't interest you and has no bearing on your life; just sit through the class." "Here's your homework."

There are also indirect messages the kids witness. Messages conveyed to teachers: "There's an extra meeting. It doesn't matter that you don't get paid, appreciated or asked if you think the meeting is important; just sit through the meeting." "It doesn't matter if you think the subject matter of a lesson is unimportant; just go through the motions." "It doesn't matter what you do during the long school vacations; there is no really valuable way to use your time." "It doesn't matter whether what you study to get further-education points is relevant to your work or not; just sit through the course."

The system (education or other) would benefit from respecting the time of all involved. This kind of respect doesn't come naturally. Everything is easily measured by money, but employees’ unpaid overtime - by definition - doesn't cost anything, so it's hard to respect it. Employees’ standard time - being paid anyway - suffers from an "optical illusion" that makes people think it doesn’t cost anything, so it is difficult to take it seriously. Volunteers’ time doesn’t cost money (directly), so it's easy to waste it. All this unused time is an unwise waste: First of all, a resource is a potential for beneficial action even if that resource doesn't translate directly to dollars and dimes, and can be put to good use for advancing the mission of the system. Secondly, People quickly get used to the idea that their time is not important to the system, and then they either stop trying or go away. The potential for beneficial action doesn't just stay there waiting: It is either spoiled, or it disappears.

All this doesn't mean the life of the child or the adult should be all work and no play. Play is a great way to use time, if that's what we want to do, and it's certainly so for kids. Waiting mindlessly, or doing what we don't think is important for hours, days, years - that's an unforgivable waste of time.

Respectful, active, careful attitude towards time - our own, collaborators, underlings, pupils - doesn't come naturally to most people. Creating a culture of such positive concern for time is very difficult. Some religions and philosophical schools have been trying to get us into such awareness for millennia. To make a few steps towards such a culture, we would need to start at a very young age. Since kindergarten or school is often the first place that "tasks" are introduced into the life of the child, K12 education establishments are a good place to start. If we manage to change our habits to pay attention to the potential of our limited time, we will see the results in the behavior of humanity as a whole. I think.

"...fill the unforgiving minute with sixty seconds' worth of distance run..."

Interim Summary

The main points for the revolution, as seen from here (Mid July 2009):

• An understanding that the mission of K12 education in the 21^st and possibly the 22^nd centuries, is to produce graduates who are able and inclined to learn throughout their lives. Without it, the education system is almost irrelevant to the real life outside of it

• A high degree of freedom of choice of subjects to be taught, methods, emphases, etc. This freedom should be visible at many levels: state, region, community, school, teacher, pupil. This is the way to create positive engagement and commitment of all stakeholders in the schooling system. This is the only way to enable the education system to cater to the various expectations of different parts of society, and to respond to the rapid changes in society and its needs

• Clear, minimalist and strict regulation, to enforce basic requirements of the schools active within the aforementioned freedom of choice. Just like the regulation for food selling in most countries being quite minimalist: "You can't sell poisonous food", and at the same time very strict - anyone actually selling poisonous food stands to be severely punished

• Peer teaching: Pupils can teach pupils, and everybody gains: The learning pupil enjoys a much better teachers/students ratio; The teaching student practices a useful skill and gains better understanding of the subject-matter; The professional teacher has more time and available attention for observing individual pupils and enabling them to advance where they need and are able to

Beyond these main points, there are a few important more technical concerns

• Ongoing research can enable different schools to learn from each other's experience. 21^st century reality keeps introducing new facts, trends, needs (perceived and real), professions (E.g., life coach), opportunities (E.g., Internet) and dangers (E.g., global warming), and does it at a very rapid pace. We need to teach what we never studied. Nobody know how to teach these new subjects (E.g., dealing with the information glut), so we must experiment and share the results we get

• Well established feedback mechanisms, providing each stakeholder with a clear indication of how they are doing in relation to what they are trying to do. Without feedback, working in open-loop, any improvement is either coincidental, or based on the heroism of the few. Either way, without systematic feedback, improvement is very limited

• Effective communication between all the parts of the system. Information tends to get lost. In a complex human endeavor such as education, there is a lot of information at stake. Letting it be fall through the cracks and be lost, forces us to work with less knowledge than we could have. Mistakes will be made anyway, but it's a shame to make mistakes we don't need to make

The main points listed above: The mission, choice, regulation and peer-teaching, are concerns with how we need to act. The technical concerns: research, feedback and communication, are concerned with ways to generate and use detailed knowledge about how these actions seem to work, and keep us in touch with reality. Many more points can be listed: Dozens. Hundreds. But if we do that, the details will mask the big picture. And the big picture is not all that complex in itself. We just got used to think it was

Example: Technology Oriented Schooling

Under the core mission & curriculum, there is much room for variety in communal mission & curriculum. This can be illustrated by examples.

Many parents believe that technology will remain the driving force of the progress of civilization for the remainder of the century. It's hard to be sure, but it's a reasonable thinking: Technology has been advancing quickly since the industrial revolution, and doesn't seem to be slowing down. So, it would seem - to those parents - like a good idea to send their children to a school that will develop in them the knowledge, skills and habits that will serve them in a technology-oriented economy. What will such a school look like?

There are many aspects to the hi-tech industry and economy: Purely technological, product design, marketing, management and probably more. To simplify the example, let's just concentrate on one aspect - the technology and science.

From a very young age - maybe 4 or less - the kids will be exposed to English - the international language of technology and commerce, even if they come from a non-English-speaking society. Of the 3 Rs, 'reading and 'riting will emphasize technical language. No need to be fanatical about it, though - this is just an emphasis, and not an exclusive direction, so written material with cultural significance will also be available. Regarding the 3rd R - 'rithmetic - there should be a heavier emphasis beyond what we would expect in - say - an art school: The children will be taught higher forms of math: Trigonometry, calculus, signal processing, etc. The learning is expected to be much deeper than what we see in general-purpose schools existing today, for a few reasons: The higher-classes students will be there because they want to study the particular material, and not because they defaulted into a school due to their place of residence. The teachers are also expected to be more interested in what they teach, and to know why they teach it - in addition for making a living. The curriculum as a whole will be more attuned to these studies, deemphasizing subjects that are not relevant to the technological direction.

Scientific thinking can also be taught from a very young age (3), doing fun experiments to see natural phenomena, like putting mentos in a bottle of cola. Then at the ripe age of 5, children can start guessing what phenomena would look like, for example, what would happen to a rubber ball if we make it really cold, and then bounce it off the floor? Once the kids have a theory, they can test it. Generally, it is easy to build the habit of questioning and testing assumptions. It works. I am not usually a TV fan, but we can even let the kids watch mythbusters, and it will encourage critical thinking and familiarity with the scientific methods. Well... Semi-scientific. Beyond scientific thinking, scientific method can be practiced a lot in school, going from the small experiments described above for 5-year-olds, to more scientifically interesting experiments. At some point in the education of young scientists, there is no more need for simulated classes and simulated experiments. School can go all the way to experiments that may be of interest to professional scientists. Note that since the hypothetical school discussed here is hi-tech oriented and not academia-oriented, I am referring to professional scientists working in the industry, and not to academic scientists. The types of theories to be tested in experiments often differ between the academics and the industry scientists.

Specific scientific subjects can be made available to the pupils: Physics, biology, chemistry, electronics, medicine, meteorology, etc. The school leaders should find a balance between the compulsory subjects and the elective subjects. One approach would be to teach everybody the basics of all subjects, and let pupils select which subjects to study in depth.

Communication skills should be taught consciously, and not as an afterthought. In the case of kids who study to be technologists, the goal of communication is to be understood and to understand others, at the right level of detail. Note that this is not a universal goal of communication: For people in sales or business, a critical goal of communication is to get another party to come around to your point of view, and even to dominate a discussion. An engineer (who is not a politician at heart) has no interest in doing that, but has a critical interest in having their opinion heard and understood.

A theory can be posed that any reasonable student in such a school should be able to have a BSc degree in electrical engineering, or equivalent, by the time they graduate, at the age of 17-20. A nice theory that will need to be experimentally proven.

KIPP, SIPP and HIPP

KIPP - Knowledge Is Power Program, is a well known success story in education. So well known, that it keeps popping up in conversation 5000 miles from their nearest location. With their strong message connecting knowledge to personal power, rather than to geekness, they manage to motivate students who otherwise would have been likely to drop out of school. Just to make sure this doesn't appear too easy, note that the message comes with a method and with powerful leadership.

Keeping a good hold of my admiration to KIPP, I allow myself a few thoughts about the raw message of Knowledge Is Power: What is the best route to personal power in the 21^st and 22^nd centuries? One line of acquirable traits includes Knowledge, Skills, Habits and Values. Values are so far from consensus that it would be good to leave them alone for now. Of Knowledge, Skills and Habits, which is the best equipment for practicing personal power in the adult world? Which enables a person to gain employment, association and the ability to create new things as that person judges valuable? Let's consider a valuable project, in need of people. For the discussion, we can think of The Project as a person, meeting people and other projects, wanting, considering, etc. Quite like the anthill in Godel, Escher, Bach. In real life the project may itself be a person, an organization, or an undertaking by either.

Knowledge in itself is pinpointed in time: What do you know about the subject right now? Knowledge in the 21^st century is also something relatively easily acquired, and most importantly, quickly becomes obsolete. One way for knowledge to become obsolete is by a new theory or fact superseding an old one: When I was a child, I knew the planet Mercury showed the Sun the same face all the time, creating a hot half and a cold half in the planet. Now this is known (?) not to be the case. Another way for knowledge to become obsolete is that pretty soon nobody cares about the subject. Still, even raw knowledge can be very useful: When The Project meets a person with great knowledge relevant to something The Project does, The Project may ask them for consultation in the short term, in order to overcome The Project's own lack of knowledge. This is good for the knowledgeable person. It is employment, it is influence, it is association with The Project, it is indeed power.

Skills have a longer lifespan than raw knowledge. They often take longer to acquire - for example acquiring a language. Skills often enable the carrier to continuously acquire new knowledge, either by being able to read books in a foreign language, or just by employing learning skills to learn new knowledge in any subject. Skills may also become obsolete: Does anyone care if I know how to use a slide-rule? Skills can be very useful: When The Project meets a person with skills relevant to something The Project does - either for learning or doing - The Project may offer them long term employment, since the skilled person is likely to grow their useful knowledge together with the changes in The Project's needs. So, even more power to the person with skills.

Habits have the longest lifespan. They take a lifetime to develop and maintain. During our impressionable years (1-90) they take effort just to preserve. Notwithstanding certain regimes, the habit of approaching the unknown with curiosity hasn't ever become obsolete in human history, and probably pre-history. Habits of learning, habits of taking responsibility, habits of facing difficulty - these can be great assets. When The Project meets a person with desirable habits, The Project would be wise to offer that person permanent association, and possibly the opportunity to lead The Project or spawn new Projects. Powerful stuff.

One more habit should be mentioned in the context of KIPP: The habit of doing. Rather than just write a book (or a blog), the KIPP founders created and are running a successful chain of school. That's a powerful habit, with evident results.

Regulation

"Regulation" is a discredited concept these days (2009), because of the financial meltdown the world is experiencing. But in the long term view, regulation provided - and still provides - us with a very flexible and reliable market in food, medicine, insurance, banking, etc. So, looking forward, we can talk about regulation as a useful tool.

Why regulate at all? Why not let the good judgement of individual educators be their guide? Who are we to say what is acceptable and what is not acceptable? The general answers are the same as for any other regulation: Regulation is a service provided to the citizens, to save them the need to become experts in food, medicine, law, finance, civil engineering, etc etc. Also, regulation helps protect the public from incompetent practitioners, and from competent practitioners of unacceptable practices.

There are a few tools of regulation. The negative tools - withholding resources or licenses - should be rarely used, but when there is a decision to withhold a license, it must be strictly enforced

• Financing: 0-100%

• Licensing of schools. Only a licensed school can operate

• Banning individuals from work in an education institute

• Criminal litigation against individuals, for example when they continue to operate an unlicensed school

Non tools of regulation: the regulator may not use certain techniques, which are destructive:

• Professional support from the system may not be withheld. Full support must be provided to all licensed schools, otherwise, the regulator ends up penalizing the students, rather than the school

• Bad-mouthing: A school is either licensed or not licensed. No "soft" efforts to discredit a school

Education regulation should be structured in layers:

• A national layer with a minimal set of interests. For example, make sure the core curriculum is being taught; make sure information is being shared freely among schools and the system; make sure the interpretation of the core mission is acceptable to society and the state - E.g., no-one is teaching lawlessness, or hatred

• A regional layer, which may have its own general interpretation of the core mission. For example, in a region where most of the inhabitants are recent immigrants, may decide that a necessary part of social participation is becoming comfortable with the language and culture of the host country. (Notice the choice of the word "comfortable" rather than a word like "proficient." This comes directly from the core mission statement - to develop the joys of learning, teaching and social participation, every day: Proficiency in itself doesn't necessarily mean a person enjoys the skill, while being comfortable with a skill or a habit at least borders with enjoying it.) In such a region, the regulators will need to make sure the students acquire such skills and habits in all schools

• The school layer, with its more or less specific curriculum, more or less specific research plan, methods and social values

On a deeper analysis, more layers may be added, but this seems like a reasonable minimum.

The basic roles of the regulator should be clearly defined. Mostly around the following:

• Ensure schooling is enjoyable for all involved. The "every day" makes it easier to measure, and more difficult to confuse the regulator with claims of long term effects.
  There is an open question of how to measure joy and other attitudes, but the working assumption should be that it is possible, and now we only need to find the ways

• Strict testing of core curriculum, though ages may vary - some schools may teach literacy at the age of 4, some at the age of 7. We should develop methods for comparing between schools, that will overcome the age differences, as well as differences in emphasis within the core curriculum

• Ensure ongoing improvement in learning, teaching and social participation. The "every day" requirement is hard to test, but if we zoom out and compare longer periods of time - maybe quarters - then it is much easier

• Ensure all stakeholders learn, and improve their learning

• Ensure all stakeholders teach (reminder: including the pupils), and improve their teaching

• Ensure all stakeholders improve their social skills

• Keep track of research, possibly enforcing some limitations, similar to those stated in the Declaration of Helsinki

• Ensure the sharing of knowledge between schools, such as knowledge coming from local research

• Ensure effective communication lines: within the school, going out of schools and going into schools

Above all, the regulator should retain its wisdom, and not descend into legalistic formalities and political games. The regulator must keep an open eye for problems beyond the formal definition. The regulator can decide that a certain behavior is unacceptable, even if it doesn't go against a written rule. The regulator can also take a positive role, and notice when an opportunity presents itself, such as the use of a new technology for knowledge management, if such a technology appears. Giving the regulator such a generally defined mandate is not a new idea - many existing comptrollers and regulators have such authority to practice common sense.

Mission - Complicating Factors

Our mission is to develop the joys of learning, teaching and social participation, every day.

The first part is easy and natural enough: Just try to stop us from learning and teaching. Here is the rest:

The need for social participation is so natural for humans that we have very unpleasant names for the few of us who seem to like it less. Here is my very personal opinion about socialization: Over the past few thousand years, more and more humans have been living in city conditions, with thousands or millions of other humans milling around. This is not natural for us. We are designed to live as members of a tribe, where we know everybody, we know the pecking order and we have a very good idea what to expect from anyone we may meet. We are not designed to live in a swarm, where most of the people around us are unknown: Potential threats and potential allies. Being a very adaptable species, we created behaviors that more-or-less work in the swarm environment. But these behaviors need to be learned, and they cannot be learned solely at home, since at home most of us live in a society in its ancient sense - we know everybody, etc. School is a very good place to acquire and practice social skills for the mass/city society. We meet hundreds or even thousands of kids at a similar age to us. We have the chance to interact and get feedback for how well we interact. We practice social skills that don't come completely naturally to us. It is a great disadvantage for a kid to graduate from school with a negative attitude towards social participation, and it is a great advantage to be particularly comfortable with it. Also, society has a deep interest in having as many of its members be active participants and contributors to society. It's a low-level indoctrination that most of us will agree works for our own benefit - except for those of us who are willing to leave civilization behind, and live an isolated life. This is an admirable choice, but very rare, so I will concentrate on those of us remaining inside the mass civilization.

Teaching social skills is not trivial. There are differences between people and between peoples in what they consider "correct" social behavior. Different religions have contradicting requirements. For example, is it unacceptable for women to go with a headscarf, or is it unacceptable for them to go without a headscarf? Or should we let each section of society decide for itself? Or should we let each woman and girl decide for herself? There is no hope for consensus, so this is outside the jurisdiction of the core mission statement, which should be almost universally accepted. Details can be dealt with by each school's own communal mission statement, which lives within the common, core mission statement.

The communal mission statement can determine what happens in the school(s) in a particular the community. People may then choose to send their children to a school whose communal mission matches their own preferences within the core mission. The particular social values are part of that mission. So are the particular subjects being learned and taught. A communal mission statement may call for every kid to come out of 12^th grade with an academic degree in math, and with a competitive approach to social participation. Another school's mission statement may call for kids to graduate with a high level of religious studies, and a charitable approach to social participation. Both schools can do a great job adhering to the core mission, without compromising their own particular mission.

Another complicating factor is the specifics of learning and teaching. Beyond the core mission of making learning and teaching enjoyable for all, there needs to be a decision of what to teach. The specific content of learning and teaching is likely to provide a lot of opportunity for disagreement. It may be delegated completely to the communal mission, but I think there should be a core curriculum to be included in all schools. Probably along the lines of the three Rs: reading, 'riting, and 'rithmetic. They are considered obsolete as the be all and end all of education, but they are still pretty good as a basis, and I am not aware of any section of society that thinks children should not learn these skills. These are so basic, that they can be considered as a compulsory aspect of social participation: In a developed country, it is truly difficult to participate when illiterate or unable to pay the correct amount at a store. A pure vision of the separation of core mission and communal mission will leave everything but the basics to the communal. Any additional subject matter that will be included in a core curriculum (even a foreign language) will put the system into a risk of a culture war.

Wrapping up the core mission statement is the demand that it will be the definite guideline every day. Not "sometime." Not "eventually." Not "be mediocre today and improve tomorrow", but "be great today." Not a general statement of intention, but what are we going to do today. Enough motivational speaking for now, but seriously, we humans are a lazy bunch, and we need to remind ourselves to act according to our stated intentions. Today.