Do we really need 13 reviews in education?

At my last count, there were 13 reviews currently underway in education. The review fever is so intense right now that some principals have called for "the [NCEA] review to be reviewed" (NZ Herald, 1 June 2018). But do we really need all these reviews? 13 potentially signals further shift in an education system where teachers, school leaders, and other stakeholders are already resistant and reluctant to embrace change. 13 reviews seems a bit much when educators are talking about things like change fatigue.

The past few months have seen various agendas in education pushed to the forefront. The New Zealand Initiative is promoting agendas such as returning to more external exams, suggesting that 21st-century approaches that promote creativity and critical thinking is selling snake oil. In the meantime, both NZEI and the PPTA are concerned about teacher workload, pay, and student to teacher ratios. There are also the Ministry of Education's priorities to add to the mix. The past few years have seen them demand Innovative Learning Spaces and Communities of Learning, and at the same time request more and more data.

While the battle rages, I wanted to take a moment to remind all of us, the unions, the school leaders, the teachers, the government, the students, the parents, the universities and any and every other stakeholder in education why it is so important that we take an in-depth and critical look at our education system as we engage with these reviews.

There are many reasons why I believe that large-scale change is desperately needed in education, however, one reason stands out to me in the New Zealand context. For generations, our education system has been failing to meet the needs of Māori and Pasifika students. Māori is not only said to be "underachieving" in our current system, but they are also over-represented in our prisons and in our suicide figures. For anyone who believes in education being egalitarian, this should ring alarm bells (and trigger an evacuation?). It was Marx who argued that education "propagates the social hierarchies of the ruling class." For me, this demands serious action, not just a review.

I also believe that the world has changed. To argue that education should not drastically change for the age of the internet, e-commerce, big data and climate change, would be the same as saying that education should not have changed with the arrival of the printing press, international trade and the industrial revolution. I worry that the traditionalist agenda does not seriously address the reality of our times, and instead may inadvertently create further inequality in our education systems by failing to acknowledge or address the reality of climate change, automation, networked knowledge, radical inequality and exponential technology such as quantum computing.

There are many other reasons why I think education should change. I have briefly summarised them in the infographic below. Hopefully, your critical information consumer alarm bells start ringing when you see such abbreviated versions of complex issues... If this is you, you can skip the junk food (infographic) and instead read the far more in-depth explanation (nutritious citations, references and a dash of philosophy) included at the end of this post.

(You can download the image here)

13 reviews seem like a lot, but when you consider the systemic problems of our current system, I wonder if it is enough. Hopefully, these reviews are are only the beginning, a starting point for systemic educational change that eliminates inequality in our system. I hope that these reviews create possibilities for a more hopeful future for everyone.






And for those of you who wanted a more in-depth version of why I believe education should be different... The text below is an 'outtake' of writing that I used to make sense of some of the themes that informed my thesis. 

Is education broken?

Purpose of education

To understand why education, and in particular schools might need a radical transformation, it is important to first examine its purpose, as this inevitably acts as the measure by which we establish whether it is in fact, fit for purpose.  Additionally, these conflicting philosophies contribute tension in public, private political and academic debates where unknowingly, arguments about the priorities for educational outcomes are underpinned by conflicting ideologies. These ideologies are philosophically “fundamentally irresolvable” (Biesta, 2009; Egan, 2001).

Generally, we can agree on a range of common, albeit conflicting purposes for education; Plato’s academic idea, Rousseau’s developmental idea, and socialization (Egan, 2001), or similarly as identified by Biesta (2009), socialisation, subjectification (development of individual autonomy), and qualification, (acquisition of knowledge and skills). Despite these ideas underpinning most, if not all debates in education, they are rarely acknowledged, but instead are assumed as a common understanding and assumption. This problem stretches beyond our current dissatisfaction in education, even extending to Aristotle who captures these tensions when he writes; “For in modern times there are opposing views about the tasks to be set, for there are no generally accepted assumptions about what the young should learn, either for virtue or for the best life; nor yet is it clear whether their education ought to be conducted with more concern for the intellect than for the character of the soul. The problem has been complicated by the education we see actually given; and it is by no means certain whether training should be directed at things useful in life, or at those conducive to virtue, or at exceptional accomplishments.”- Aristotle (Thomas, 2013)

Further, the legitimacy of these conflicting purposes are rarely questioned when considered in terms of postnormal times, described by Sardar (2010) as being “characterised by uncertainty, rapid change, realignment of power, upheaval and chaotic behaviour. We live in an in-between period where old orthodoxies are dying, new ones have yet to be born, and very few things seem to make sense. Ours is a transitional age, a time without the confidence that we can return to any past we have known and with no confidence in any path to a desirable, attainable or sustainable future.”

Hence, if we wish to consider the ‘state of education’ and whether change is truly necessary, it is important that we examine these conflicting purposes in the context of our current, postnormal times.  

Plato’s academic idea or qualification

Despite the shift in the New Zealand Curriculum towards key competencies, much of the current New Zealand schooling experience is still heavily academic. Particularly at senior secondary, content is still assessed, usually with academic, externally marked and moderated exams at the end of an academic year. In many schools, these results act as gatekeepers for entry towards the next level course. Content is staggered, with schools gradually exposing students to increasingly complex ideas. Most schools still divide their time according to the academic disciplines – mathematics, English, science, social sciences and the arts. Few of these institutions however would recognise that these structural elements within the school timetable and their associated national qualifications are influenced by Plato’s ideas and purpose of education. 

Of particular importance here, is the purpose of education as upheld by Plato, that the ‘best’ accumulated knowledge is learnt, and that it transforms the mind of the learner to become increasingly rational (Egan, 2001). Thus, by selecting the best of our human knowledge, and selectively and gradually exposing students to the best of knowledge, we will develop students who are rational, and as a result, increasingly just and virtuous, and further, who might appropriately and rationally contribute in a democratic society. Biesta (2009) identifies this, as the qualification purpose of education, where the key purpose is the provision of particular knowledge and skills, often for set purposes such as preparation for the workforce or for economic development and growth.

We can thus conclude that Plato’s influence on education provides much of the foundation upon which the academic purposes of our current education systems rest, and as such, why so many of the systems and processes in our current education landscape reflects the ideals upheld in Plato’s Republic. Additionally, subsequent philosophers of education have also been influenced by Plato, and as a result further established these ideas as part of the common education paradigm.  

Rousseau’s developmental idea or subjectification

Jean-Jacques Rousseau is a second philosopher whose ideas have had a significant influence on the current education paradigms within which we operate. Rousseau is credited with reimagining education as “supporting the fullest achievement of the natural process of mental development” (Egan, 2001). Or in other words, Rousseau is credited with reimaging education to be ‘age appropriate’, matching the curriculum to age of the child. Roussea’s ideas about a developmental curriculum is of particular significance as it forms the foundation upon which Piaget and Vygotsky’s theories were built (Egan, 2001). Much of today’s debates around personalisation in education are echos of Rousseau’s ideas which evolved to include learning style and personal sensibilities as matters also to be considered in educating a child. Thus, for Rousseau, the purpose of education was to develop the potential of the individual child and as such, he contributes a second potential purpose for education. 

Roussea’s ideas can also not be viewed in isolation, as he himself credits Plato’s Republic as “the finest treatise on education ever written”(Rousseau, 2012). However, Roussea’s philosophy does suggest an entirely different focus for the purpose of education. While Plato’s education system focuses on the society, seeking to develop the role of education in stabilising society, Roussea seeks to develop the individual development of the child, viewing society as a corrupting influence. Central to Rousseau’s philosophy, is that the child is at the center, and as such, we might conclude that the second key philisophical purpose of education is the development of the autonomos individual . This idea of the development of the autonomous individual is also echoed in Biesta (2009) who writes that “any education worthy of its name … allow those being educated to become more autonomous and independent in their thinking and acting.”

Socialisation

Yet a third purpose of education as outlined by Egan (2001), is that of socialisation, where education seeks to  impart the norms and values of a particular society. Or, as Dewey (2012) explains, it is the process by which a social group moulds or shapes an immature member into its social form. This means that a third potential purpose of education is that it helps young people learn to navigate the social codes of their society succesfully. Dewey (2012) even goes as far as to suggest that this socialisation contributes towards an individual winning the approval of others. Further, the socialisation purpose also might seek to inculture ways of being, or cultures of inquiry (Kuhn, 2008) within an academic domain as mathematician, scientist, sociologist and so forth (Biesta, 2009).

Coupled with the idea of socialisation is also that of democracy. Education serves a purpose in establishing a particular kind of citizen, as well as the type of democracy this is to bring about (Biesta, 2009). This is evident in Plato’s ideas in particular as his educational dialogues are heavily connected to ideas of a just society. We can thus conclude that it is this socialisation purpose that fosters a sence of belonginging and responsibility within a community (both academic and civil), particularly in regards to citizenship.

Fit for purpose? 

Although Biesta (2009) begins to stress the importance of examining the purpose of education within the current political landscape, his argument does not extend to a critique of these ideas, or the extent to which the current system actually meets these goals. Further, whilst the above three ideologies regarding the purpose of education are inherent within current and historical debates around education reform, a case can be made that education within its current state does not serve any one of these three foundational purposes of education. Thus, an argument can be made that a radical shift is needed within formal education, particularly in schools and tertiary academic institutes.  Further, since the intent of this study is to disrupt debates on educational futures, it is thus necessary to justify why such a disruption might be required.  

Individual level

One might begin a critique of the current modus operandi of education, and in particular schooling in New Zealand, with an evaluation of how the purposes of schooling are serving the individual. 

Central to the philosophies of Rousseau’s developmental idea and subjectification as discussed by Egan (2001) and Biesta (2009) respectively, is that the child and their needs are at the centre of the educational experience. However, if the child is in fact at the centre of our current system, the vast literature on student disengagement in school, particularly that of the ethnic minorities and those with special educational needs would suggest that this intention is not being met (Appleton, Christenson, & Furlong, 2008; Finn & Servoss, 2014; Wang & Eccles, 2013). A further example that illustrates that the child is not in fact at the centre, is that here in New Zealand, there are concerns around the unhealthy levels of stress and anxiety experienced by young people, because of their schooling experience, particularly around assessment (Education Review Office, 2015).

One might thus make the argument that the increasing levels of disengagement, partnered with concerns over student wellbeing indicates that the current schooling experience does not have the students at the centre, particularly for those students most at risk. 

The socialisation aspect of education as outlined above would suggest that education might play a significant role in helping students assimilate and to be successful within our social codes. Despite a general public consensus of the egalitarian purpose of school (Gilbert, 2005; Gordon, 2016), that education should act as the great equaliser, for some time now, research has suggested that this is in fact not the case (Biesta, 2009; Bishop, Berryman, Cavanagh, & Teddy, 2009; Peet, 1975; Roscigno & Ainsworth-Darnell, 1999). If we are successful at using school as a means to socialise our young people, then we should not see such stark differences in the engagement, dropout rates, exam results and even incarceration of ethnic minorities or those from a lower socio-economic groups. However, given the differences we can observe between ethnicity and socio-economic groups (Finn & Servoss, 2014), we can thus argue that at an individual level, education does not successfully socialise all our young people to effectively navigate the social and political codes of society, but rather, as Marx argued, that it propagates the social hierarchies of the ruling class (Peet, 1975; Roscigno & Ainsworth-Darnell, 1999).

As to the third purpose of education, that of qualification or Plato’s academic idea, where the intent is to expose students to ‘best’ accumulated knowledge with the intent of developing rational and virtuous citizens, we can argue that here too education falls short in its goals. 

When considering the current rate at which knowledge advances (Weinberger, 2011), in conjunction with the pace at which National Curriculums and policy are reviewed and adapted,  we can raise serious questions as to the relevance of the knowledge to which students are exposed to throughout their academic career. This of course does not even begin to address what the expansive and exponential explosion of information should mean for education.

Additionally, the academic ideals of exposing our young people to the ‘best’ of human knowledge in an effort to prepare them for the working world, falls remarkably short of its promises too, as is evident by the skills gap (Stewart, Wall, & Maciniec, 2016). Graduates are frequently criticised for not having the right skills for success in the workplace, whilst the media also have begun questioning the usefulness of current qualifications including tertiary degrees (Alton, 2016; Durden, 2015; Duronio, 2012; Lehmann, 2015; Ryan, 2015). 

Further, one might also argue, that our education systems not only falls short in developing adults with the necessary skills for the postnormal workplace, but an argument can also be made that education is failing to develop adults with the mental models to successfully navigate the complexities and demands of the modern personal life too (Kegan, 1995). Not only are we seeing increased diversity within our communities and schools that require the skills to communicate effectively across cultural differences (Hall & Theriot, 2016), but we are also seeing a redefinition of how personal and professional relationships are navigated and established thanks to the rise and reach of social media (Gardner & Davis, 2014),.

In summary, we might argue that public education, in particular schools, fail to meet the needs of the individual. Not only do they fall short in socialising students in such a way that they are able to successfully navigate the vast complexities of postnormal life, but, it would appear that the academic agenda fails to do so also. Moreover, high levels of student disengagement, dissatisfaction and frustration would also suggest that the personal needs of students are also not met. 

National level

Despite the value that we have placed on the individual in recent times, national goals cannot be excluded from the debate around whether education and schooling is in fact meeting its goal. As is highlighted by both Plato and Dewey, the role of education is fundamental in that of the democratic society. 

At a national level we might also make the case that here too, education is not meeting its socialisation purpose. Within New Zealand, lower socio economic groups, as well as Maori and Pasifica groups, all have a long history of underachievement within academic contexts, but also of higher levels of unemployment, as well as higher levels of incarceration, illness and poverty (Bishop et al., 2009). Thus we can argue that education does not serve these groups in helping them to assimilate and be successful in the dominant culture (Peet, 1975).  Again we might bring into question the supposed egalitarian intent of education. Additionally, Dewey (2012) highlights the role of socialisation in bringing the “immature members into its own social form”. Thus, for those who have been marginalised within education and society, this will likely continue as these values and ideals are proliferated through the socialisation that takes places in education. Further, this educational idea also struggles in navigating the tension between the losses of cultural knowledge at the expense of socialisation (Milne, 2013). 

When examining the ideas of subjectivity and Rousseau’s developmental ideas within a national context, again, our current education model struggles to meet its goals here too. 

Current education models see large amounts of standardisation, a remnant from the industrial age. This sits both within the organisation of schools, but also the standardisation of the academic curriculum through achievement objectives and an externally driven assessment systems. Our students are educated in batches where everyone must learn the same things, where machinelike efficiency is valued (Berry, 2011; Callahan, 1962; Claxton, 2013), often over diversity, creativity, innovation, complex problem solving, individual strengths, passions and cultural capital, autonomy, and personal agency (Berry, 2011; Wagner & Compton, 2012). Given current, and potentially future economically and politically volatile times, one might argue that diversity, creativity, problem solving and critical thinking will likely play a key role in adaptability of communities and nations (Capra & Luisi, 2014; Facer, 2016) yet, our current system through high degrees of standardisation acts to reduce and diminish this diversity. Further, diversity is also attributed as a key factor for innovation (Pentland, 2014; Wagner & Compton, 2012), and as such, one may question whether the excessive focus on standardisation might mean the loss of economic revenue at a national level, due to the loss of creativity required for innovation.

A further contention within the national context when evaluating whether education is in fact fit for purpose is again, the academic agenda. A national curriculum serves the purpose of establishing an agenda for the ‘best’ knowledge. In New Zealand, despite the socialisation aspects of the curriculum that seek to develop “young people who will be confident, connected, actively involved life long learners” (Ministry of Education, 2007), a large part of the curriculum (or the back half as it is more informally called), still concerns itself with establishing what knowledge and skills students should learn. Despite the values of the curriculum claiming diversity, inquiry and curiosity, the back half serves as a reminder of the Platonic ideals of education where we already ‘know’ what the ‘best’ knowledge is. The achievement objectives that fill the second part of the New Zealand curriculum falls short because not only do they (potentially unintentionally) act to limit the potential of diversity through their standardisation of what students must know, and hence limit inquiry and curiosity within schools, but additionally, it also makes some assumptions about what constitutes the ‘best’ knowledge and skills for our students to learn. This begs the questions what knowledge is best to learn for who and for what purpose? 

Additionally, when considering the tension between social and cultural diversity, and the role of education to socialise individuals into the culture of inquiry within academic disciplines, one should also consider the changing nature of knowledge. David Weinberger (2011) and others (Barker, 2000; Cope & Phillips, 2009; Gilbert, 2005, 2007) argue that the internet, much like the printing press before that, has shifted the nature of knowledge. 

The rise of the printing press saw knowledge often being treated with an artificial linearity and hierarchy, and as a scare resource (Weinberger, 2011). However, the Internet, as well as wicked problems such as climate change that transcends disciplinary boundaries, has led to epistemic shifts in the way knowledge is produced, stored, used and communicated. Weinberger (2011) and Bolstad et al. (2012) summarise these shifts through identifying that knowledge has become more accessible and less of a scarcity, becoming available to a much greater number of people in a greater range of contexts, but also through being filtered forward (rather than out, as was necessary in the age of print where every word costs money to print). In other words, knowledge is no longer guarded in paid journals and university libraries. This has a range of implications including, that the shape of knowledge has shifted to networks of interactions, people and reasoning. This also means that we have seen an explosion of knowledge, particularly as knowledge production is no longer reserved largely for universities and academia, but rather, we can now easily find the contributions of the expert amateur, corporate research and development, and cultural knowledge. 

Essentially, knowledge has become networked, exponential, dynamic and diverse (Weinberger, 2011).

When the very nature of knowledge is shifting, then here too we can argue that socialising students into the culture of an academic domain poses problems. For example, when knowledge no longer needs to be dominated by a male Eurocentric bias (Ruse, 1981), what becomes the ‘best’ knowledge to learn and teach? Additionally, what new role can and should the greater accessibility to knowledge play when considered in light of developing the individual rather than the society or class? Should individuals be allowed and enabled to choose their own path through the exploded landscape of knowledge, or should the best knowledge be chosen from across this landscape to expose all students too? And, by choosing the ‘best’ knowledge to expose all students to, what critical redundancy is removed from the system, by socialising individuals into particular modes of thinking that might serve to propagate existing cultural norms and mental models that have contributed to climate change, inequality and other global wicked problems?  

Further, few national curriculums make space for the rise of emerging interdisciplinary fields such as climate change and nanotechnology, quantum biology or nutrigenomics. As noted earlier, national curriculums generally cannot keep pace with the dynamic rate at which knowledge is evolving in modern times. 

In summary, the idea of the ‘best’ knowledge no longer holds up in postnormal times, where the selection of this knowledge not only serves to exclude, both cultural and academics perspectives, but also that national curriculums simply cannot match the current explosion of knowledge and so is at risk of forever being out of date. 

Global level

At the global level, a large number of factors contribute towards experts predicting shifts in our society as radical as the Industrial Age, if not more (Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2012; Facer, 2011; Sardar, 2010). Hence, if we compare the present model of education against currents global trends and challenges, here too, the purported purposes of the education, of what school supposedly provides do not hold up to their promise. 

Whilst our current education system was a product of the industrial revolution, one might argue as Gilbert (2005) does, that a new model is required for a different age.

On a global scale, humanity is facing a number of wicked problems. Of major concern is the rising impact of climate change (Stokes, Wike, & Carle, 2015). Rising sea levels that will impact coastal communities and infrastructure, drastic differences in climate that will likely impact global food production through drought, floods and other changing weather patterns, as well as increased risk of natural disasters, means that this environmental problem is likely to impact the lives of citizens in every country, at every level. Given that most of New Zealand’s economy is dependent on agriculture and forestry, it becomes urgent and critical that the possibility of radical climate change is addressed as this will directly impact out economic sustainability. Alongside climate change, radical inequality, over population, resources scarcity, specifically around food and water are also major global concerns (Emmott, 2013; Facer, 2011). 

When considering the potential socialisation purpose of school, one may then question the role that education plays in the increasing amount of concerns around these wicked problems that may dramatically, if not catastrophically transform our environment and way of living. Where socialisation is considered to act as a means to impart the norms and values of our culture (Egan, 2001), we can then question the extent to which schools have contributed in socialising the populous into cultural norms that prioritise economic growth over environment, consumerism over environmentalism, growth over ethics. In other words, to what extent are the ways that we socialise our young people into the current ways of doing things, the current paradigms of thinking, actually contributing to the escalating environmental disasters? Monbiot (2012) captures much of this culture of consumerism that feeds large-scale environmental destruction when he writes, “Pathological consumption has become so normalised that we scarcely notice it. … There’s nothing they need, nothing they don’t own already, nothing they even want. So you buy them a solar-powered waving queen; a belly button brush …”

Additionally, since the establishment of our current education model, globalisation has taken hold. Not only are we seeing significantly increased international levels of trade and exchange, but also some experts have argued that we are in the ‘age of migration’ (Triebert, 2014). 

Individuals are asked to navigate the complexities of a range of cultural norms and practices on a daily basis within the workplace and community. This means that our formerly homogenous communities have been overtaken by new levels of cultural and social diversity, meaning our norms and traditions within which we have been socialised, are challenged on a daily basis (Kegan, 1995).

Hence, we can argue that here too socialisation falls short of its goals, since we can argue that our schools do not socialise our young people into new models of citizenship and ways of being within this global landscape; a task that might be increasingly necessary given the ever-increasing levels of migration and globalisation. 

It is evident that these new models of democracy and citizenship in increasing cultural and social diversity is not yet established, particularly when considering the on going public discussion around the banning of hijabs (Kakissis, 2016; Nasralla, 2017), or gay rights movements (Herskovitz, 2017), or recent current events in the United States of America and their executive orders around excluding refugees from particular countries. 

It is difficult to see how a focus on literacy, numeracy, academic qualifications and standardised testing helps to socialise a population to navigate the complexities of human diversity successfully, whilst maintaining the ideals of equality and democracy, particularly when these are not the histories or values of all the people that now make up our economic, social and political contexts. 

Questions can also be raised about the homogenising effect of socialisation, and how these serve in direct opposition to the subjectification goals of education. If diverse student bodies are socialised in such a way that we are homogenising the population, enormous cultural capital, as well as personal autonomy and identity is lost. 

Much has been written about the role of education in preparing the individual for society (Biesta, 2009; Plato, 2004; Rousseau, 2012), yet, again when examined on a global scale, we can argue that current education models are failing to do so. The rise of VUCA (volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity) in postnormal society suggests that it has become nearly impossible to ‘prepare’ students for their future, particularly as already their present is characterised by extreme volatility and complexity (Facer, 2011; Sardar, 2010). 

Within the business world, this has led some experts to argue for the limitations of a strategic plan in a volatile, complex world (Bennett & Lemoine, 2014; Berger & Johnston, 2015).  The question can then be asked, if in the business domain strategic plans no longer provide the flexibility for companies to adapt to a changing world, how then does a standardised education system largely designed during the Industrial Revolution prepare our young people to be sufficiently adaptive in a volatile world? In a system where command and control dominates, how might students develop the agility and adaptiveness that enables successful navigation in and of a VUCA world? And, when considering Rousseau’s developmental idea, how can an education system conceived of during the Industrial Revolution, possibly provide for the passions and interests of our modern students who are living in fast paced world characterised by new technology including social media, online gaming (Gardner & Davis, 2014), and a myriad of other new economies, and communities, all of which contribute towards increasing complexity, volatility, uncertainty and ambiguity.

Further, amongst politicians, academics and social forecasters, much speculation has centred around the role of increased automation and the impact this will have on society and economy.  In particular, growing concerns are suggesting that the impact of automation on jobs including lawyers, doctors and so forth might see a shift in society as big as the industrial revolution, albeit more rapidly (Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2012). Already, IBM’s super computer Watson is diagnosing lung cancer at rates more accurate than experienced human doctors (reference?). As a result of the increasing impact of automation in replacing human jobs, many governments around the world are investigating the concept of Universal Basic Income (Bulman, 2017) as a means of managing a society where many people may no longer need to work. 

Again, the qualification purpose of education is brought into question here. Since currently much of school supposedly serves as a means of preparing students for the workplace as a means of financial providing for oneself or family, what happens when the workplace becomes a choice rather than a necessity? What will schools then be preparing students for? Additionally, the rise of automation raises serious questions about the types of jobs that we are preparing students for. Not only are jobs such as truck and taxi drivers and factory workers already being replaced, but traditional while collar jobs such as doctors, lawyers and accountants are too (Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2012; Morgenstern, 2016). Although it is not clear what types of jobs will be demanded in future economies, current trends are suggesting that jobs with high degrees of routine are most at risk of being replaced by machines, hence the arguments from futurists, economists and educationist, alike who argue for the emphasis of soft skills such as collaboration and creativity in schools (Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2012; Claxton, 2013; Facer, 2011; Sardar, 2010; Wagner & Compton, 2012). Yet, currently, schools still emphasise traditional pathways of preparation for the workforce, with the supposed soft skills serving largely as an add on rather than the core business of schools. 

For much of the history of public education where a national curriculum has stipulated what children should learn, we have selected the ‘knowledge to be imparted’. Teachers have acted as the experts and so, for many generations now, students have learnt of Shakespeare, Pythagoras, Newton, and Darwin - the supposed ‘best’ of our collective human knowledge. Much educational debate has centred around the suggestion that these academic pursuits will develop the rational thinking that will see students succeed in future. However, this selection of the ‘best’ knowledge carries with it some mental constructs and paradigms that may in fact limit the thinking of our students.

 Examples of this is evident within feminist(?) research, complexity theory (Capra & Luisi, 2014) and other models of thinking that deliberately seek to create and explore knowledge from paradigms outside of the dominant social culture. Capra and Luisi (2014) provide a prime example of this when they explain the limitations of the traditional reductionist approach in scientist when dealing with quantum theory, where reducing the structures studied to smaller and smaller parts to attempt to understand the whole, fails, as some properties only emerges within the interactions between parts, rather than the parts themselves. 

Other dominant paradigms such as the belief that continued economic growth is possible (Kirk, 2015), may also dominate, yet it is this very paradigm that one can argue has contributed to the large-scale environmental destruction that has now led to the climate change concerns. As such, we can see then that the purpose of education to impart the ‘best’ of human knowledge has limitations on a global scale too, as not only do we stumble into challenges when selecting the ‘best’ of knowledge given the knowledge explosion that has accompanied the Internet, but also that by the very selection to include some knowledge, others are excluded, and by that means, we exclude knowledge that may in fact be critical for the future sustainability of the planet. 

Re-evaluating the purpose of education given postnormal contexts

As Egan (2001) explains, education is difficult and contentious precisely because at its philosophical roots, the very purposes of education are in conflict with each other. As such, in increasingly diverse communities, conflicting ideologies are always at odds with each other in education debates. Particularly as Biesta (2009) argues, because we do not explicitly call these ideologies to the forefront. Further, we can argue that extensive economic, social and environmental changes are contributing towards a radically different society from the one in which our current education system was conceived in, and as such, our current education models does not meet its purpose when evaluated for its role in postnormal society. In conclusion, we can thus argue that our current formal education model, particularly as it relates to schooling, is no longer fit for purpose, and that a radical shift is needed. 

References

• Alton, L. (2016). Millennials are struggling to get jobs: Here's why, and what to do about it. Forbes, 2016.
• Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 369-386. doi:10.1002/pits.20303
• Barker, S. (2000). The end of argument: Knowledge and the internet. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 33(2), 154-181. 
• Bennett, N., & Lemoine, G. J. (2014). What a difference a word makes: Understanding threats to performance in a VUCA world. Business Horizons, 57(3), 311-317. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2014.01.001
• Berger, J. G., & Johnston, K. (2015). Simple habits for complex times: powerful practices for leaders. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Berry, B. (2011). Teaching 2030: What we must do for our students and our public schools: Now and in the future. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
• Biesta, G. (2009). Good education in an age of measurement: On the need to reconnect with the question of purpose in education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability(formerly: Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education), 21(1), 33-46. doi:10.1007/s11092-008-9064-9
• Bishop, R., Berryman, M., Cavanagh, T., & Teddy, L. (2009). Te Kotahitanga: Addressing educational disparities facing Māori students in New Zealand. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(5), 734-742. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.01.009
• Bolstad, R., Gilbert, J., McDowall, S., Bull, A., Boyd, S., & Hipkins, R. (2012). Supporting future-oriented learning and teaching - a New Zealand perspective. Retrieved from 
• Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2012). Race against the machine: How the digital revolution is accelerating innovation, driving productivity, and irreversibly transforming employment and the economy. Lexington, MA: Digital Frontier Press.
• Bulman, M. (2017, 15 January). EU universal income must be 'seriously considered' as rise of robots threatens mass unemployment, say MEPs. Independent. Retrieved from http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/universal-basic-income-robots-eu-meps-unemployment-mady-delvaux-stehres-european-parliament-a7527661.html
• Callahan, R. E. (1962). Education and the cult of efficiency. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Capra, F., & Luisi, P. L. (2014). The systems view of life: a unifying vision. Cambrdige, England: Cambridge University Press.
• Claxton, G. (2013). What's the point of school?: Rediscovering the heart of education. London, England: Oneworld Publications.
• Cope, B., & Phillips, A. (2009). Signs of epistemic disruption: Transformations in the knowledge system of the academic journal The Future of the Academic Journal: Elsevier Science.
• Dewey, J. (2012). Democracy and education D. Reed (Ed.) Public Domain Books  Retrieved from https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Education-introduction-philosophy-education-ebook/dp/B0082ZJ6WS/ref=sr_1_3?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1521951907&sr=1-3&keywords=democracy+and+education 
• Durden, T. (2015). This is "getting really ugly, really fast": Two thirds of recent graduates say US college education is a ripoff.   Retrieved from http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-29/getting-really-ugly-really-fast-two-thirds-recent-graduates-say-us-college-education
• Duronio, B. (2012, 24 April). Bad news: Just half of recent college grads are landing jobs.  Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com.au/northeastern-recent-graduates-jobs-2012-4?r=US&IR=T
• Education Review Office. (2015). Wellbeing for young people's success at secondary school. Retrieved from 
• Egan, K. (2001, December). Why education is so difficult and contentious. Teachers College Record, 103, 923-994.
• Emmott, S. (2013). Ten billion. London, UK: Penguin Books.
• Facer, K. (2011). Learning futures: Education, technology and social change. Abingdon, England: Routledge.
• Facer, K. (2016). Using the future in education: Creating space for openness, hope and novelty. In H. E. Lees & N. Noddings (Eds.), The Palgrave International Handbook of Alternative Education (pp. 52- 67). London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Finn, J. D., & Servoss, T. J. (2014). Misbehavior, suspensions, and security measures in high school: Racial/ethnic and gender differences. Journal of Applied Research on Children, 5(2). 
• Gardner, H., & Davis, K. (2014). The app generation: How today's youth navigate identity, intimacy, and imagination in a digital world. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Gilbert, J. (2005). Catching the knowledge wave? The knowledge society and the future of education. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
• Gilbert, J. (2007). Knowledge, the disciplines, and learning in the Digital Age. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 6(2), 115-122. doi:10.1007/s10671-007-9022-1
• Gordon, L. (2016). The sociology of education in New Zealand: an historical overview. Sociology, 31(3), 168-185. 
• Hall, J. C., & Theriot, M. T. (2016). Developing multicultural awareness, knowledge, and skills: Diversity training makes a difference? Multicultural Perspectives, 18(1), 35-41. doi:10.1080/15210960.2016.1125742
• Herskovitz, J. (2017, 6 January). Texas unveils 'bathroom bill' that critics say targets LGBT rights. Reuters. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/us-texas-lgbt-idUSKBN14P21T
• (2016). Angela Merkel Calls for 'Full Veil' Ban In Germany [Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/2016/12/11/505159350/angela-merkel-calls-for-full-veil-ban-in-germany
• Kegan, R. (1995). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Kirk, M. (2015). It’s time to move beyond growth for growth’s sake.  Retrieved from https://aeon.co/ideas/it-s-time-to-move-beyond-growth-for-growth-s-sake
• Kuhn, L. (2008). Complexity and educational research: A critical reflection. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40(1), 177-189. doi:10.1111/j.1469-5812.2007.00398.x
• Lehmann, C. (2015, 30 June). University production line is a road to nowhere. Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from http://www.smh.com.au/comment/universities-need-to-take-responsibility-for--students-wellbeing--success-and-job-prospects-20150629-gi0d4a
• Milne, A. (2013). Colouring in the white spaces: Reclaiming cultural identity in whitestream schools. (Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) Doctoral), University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10289/7868  
• Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand Curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media Limited.
• Monbiot, G. (2012). The gift of death.  Retrieved from http://www.monbiot.com/2012/12/10/the-gift-of-death/
• Morgenstern, M. (2016, 25 June). Automation and anxiety. The Economist.
• Nasralla, S. (2017, 7 January). Austrian integration minister wants to ban civil servants from wearing the Hijab, but not Christian crosses. Independent. Retrieved from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/austrian-integration-minister-hijab-ban-civil-servants-islamic-headscarf-not-christian-crucifixes-a7513316.html
• Peet, R. (1975). Inequality and poverty: A Marxist-geographic theory. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 65(4), 564-571. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8306.1975.tb01063.x
• Pentland, A. (2014). Social physics: How food Ideas spread-The lessons from a new science. Victoria, Australia: Scribe Publications.
• Plato. (2004). Laws: Kessinger Publishing.
• Roscigno, V. J., & Ainsworth-Darnell, J. W. (1999). Race, cultural capital, and educational resources: Persistent inequalities and achievement returns. Sociology of Education, 72(3), 158-178. doi:10.2307/2673227
• Rousseau, J.-J. (2012). Emile: Public Domain Book.
• Ruse, M. (1981). Is science sexist? The case of sociobiology Is Science Sexist? And Other Problems in the Biomedical Sciences (pp. 219-244). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
• Ryan, H. (2015, 29 September). No evidence uni success correlates with later achievement. The New Zealand Herald. Retrieved from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11520768
• Sardar, Z. (2010). Welcome to postnormal times. Futures, 42(5), 435-444. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2009.11.028
• Stewart, C., Wall, A., & Maciniec, S. (2016). Mixed signals: Do college graduates have the soft skills that employers want? Competition Forum, 14(2), 276-281. 
• Stokes, B., Wike, R., & Carle, J. (2015). Concern about climate change and its consequences.   Retrieved from http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/11/05/1-concern-about-climate-change-and-its-consequences/
• Thomas, G. (2013). Education: A very short introduction: OUP Oxford.
• Triebert, C. (2014). Understanding the "new migration age".  Retrieved from http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/discussion/understanding-the-new-migration-age
• Wagner, T., & Compton, R. A. (2012). Creating innovators: The making of young people who will change the world. New York, NY: Scribner.
• Wang, M.-T., & Eccles, J. S. (2013). School context, achievement motivation, and academic engagement: A longitudinal study of school engagement using a multidimensional perspective. Learning and Instruction, 28, 12-23. 
• Weinberger, D. (2011). Too big to know: Rethinking knowledge now that the facts aren't the facts, experts are everywhere, and the smartest person in the room is the room. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Thesis snapshots 1

There are 8 weeks left before I have to hand in my thesis (eek!). So despite having about twenty blog posts brewing, I just will not have much time to blog. Instead, I thought I would post sections of my thesis here for critique, review, feedback, etc. The more brutal the better! 

So here you go.... Thesis snapshot 1

Is formal education broken, expired and systemically flawed? Academic experts across the world have argued that our current education system is not fit for purpose. The public mirrors their arguments too, everyone from politicians, parents, teachers, students and the media can, and do find fault with the current system. Yet, despite so many finding fault with schools, a myriad of change in education, both in New Zealand and elsewhere, have somehow not succeeded in bringing about the necessary change. This begs the question, why not? 

In the chapter ahead, the history of education reform in New Zealand will be outlined. Following this, a brief evaluation of the New Zealand public education system, and its fitness for purpose, in light of the three philosophical purposes of education, socialisation, qualifications and subjectification. This establishes the argument that education in its current form is no longer fit for purpose. The chapter concludes with a review of how this has been addressed in the past, and establishes the limitations of past interventions. 

History of education reform

Despite the endless critique of education, its history is littered with varied attempts at change. (Berry, 2011; Brown, 1990; Thomas, 2013). These reforms in education reflect the historical and sociological context, including the rise of Marxism, Neo-Marxism and Capitalism (Brown, 1990; Gordon, 2016; Thomas, 2013). Specifically, in Western history, a number of global trends stand out in this timeline, including the rise of compulsory education and the secularisation of schooling. As well as the sociological context, education debate across Western nations have also been swayed throughout history between progressive (child centred, learning by doing) and formal ideas (teacher centred, back to basics, chalk and talk) (Thomas, 2013). 

Within New Zealand, a number of significant changes in education can also be noted. During the 1870s the development of state schooling, followed nearly a hundred years later with the Tomorrow’s Schools reform in 1989, are examples of the major educational reforms that have shaped the New Zealand education context (Gordon, 1992; Novlan, 1998).The Tomorrow’s Schools reform is perhaps the largest impacting factor on the current New Zealand education landscape, and has been credited as "one of the most notable episodes of liberalization that history has to offer” (Evans, Grimes, Wilkinson, & Teece, 1996). Largely, because it introduced free market ideals in the education sector (Philips, 2000). Gordon (2016) credits this reform with many of the structural aspects that we can see in New Zealand education today, including the governance by Boards of Trustees, competition between schools, fee-paying students within tertiary education, and the shift towards operational funding being managed by schools. The introduction of the Tomorrow’s Schools Act is largely credited with the autonomy with which New Zealand schools function today (Gordon, 2006). 

Following on from the Tomorrow’s Schools reform in 1989, other changes also took effect. A new qualification system (National Certificate of Educational Achievement - NCEA) was introduced from 2002 for students from year eleven to thirteen (New Zealand Qualifications Authority, n.d.). Additionally, New Zealand saw the introduction of a new curriculum from 2007 (Schagen, 2011). Although not credited with having as radical an impact as the Tomorrow’s School reform, the introduction of the latest New Zealand Curriculum document is of interest. This document, which is often touted as future focussed, saw a shift in the way education was approached in New Zealand, marking a movement from “setting out not what children are expected to know, but how they should be” (Priestley & Sinnema, 2014; Watson, 2010), for example the shift towards key competencies (thinking, relating to others, understanding language, symbols and text, managing self and participating and contributing), as opposed to large amounts of clearly defined content. Despite much protesting, National Standards introduced in 2010, required schools to report to Ministry of Education and to parents, on the literacy and numeracy levels of students from year 1 to 8 (Crooks et al., 2009; Ministry of Education, 2010). And most recently, New Zealand saw the introduction of the Investing in Educational Success (IES) policy in 2014. IES was deliberately designed to increase collaboration between schools and teachers (Ministry of Education, 2014). Under the Tomorrow’s Schools reform however, schools were set up to compete. Yet, none of the legislation from the Tomorrow’s Schools reform was amended, despite the conflicting purposes of IES and Tomorrow’s Schools policies. In conclusion then, New Zealand schools have seen a host of changes in the past thirty years, however only the Tomorrow’s Schools reform tackled systemic change rather than a tweaking of the system.  

Despite the many changes that have occurred at the policy level, there are many who argue that even more change is needed. This desire for change in public education is evident in schools and tertiary education, locally and globally (Berry, 2011; Bolstad et al., 2012; Claxton, 2013; K. Facer, 2011; Gilbert, 2005; Lichtman, 2014; Productivity Commission, 2016). There appears to be broad agreement from educators, academics, and the public, that education should be different. However, there is lack of agreement about what is actually needed, and no consensus about how a change might be achieved. For example, the PPTA (post primary teachers association) have argued against Innovative Learning Environments (Post Primary Teachers' Association, 2017) that is now mandated for all new built or refurbished schools in New Zealand (Ministry of Education, 2015). The lack of consensus is also apparent between schools and their communities, between various political parties and even between families.

Is education broken?

Purpose of education

To understand why public education, and in particular schools might need transformation, it is important to first examine its three philosophical purposes. Since inevitably, these act as the measure by which we establish whether public education is in fact, fit for purpose. However, these purposes for education are underpinned by conflicting ideologies that are “fundamentally irresolvable” (Biesta, 2009; Egan, 2001). As a result, these conflicting ideologies contribute tension to public private, political and academic debates where unknowingly, arguments are based on incompatible philosophies. This means that debates about the success of the education system are incapable of reaching a consensus, as different parties inevitably prioritise different purposes of education.  

Generally, we can agree on three common, albeit conflicting purposes for education; Plato’s academic idea, Rousseau’s developmental idea, and socialization (Egan, 2001). Similarly, these are identified by Biesta (2009) as, socialisation, subjectification (development of individual autonomy), and qualification, (acquisition of knowledge and skills). Despite these ideas underpinning most, if not all debates about educational success, they are rarely acknowledged, but instead are assumed. This problem stretches beyond our current dissatisfaction in education, even extending to Aristotle who captures these tensions when he wrote; 

“For in modern times there are opposing views about the tasks to be set, for there are no generally accepted assumptions about what the young should learn, either for virtue or for the best life; nor yet is it clear whether their education ought to be conducted with more concern for the intellect than for the character of the soul. - Aristotle (Thomas, 2013)

Although Biesta (2009) begins to stress the importance of examining the purpose of education within the current political landscape, his argument does not extend to a critique of these ideas, or the extent to which the current system actually meets these goals. Further, whilst the above three ideologies regarding the purpose of education are inherent within current and historical debates around education reform, an argument can be made that education within its current state does not serve any one of these particularly well. Additionally, this argument for potential system failure is amplified when considered in light of emerging global trends, and the Futures literature. In conclusion a case can be made for radical shift within public education, particularly in schools and universities.

Education's great wicked problem

image source

I hear the arguments for student-centred pedagogy. I hear the teachers who love their subject, who are passionate about the rich knowledge that it provides. They argue for the infinitely valuable lessons that a subject like history can teach us, or the applications of calculus, or the beautiful and complex story telling of Shakespeare. I hear the arguments for play in the classroom, the time and the chance to explore. I hear the the arguments for rigour, complexity, reasoning and depth of understanding. I hear the arguments for modern learning environments. I hear the arguments for teaching dispositions and I hear the concerns for a loss of knowledge. I hear the arguments for ensuring that every students is literature and numerate. I hear the arguments against National Standards. I hear the arguments for better support of teachers, for better access to quality professional development. I hear arguments against EDUCANZ (Independent Statutory Professional Body for Teachers and Education Leaders). I hear quality teachers argue with themselves about leaving education due to limited financial and career prospects. I hear arguments against IES (Investing in Educational Success).

The reality is, that with any system that serves a diverse, free thinking public, we will come up against different opinions. This is the very definition of a wicked problem: "A wicked problem is a social or cultural problem that is difficult or impossible to solve for as many as four reasons: incomplete or contradictory knowledge, the number of people and opinions involved, the large economic burden, and the interconnected nature of these problems with other problems. Definition from wickedproblems.com " So you see, of course there is debate about education, it contains all four of the reasons listed above!

To start with, we are constantly dealing with incomplete knowledge as we endeavour to meet the needs of a future work force. Although we have many clues that might help us prepare, we can not be sure of the way that our complex human society will shift. For example, the rise of the machine, the increased role that automation will play on our, and the world's economy. Think of this as the industrial revolution of our century. Except that this time it is not just the manual labourers that are in trouble. It is expected that many blue and white collar jobs will be replaced. Of course, there is also the fact that I have access to the majority of humanity's knowledge through the phone in my pocket. People are patenting DNA, I can illegally download a fire arm any many other things my heart might desire. There is currently no official international code of ethics around artificial intelligence. I think it is safe to say that we have incomplete knowledge!

Additionally, we can see the evidence of contradictory knowledge in the ideologies that have shaped our education system. Whether you, the average classroom teacher cares to acknowledge it or not, your ideologies shape your practice. Some of us might think of education as a way to provide people with a rational view of reality. We might believe that by systematically exposing the human mind to increasingly complex ideas of knowledge, that we might lead our students to use abstract principles to organise human thinking and be able to reason independently. These are the ideas of Plato and form the basis of his Republic, an ideal society where society had a place for everyone, where the society was stable, secure, just and would bring happiness to everyone (For a crash course on Plato's republic, just watch or read Divergent, this is exactly what Plato's ideas were built on).

In contrast to this, our education system is also harbouring strong influences from Jean Jacques Rousseau (whose work strongly influenced John Dewey). Rousseau was an advocate for active learning, of a tutor providing learning experiences for students rather than imparting information, for the pursuit of individuality.

There is also of course the 'normalising' role of education. Schools have to ensure that students graduate with an understanding for their society, their place and possibilities within in so that they may hold to its values and commitments. Without this 'normalising' process, a student might feel increasingly alienated, and as we know, individuals who feel alienated and isolated from their societies are more likely to become involved in acts of terrorism. (For a light hearted summary of this, see Russell Brand's The Trews Episode 268.)

So if the very foundation of our education system is tugging in three different directions, and then we add to this the political parties that then tug the education system in further directions due to their own ideologies, what chance do we have of actually solving the wicked problem that is the best education for our young New Zealanders, but also the millions of children around the world?

Of course, the problem doesn't end there. As we saw above, wicked problems also arise as a result of the number of people and opinions involved. As a teacher, we know that everyone feels an expert because they too went to school. As a teacher, you feel that you are the professional. There are also the academics in education who feel that they are the experts. Yet, we question the validity of the academics' contributions due to the them being labelled as 'out of touch with the classroom".  All these opinions swirling about are often shaped by our own ideologies, as they are the things that we think with, rather than about.

The third dimension of a wicked problem is the idea of a large economic burden. In the 2013/2014 year, the total Crown expenditure for education was $13.1 billion dollars, the third largest expenditure behind number one, social welfare and number two, health. With an investment of that size, of course debate will be heated. As I mentioned above, our education system attempts to balance multiple different ideologies, so when we talk about where the $13.1 billions dollars might be invested, of course there will be arguments about where it should go and what it should try to achieve. Each group that subscribes to a different ideology will automatically assume that the logical choice for investment is their view of the world. Their ideology of course which is so ingrained, that most of society does not even know that we use it to think about our education system.

Finally, don't forget about the interconnected nature of wicked problems. Tied in ever so closely with educational success, is poverty, a wicked problem in its very own right. The internet, books and scholarly journals are littered with the interconnectedness of poverty and education. Again the hopes of what the education system should achieve, who it should serve, becomes connected with how we might invest. Education thus becomes a further tool to be yanked about about the ideologies of political parties, attempting to use education to reconcile for poverty (remember that Social Welfare was New Zealand's number on expenditure in 2013/2014).

So my question to you is this, what now? How might we reconcile the different ideologies that our education system harbours in order to best serve the needs of our future New Zealanders? I don't know yet, but for now, I am reading, working hard at making sense of what it is that has shaped and influenced our education system. For the design thinkers out there, think of it as the empathising phase of design thinking. I invite you to join me on this empathising, problem finding journey. I invite you to unpack your own ideologies, those of the teachers around you, and those of your community. Take the time to ask them what they believe education is for and what schools are for. There answers might surprise you.

We can not truly solve a problem unless we really understand it. Lets work together to truly understand the problem, rather than blame the problem on someone or something. Are you with me?

The Day the Earth Stood Still

Considering that there are 7 billion people on earth currently, and how many more before us, there are very few people who really change the world, whether it be for the better or the worse. Simon Sinek might not have changed the world, but in 18 minutes he changed mine. For my personal goal of making my teaching more relevant, this is just what I needed. It's all about the WHY.

I have a dream.