Education that pretends the world isn't going to change serves no one. It's time we taught people how to change with the times.
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
A new report has come out, which suggests that there are major problems with the way in which the world's education systems are preparing young people for the world of work, and life at large, come to that.
The report suggests that in 20 years, we really have made no progress on this issue. And it says that after looking at the activities of the education systems of 80 countries, and this, to me, seems to be a damning indictment of the way in which we are now approaching education around the world. So this needs to be discussed.
The report comes from the OECD; that is, the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, which some people call 'The Rich Countries Club'. And it is true that it is dominated by the world's wealthiest countries, but the reality is that for all its strengths and weaknesses, the OECD does prepare some of the best data in the world on educational comparisons, and that is why this report is so important, because it can draw on data which nobody else has got.
In particular, what is so important about this data is that it actually makes a comparison between the first ever report that the OECD prepared on this issue of preparing young people for work when they leave the education system, over 20 years ago, and where we are now.
There are some shocking findings.
For example, one is that the success that a young person has still depends as much on having personal connections as it does on their ability. We have not in 20 years done anything to improve the equality of access to high-paid work inside our economies. Who you know, rather than what you know, is what still matters.
And perhaps one of the other shocking findings of this report is that students are still being trained for outdated professions. Lawyers, accountants, doctors, architects, and so many professions where AI is going to have a radical transformation effect over coming years are still the chosen destinations of too many students who do not appreciate just how much the world of work is going to change in those areas over years to come. They are, therefore, being trained with skills that they may not need, and not with the skills of adaptation that they will require if they are to survive, even in those professions where the number of people working is almost bound to reduce. Education systems have simply not caught up with the way in which the world has changed, and that matters.
Let me use a personal example. I went to university in the 1970s. If someone had told me then that I would be working now as an internet content creator, making videos at home for publication for anyone to watch around the world, I would have laughed at them. And why not? We didn't have the technology to make these things. The internet hadn't been created. YouTube hadn't been heard of. There was no such thing as a digital camera. Of course, I could not have imagined that this would be where my career would end up, almost 50 years later.
So, what people need are the skills to be able to adapt to what is going to happen in the future, frankly, most of which we can't even imagine as yet. And change is now faster than it has ever been, are more unpredictable, and yet what is very clear from the OECD's findings is that we are simply not taking that into account in the education that people are being provided with.
I believe this creates an enormous problem. I don't think education is doing what is necessary to prepare people for change, most of all. And it is change, which dominates my thinking now, in this area. We've had education, which is focused fundamentally upon the development of academic skills, and I shouldn't knock academic skills. Over the last 30 years, I've had appointments at six UK universities and ended up as a professor, and now as an emeritus professor. So I understand the value of academic thinking in my life. But I also understand that the vast majority of people do not need to understand how academic thinking works, and yet we have an education system that is totally oriented to the creation of academic skills. This, to me, now seems to be utterly absurd.
I'll return to the point in a minute, but what I believe is important is that what we now do is create an education system where we create transferable skills for life and work. Now, that requires a background in some key subjects, and you could say there's nothing particularly odd about the way in which I'm going to present this. I would suggest that we need skills in our first language. We do need skills in maths, but we also need to contextualise where we are in the world. We need to understand history. We need to understand geography. Perhaps we need to understand another language as well, to some degree, because that makes us understand that we are not so insular. But this is what education to the age of 16 has already tried to do for us, and I'm not suggesting that there be major change in education to that age, when around the world 16 is not the point where most people now leave school, and 18 is.
What I think we need to do is change what we think about when we come to further and higher education. That is education for the 16 to 18-year-old, which might still be at school, and for those who go on to university, which in a country like the UK, around 40% of people do at present. There, we need to remove some of the academic focus, because too much of that narrows the opportunity to learn the life skills we need. From the age of 16 onwards, at present we might learn too many facts, or at least far too many techniques, most of which will be deeply outdated. We learn too little about thinking, but the thing we learn about least of all is adaptability.
So, my suggestion is that we cut out around 40% of the demand that is now placed on people from age 16 to 18, and replace that with practical skills training.
So, for example, in a country like England, where I happen to be located, and where it is quite common for someone to take three subjects as their core subjects of study between the ages of 16 to 18, at least one of those should be dropped, and something which is much more general should be put in its place.
When we get to degrees, I'm suggesting something more radical still. I'm suggesting that in effect, every degree should become a joint honors degree at undergraduate level, with some of it being focused upon a particular area or study - whatever the person wants it to be - but the rest be focused upon these skills for adaptation which somebody will need, whatever degree they do in the eventual world of work.
So, what are those skills that people might need to be taught?
Effective written and verbal communication skills. They are paramount. AI is not going to eliminate them. You can't check AI if you haven't got skills in the first place to understand what your chosen language is meant to communicate. And throughout my career as an employer, and I've been an employer since the mid-1980s, and I still am, I have realised how few young people come out of school or university with either effective written or verbal communication skills. There's far too little focus on actually ensuring that a person can do something more than write a rather basic essay.
Essays are not the way the world works. People need to learn how to write letters and emails, and they need to learn how to present their arguments verbally, or to simply ask questions, and to understand answers. And yet far too little of that is understood.
There's also far too little understanding of basic numeracy, particularly when it comes to business situations, and so I would place this within the context of basic accounting, budgeting, and tax awareness. These are life skills that everybody needs and which are transferable into almost every business environment that I know of.
People need other skills as well. I think people should learn about website creation, because that is how we pick up information now.
We need to learn about things like time management.
We need to learn about social media management because we all participate in it, and we need to understand what the risks and advantages are and how to do it well.
And that leads to the idea that we might need to understand basic marketing, firstly, so that we can realise what is being done to us, and secondly, so if we have to do it, we are able to do so.
And the structure in which all these things take place needs to be understood. So basic things like contract law and employment law need to be taught to people so that they are equipped for the world they're going to enter.
And I believe that most employers would really welcome this. But what they would then be able to concentrate on is providing the specific skills that people need for the jobs that they're going to undertake when they arrive in work. In other words, I believe that education should not finish at 21, but there should be a continuing focus on education thereafter.
This could be through apprenticeship schemes, and every government should be encouraged to provide them. Whatever it is, there needs to be at that stage of people's careers, a focus upon applied education.
And this, by the way, is also true in academia, because there we should be actually making master's degrees the level where we fill in the gaps that have now been missed out at undergraduate level, before, if people want to go on to a career in academia, they move to PhDs.
So what should we do? We should change the focus of education at age 16 to 18.
We should encourage the provision of joint honours degrees at university, where life skills are part of the essential curriculum, but that does not undermine the value of the degree. If anything, it enhances it. And, we reserve a specialised academic focus for postgraduate study.
What does this mean? It means that we would heed the warning that the OECD has given.
It would mean that we would prepare people for life.
It would mean we would build stronger, more resilient economies based upon people who know how to adapt.
And that is what we need for the world we now live in.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Thank you for a most important article!
Might it be that “our” current educational set ups are, inadvertently or deliberately, designed to make young people and future citizens biddable and lacking in grounded assertive confidence?
Might it be that we are suffering from poor/somewhat selfish political performances as a result?
Might it be appropriate to consider at least four modes of education for all children/young people;
1) That which introduces and maximally develops life-long self-teaching/learning aka. didacticism?
2) That which introduces and develops personal, individual care and enhancement which could include communication positive attitudes and skills, critical and lateral thinking and the attitudes, skills (A.S.K.) and knowledge to effectively question all forms of power and fashion. Health, safety, pro-sociality and the spotting of manipulations, great and small, also included!
3) Secure A. S. K. contents which emphasise body language, spoken language, keyboard and computer skills plus the importance of personal communication qualities including
appearance, style, charm and the attribute of conversing/discussing with the purposes of information sharing and developing as well as positive pro-social pleasure.
4) Conversing, directly spoken, electronically spoken and written/keyboarded for knowledge communication and development and pro-social pleasure rather than for domination, control and other forms of negative control/power including deception.
4) That which is currently relevant and makes that staring point clear.
P. S. As the medium can and does dominate the message not least in educations and learning, it matters that both emphasise student attraction, enjoyment and input.
“Match thé teaching-learning to the student and never the other way round!”
Thanks
Interesting arguments and I reflect on how this differs from my education. When I graduated in 1975 employers were not too worried about the degree you studied but that you had gone through the process where you could assimilate knowledge and communicate your ideas. Once in the world of work (in my case accountancy ) you did a conversion course where you picked up accounts, statistics, contract law etc. . Over time we seem to require people to specialise in their professional areas much earlier, i.e in their degree choice. This may be changing as i was talking to a careers officer who argued the generic business studies degree is not a bad choice as it gives you that adaptability to fit into a range of careers. Schools also seem to be more adaptable with my grandsons being able to study traditional Scottish Highers but also attend colleges to do course such as constructing skills. I think there is an openness to new ideas and let’s hope this flourishes as you suggest.
I hope you are right
I was fortunate to go to a very forward thinking comprehensive in the late 70s. It had been a secondary modern and saw it’s aim to prepare us for adult life as much as to pass exams. Being pre national curriculum they had a lot of freedom in what and how they taught. On leaving most went into work and many bright lads, who would now be funneled to university, straight into trade apprenticeships.
I was the tail end of O levels and A levels before they were changed. I returned to education doing a part time A level in 2000. The questions were completely different and far less reasoning was required. Then at university, I found my 18 year old fellow students trained to jump hoops but terrified of independent thought. I never expected to be at an advantage as a mature student, but I was. The aim of my course was to teach us the skills to learn complex skills unaided, and it did/has. I think education should be about acquiring the skills to learn not what you learn. We should not be funneling so many to university and our school curriculum should have time for broader skills.
Much to agree with.
during my ‘apprenticeship’, I attended Caer Rhun Hall – there they taught you that it was not so important to remember every detail of every subject, but how and where to look things up, and then to think things through to a conclusion – if that conclusion proved wrong, then try again. Of course in those days (1965/67) there was no internet or AI, so we could only rely on books. What do I think now? – I believe that young people should be encouraged to learn a trade as early as possible and, if possible, included in the school curriculum, even if ultimately they choose another avenue. I believe that learning is vitally important, whether through online studies or from books, but not to expect every child to be an Einstein or a superstar. I also believe that a quantity of that which young people can and do access online and can and do read on social media does more harm than good – is it not better to supervise a young person’s interests, limit social media, supervise online browsing? Keep young people’s interests focussed on the present rather than too far into the future, allow independent thought, whilst being aware there can too much pressure on success as related to mental health, and prepare young people for an adult world where they can give a positive contribution, and be made proud of that contribution, whatever path they choose. Allow young people to enjoy their youth, then they should be able to contribute and change with the times.
Thanks
Its interesting looking at the US & some industries and the armed forces in the UK where people seem to move into very different areas of work sometimes including significant training to facilitate this.
If we are talking about adaptability and retraining this story is as important as its funny
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7033191.stm
She said: “I used to work in stores, ordering vehicle parts, and was sent on the wrong training course.
“I kept wondering why they were telling me how to defuse bombs, but I thought it was a cool job.
Education is not for our benefit. “I don’t want a nation of thinkers, I want a nation of workers.” — John D. Rockefeller
Source: “The Dark Truth of the Educational System Shaped by John D. Rockefeller”
https://medium.com/@sofialherani/the-dark-truth-of-the-educational-system-shaped-by-john-d-rockefeller-77bf1b0167dd
It’s actually worse than that. We have universities teaching classical economics (it benefits corporations), and teaching a healthcare system that treats symptoms with drugs, rather than preventing ill health with good nutrition, and teaching that calories from sugar and carbs are no different from those in meat,
Agreed
Thanks Richard, excellent post and timely reminder.
Other day, I was speaking to a French colleague of mine and education came up. He was mentioning that we need to teach lost more history to the young children and in particular colonial history as the kids need to understand the context and making of today’s challenges . I tend to agree with him, we just had 80th anniversary celebrations of VE Day and yet we don’t seem to learn the valuable lessons. We are at a point in time where genocide and wars is being normalized and the kids of yesterday with their education have got us to where we are – this definitely says something about the education system. Yes – the advances in science and technology is to lauded and attributed to the education system however the decline in values in our societies cannot be ignored.
I am asking myself – how does an education system deliver a more just society where justice, fairness, compassion and equality are core values.
Why teach colonial history?
Only to prove what bastards we were.
“Why teach colonial history?” you ask.
History: learning how we got “here”, what being “here” means, and where we can go from “here”.
Trade involves colonial history.
Industry involves colonial history.
Local conflicts involve colonial history.
Migration involves colonial history.
Economics involve colonial history.
“No man is an island” despite the words of Farage and Starmer. Globally, “being here, at this moment in time and in space” invariably involves colonial history. Without that grounding of our place *now*, our future will be bumbling in the dark.
To your main post: I think it’s excellent. Where’s Charles Handy when he’s needed?
I was reading “The Future of Work” as a primary school teacher in the mid-1980s. It’s not so much his “portfolio career” that’s needed, but a “portfolio of skills”. Your summary needs to be adopted by every business manager / owner in the country as their manifesto when they dine with the government, as it’s the only lobby that seem to be able to change the minds of politicians.
Thanks
I think we are agreeing on why we need to learn about our colonial past.
Agree with Anne, additionally if I may add – the world needs healing. We are very good at finding reasons to fight among ourselves but now we have to find ways to reconcile our differences and coexist in a manner it is “win-win” for all and in this regard education is fundamental and should be accessible to all.
Also, being objective and teaching history maybe will help instil in the next generation a sense of some humility which I think may help avoid conflicts (some of them at least) in the future and divert valuable resources to more useful causes.
Yes
I have the good fortune to live in a peaceful well-run democratic country, as a foreigner, where only 10% of the population go to university and employers are deeply involved in technical training. The population has high levels of critical thinking, good sense, and tolerance.
Two significant differences are the lack of national media spouting their owners’ viewpoints, and the high multi-lingual and therefore cultural awareness skills throughout the population.
The UK has much to learn about education and too many vested interests blocking the development of society.
Agreed re the narrow mindedness
Phew! Saturday at last.
Very interesting post, much to agree with.
What I have noticed about the ‘real world’ is the desperate need for dialectics? How nearly everything is pregnant with its opposite – as Yanis Varoufakis once said in a talk he gave.
The ability to see the dualities in things is so crucial I think for a fair, sustainable and peaceful world.
At the moment society seems to be obsessed with ‘taking a line’ – an almost monotheistic interpretation of everything. Apply that to say the property planning system and you are going to destroy natural life. Apply that to people’s special educational needs or ADHD and you are going to destroy lives.
I’m sick of it. It is a rejection of complexity, of life itself and the consequences are terminal.
And mostly because we pretend that there is no money, even though we essentially own the means of production here on earth.
You Hegelian, you.
Me too.
That monotheism is profoundly corrupting.
I did read many years ago that men often had the higher degree rankings as they would make a case like a barrister, whereas women would put other points of view. I have no idea how true this was but if it was, I think it is a reflection of class attitudes with notions of public school ‘leadership’.
They would get marked down for doing that.
I was an Army child, and went to 11 schools by the age of 13. A great way to learn to be adaptable. 2 of these were in Wales, and involved learning and being examined in Welsh. 3 were in India, around Independence and Partition. I was fortumate in having lots of parental support. It also means I’m still learning at 85, now on politics and economics, via this website and others.
If there’s one thing I’d like young people — and everyone else – to learn, it’s how to say “I don’t know” when you don’t. But that said, it seems that many of the commentators here have detailed programmes based on today’s problems, and are simply not adaptable enough.
Thanks
I am continually amazed by how much I still have to learn, and love that fact.
I hope it, clear from here that my thinking has developed a lot over the years.
Richard
I agree with almost everthing you say, except, it is far too late to start this kind of programme at 16. Some children still leave education at 16. Start it at 11, so the concept is second nature for everyone.
Ok….
In the 70s I studied environmental science as part of my education degree. I remember going for an interview for environmental science at a school in Peterborough and being asked what we had studied. “Oh, the pretty things,” I was told.
The pretty things are what my granddaughter is now studying as A level geography., so things have changed. In fact, I buy her books by Danny Dorling. She should be getting an A grade.
Some things have changed. 20 years ago you wouldn’t have been encouraged in your wish to be an architect by studying art, maths and geography. She also would not have been encouraged to take a year off studying to decide what part of architecture she wants to study, having been offered places on courses at three different universities.
Good luck to her
Important post, thank you.
For thousands of years everyone on this beautiful planet lived to varying degrees in touch with nature on a daily basis. Modern living, driven by capitalism, has divided us from each other, forced us to compete for everything and separated so many of us from the natural world. Conformity and separation coupled with decontextualisation has led to a significant rise in ill health especially mental illness and unhappiness, a sense of not belonging. Social media drives in the separation wedge where everyone has an opinion and expertise is so easily cast aside before moving on to the next irrelevance for clicks rather than compassion for others. The far right has weaponised these points through conspiracy and denial of everything we know to be truth.
Capitalism has and is destroying everything that is good and valuable in making life meaningful. If you watch children playing in mud or hearing the magical sound of wind chimes for the first time you can see the joy and wonder in their spirit, a true connection to nature. We are all part of that but through the grinding down of daily living and real choice, for most people being increasingly limited we gradually lose true meaning. Reductionist materialism and polarisation of belief have sadly replaced intimate connection and a shared compassion with our world.
Joint Honours degrees is a superb idea.Also the options to enable practical skills,adaptability and critical thinking are excellent.
This country neglects the needs of pre-school children,these are the most important years in a child’s development.Exploring through play,as the Scandinavians insist on,helps develop a child’s confidence,adaptability ,social skills and thought processes.
GCSE’s need to be scrapped.Leaving education/training at 16 is rare or wrong.
So pre-16 can be an area where you put your idea of practical skills etc.
I disagree with reducing the core subjects at 16+.It will have the consequence of not enough students wanting to study Languages,Music , certain Sciences etc.It will result in reduced opportunity and hence adaptability .
There is always a danger of being too prescriptive and being influenced by your own education.
Privately educated Ministers who have been taught the grammatical intricacies of Modern and Classical Languages have then insisted on the same standards for Modern Language studies in comprehensive schools.Spelling mistakes and grammatical errors being heavily penalised by exam boards.
This insistence on an education that can be frequently tested and leads to a somewhat predicted career means there is a neglect of the ‘fun bits’,the creative areas of education.No wonder that some students experience problems at school.
If the politicians or the media didn’t live in some fanciful glorious past,they might notice that that our creative arts industry is more valuable in monetary terms than fishing or agriculture.
Totally agree about education doesn’t end at 21.Since retiring I have discovered more about history,politics and developed an interest in economics.
Many thanks for your excellent ideas and the thoughful comments of others found in this blog.
Thanks
The video is not being watched much
It seems to be getting more interest here…
I went to Teacher Training College at 19 having been to a very poor school until I was 11 and then Secondary Modern, leaving at 16 as the family had no money. (my brother made sure I finished the O levels)
Arriving at college with people who had mainly been to Grammar and Independent schools and had A levels. I also realised they had more life experiences -foreign travel, educated adults in their life, etc.
But I also noticed they were often ignorant about things I thought they would have known. I read a lot and realised most didn’t do much of that outside the curriculum. So I re-apprised my education. The ignorance of the well qualified is even more marked since.
Like PSR I would look for the opposite point of view as I didn’t want to appear ignorant ( there some intellectual snobs with 3 A levels) and I think it stood me in good stead with the Open University.
I agree about education up to 16, broad and general with opportunities to follow enthusiasms. Not for schools to be measured by grades so much. I often hear people say about things which should be taught at school. in most cases they are not emotionally ready before 15/16. The curriculum became over loaded in my last years of teaching.
I would add some mental health education all the way through. I ran courses for MIND and two comments were ‘I thought it was just me” and ‘They should teach this at school.’
And a chance for people to access re-training or education at a later stag in life. The Danes have or had a system – the Grundtvik school.
Might the concept of “Philosophical Interpellation”, developed by Louis Althusser, be relevant here?
It suggests that education, along with other forms of “Ideological State Apparatus” help to reproduce, manage, legitimize and distance from deep questioning, the established orders which the [deep] state wishes to maintain and/or controllably develop to maintain/increase its powers.
If this is tenable, might it indicate that the state seeks controlled and controlling education and not an education set up which grows dynamic, confident, articulate, questioning children, students, of all sorts, and, most of all, genuinely well informed, critical thinking voters.
https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=c0478c77a7b2bf7c&rlz=1C1GCEA_enGB1132GB1139&q=Understanding+the+concept+of+interpellation+in+sociology+summary&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwilsPOC69-NAxUsVkEAHcniCucQ1QJ6BAhJEAE&biw=1037&bih=561
Interestng…and it seems relevant
I trained at the Royal School of Mines in Camborne and covered a wide range of mining techniques but not in any depth. When I worked a Mufulira mine I found the the engineers were all very happy to answer all my questions and learned every thing from front end loaders to first aid. This actually saved my life as I recognised I was suffering from heat stroke and saved my self by pulling off my overalls and laid down under a whole in the vent duct to cool myself. I found I loved learning knowledge. I am still involved in reopening the old mine I worked in, I know all the dangerous areas!
When I retired I jumped straight into blog sites and never looked back. Thanks Richard.
Thanks, Ben.
I agree with what you describe here but there are basic skills like carpentry, plumbing etc it would useful for more people to learn and value. You can live without a computer but not easy if you don’t have a roof. A respect for manual work would improve society. Also learning how to expand how you think so tolerance and a broad appreciation of life is developed are also useful skills.
I made a coffee table at school when I was 14. I still use it every day. Nothing else in my life has lasted as long.
Education is a fascinating subject in its own right having read a couple of historical texts recently.
What strikes me is how much effort elites put into controlling our Education and the endless squabbles I’ve witnessed just in my lifetime.
There’s definitely a case for making education more useful but I do worry that arguments like yours preparing students for the world of work will be capitalised on by those of a neoliberal persuasion. In order to control us.
Reading Iain Macgillchrist’s work on our divided brain called The Master and his Emmisary. Shows that modern education especially in the West focuses too much on the acquisition of cognitive skills. Which plays to one of your points.
There’s a strong case for more right side of the brain development in education but that would mean grappling with some difficulties.
Education seems to do an excellent job of capturing orthodoxies and dogmas. It then however struggles to replace them.
We need to work. Let’s nit deny it. But life and so education should be about much more.
For a bit of fun I’ve asked generative AI for a response!
Exploring education through a systems thinking lens, one of the most impactful areas for achieving sustainable, effective results for both students and society is the development of educational mental models. This process involves challenging deeply ingrained beliefs and fostering new perspectives on learning, success, and the fundamental purpose of education.
Although shifting mental models is often slow and difficult, it holds the potential for transformative change. Examples of such shifts include promoting a growth mindset, redefining success beyond test scores, valuing diverse intelligences, and fostering a culture of collaboration rather than competition.