Some popular myths seem to last despite being debunked several times, and in some cases, despite there never having really been any solid evidence in favour of them. These two are particularly long-lasting:
- We only use 10% of our brains (debunked in Scientific American)
- We learn better when information is presented in our preferred ‘learning style’(debunked in the Atlantic).
Like so many factoids there is something vaguely related which is probably true. In the first case - we have grater capacity to learn than we think; in the second - variety in teaching often helps. And the reason, I think, that these claims are so dangerous is that accepting them leads to an almost moral imperative to act on them; an imperative that leads well-meaning educators and institutions to waste large amounts of time and money chasing silly ideas. Whole industries around Brain Gym or Learning Styles have sprung up; teaching is misdirected, and ultimately children do not learn as well.
But perhaps the most common myth that I come across these days is far more dangerous, because it plays into so many other social changes, and it causes such free-floating anxiety that makes us vulnerable to snake-oil salesmen:
The danger here that the 65% claim fits into a narrative that sounds like this: A generation ago teachers could expect that what they taught would last their students a lifetime. Today because of rapid economic and social change schools have to prepare students for jobs that have not yet been created technologies that have not yet been invented and problems that we don't yet know will arise. That narrative implies that now we no longer need to teach things that last a lifetime, because change is rapid. But the claim needs some careful examination. What should students learn? Well, if the premise is that we do not know what's needed, then that's a difficult question for sure, but there does seem to be a consensus to go for a good solid platform for being adaptable and having a broad range of skills to draw on. So drawing on a range of current knowledge, being numerate, able to communicate verbally and in writing, in more than one language, working in teams, working under time-pressure and over longer extended periods, appreciating the need to engage with different points of view, thinking critically and creatively... and so on. In fact, the very things that many education systems around the world are reaching for at the moment! It is the very uncertainly of the future that makes these foundational skills so relevant, as anyone who is remotely familiar with the educational literature will know. The notion that education is unresponsive and redundant is completely at odds with the truth. That is not a plea for the status quo - there are plenty of things we can and should change - but it's important that we know what we are changing and why if we are to make the right changes.
PART TWO - WHERE DOES THE 'EDUCATION IS BROKEN' NARRATIVE COME FROM?
Educator Benjamin Doxtdator notes that in a 2015 interview at the City University of New York, FT journalist Gillian Tett asked renowned economists Jeffrey Sachs and Paul Krugman what policy initiatives they would propose to deal with globalization, technology, and inequality (see around 39 minutes in, in the link above). Doxtdator writes: after Sachs and Krugman propose regulating finance, expanding aid to disadvantaged children, creating a robust social safety net, reforming the tax system to eliminate privilege for the 0.1%, redistributing profits, raising wages, and strengthening the position of labor, Tett recounts a story:
“Back in January I actually moderated quite a similar event in Davos with a group of CEOs and general luminaries very much not just the 1% but probably the 0.1% and I asked them the same question. And what they came back with was education, education, and a bit of digital inclusion.”
Krugman, slightly lost for words, replies: “Arguing that education is the thing is … Gosh… That’s so 1990s… even then it wasn’t really true.”
For CEOs and futurists who say that disruption is the answer to practically everything, arguing that the answer lies in education and skills is actually the least disruptive response to the problems we face. Krugman argues that education emerges as the popular answer because “It’s not intrusive. It doesn’t require that we have higher taxes. It doesn’t require that CEOs have to deal with unions again.” Sachs adds, “Obviously, it’s the easy answer for that group [the 0.1%].”
It seems to me that what is going to change? is an important question. But as there is so much uncertainty in the answers, it's at least as important to ask what is going to stay the same? This question has been famously popularised in the business sphere by both Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffet. Let me hazard a guess in the education sphere. What's likely is that knowing a lot, being able to think critically, to think creatively, to communicate fluently, and to collaborate effectively, and to learn new things, will be just as important as they ever were. What also seems to be the same, throughout history, is that there are a number of agendas at play, and it's essential that we understand who benefits and who suffers across the whole of society.
References
But perhaps the most common myth that I come across these days is far more dangerous, because it plays into so many other social changes, and it causes such free-floating anxiety that makes us vulnerable to snake-oil salesmen:
- 65% of future jobs have not yet been invented (debunked here on the BBC, here from an educator and here from another educator)
- No-one can really trace down the evidence for the claim or the original source (see the debunking sources listed earlier)
- The US Bureau of Labour Statistics shows this guide to new jobs 2016 - 2026; the biggest expected growth areas by the people whose job it is to actually predict are: Personal care aides, food preparation and serving workers, home health aides, software developers, janitors and cleaners. Hardly revolutionary.
- Now that the 65% statistic seems to be common, more is needed to shock, so guess what? The Institute for the Future (IFTF) and Dell are now predicting that 85% per cent of the jobs that will exist in 2030 haven't even been invented yet (here's the here's the report, see page 14). Just think about that for a moment; only 15% of current jobs are going to be available. Pretty strong claim! Alas no evidence cited.
As before, there is some element of truth - which is that new jobs are always being invented. But this has a long history - in 1900, few would have foreseen the car-mechanic, aerospace engineer or aromatherapist; in 1980, Apple Store Genius Bar service manager, Blockchain developer or Drone designer would have been equally incomprehensible. So the reality is that there is nothing new about new jobs!
 |
| This popular meme needs interrogation |
PART TWO - WHERE DOES THE 'EDUCATION IS BROKEN' NARRATIVE COME FROM?
The 65% statistic can fit with very noble motives - largely centred around justified and well-meaning concern for our children and grandchildren. But as I see the expenditure on ed-tech around the world, I note that some of the proponents of 'fixing the system' stand to make a great deal of money from dramatic changes which are not necessarily in the interests of students (not, I should add, anywhere in Singapore). Audrey Watters has written about the companies which have raised the most money in education in 2018, and I am struck by the analogy with the make-up industry. The multi-billion dollar make-up industry has a systemic need for women to be dissatisfied with how they look; similarly, the multi-billion dollar ed-reform and industry need us to be unhappy with education. The purveyors of Ed-tech and personalised learning, in particular, need the Silicon Valley narrative to be widespread. And of course, it's interesting to ask who benefits most from this narrative.
“Back in January I actually moderated quite a similar event in Davos with a group of CEOs and general luminaries very much not just the 1% but probably the 0.1% and I asked them the same question. And what they came back with was education, education, and a bit of digital inclusion.”
Krugman, slightly lost for words, replies: “Arguing that education is the thing is … Gosh… That’s so 1990s… even then it wasn’t really true.”
For CEOs and futurists who say that disruption is the answer to practically everything, arguing that the answer lies in education and skills is actually the least disruptive response to the problems we face. Krugman argues that education emerges as the popular answer because “It’s not intrusive. It doesn’t require that we have higher taxes. It doesn’t require that CEOs have to deal with unions again.” Sachs adds, “Obviously, it’s the easy answer for that group [the 0.1%].”
It seems to me that what is going to change? is an important question. But as there is so much uncertainty in the answers, it's at least as important to ask what is going to stay the same? This question has been famously popularised in the business sphere by both Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffet. Let me hazard a guess in the education sphere. What's likely is that knowing a lot, being able to think critically, to think creatively, to communicate fluently, and to collaborate effectively, and to learn new things, will be just as important as they ever were. What also seems to be the same, throughout history, is that there are a number of agendas at play, and it's essential that we understand who benefits and who suffers across the whole of society.
References
- BBC More or Less (2017) Have 65% of Future Jobs Not Yet Been Invented?
- Berman, M. (2017) The Undead Factoid: Who Decided 65% of the Jobs of the Near Future Don't Exist Today?
- Boyd, R (2008) Do People Only Use 10 Percent of Their Brains? Scientific American
- Bureau of Labour Statistics (2016) Most New Jobs. Occupational Outlook Handbook, US Dept of Labour
- Darling-Hammond, L. (2015) New Learning for a Rapidly Changing World
- Doxtdator, B (2018) A Field Guide to ‘jobs that don’t exist yet’. The Long View.
- Khazan, O. (2018) The Myth of 'Learning Styles'. The Atlantic.
- Majewski, N (2018) 5 Fascinating Jobs That Don’t Exist—Yet. CMO.
- Morimoto, R (2017) “65% of Future Jobs Not Invented Yet” – A Claim with Unsupported Data
- Watters, E (2018) The Business of 'Ed-Tech Trends'
No comments:
Post a Comment