The term '21st Century Education' is quite common: At least it is common in certain circles.
The underlying assumption is that education is at a fundamental point of discontinuity. The way we educated ourselves in the last - twentieth - century, and before that, wouldn't work anymore. We, therefore, need a different approach to education - and the institutions that can offer us that.
The claims are clear and unambiguous, and there is some justification behind them. Life feels so different now, not just because of the millennial turning point, but changes in the material, social and financial realities around us. We may still be operating with the assumptions that a middle class kid should go to college and get a job, but at our hearts, we fear that this is no longer true. Despite the mass of information we collect on colleges - it is an elaborate ritual for the parents of college-going students - we seem increasingly confused which college or course offer us the best path; we know what worked for us may not work for the student going to college today.
Despite such feelings though, we are not sure what has changed so much so that we need a different education. Some commentators made it easy for us to point to the two elephants in the room: Globalisation and Automation. Yet, we are like blind men who can only feel parts of the elephant (s) and have a fairly personal idea about what these means - and no idea whatsoever how they would evolve to affect life few years hence. Since education is a forward-looking enterprise, we have, therefore, very little conversation about what education we may need.
The conversations about 21st Century college, even for those who engage in them and attempt to drive the agenda, are less about education itself - and more about entitlements. This is what state participation in any sector does: It creates a class of people who get used to a certain kind of privilege, and another who resent it. The conversation about college, a sector that financiers see as a sunrise sector for unrestrained privatisation, is about who gets what, rather than what the education should do. And, therefore, there is a lack of joined up debate: Everyone just represent a position and try to portray what would be most favourable from that position, rather than asking the hard questions. What's worse is that the academics, who are the ones to ask the hard conceptual questions about all other things in life, are in an existential struggle in this: The literature they mostly produce are partisan, and they treat, again with some justification, the whole conversation about '21st Century Education' as some kind of conspiracy, a cloak for Privatisation.
The other side, the investors, the business groups and the media, make the opposite conclusion but adopt a different style: They have very little time for academics and they won't want to engage. They take this '21st Century College' in a certain specific sense - in this, the suspicions from the academic quarters are mostly correct - something they believe can only be achieved by creating an education industry, a globalised, automated machine fed in by academic labour. From this side, teaching is only the act of delivery, education is all about reaching certain predefined objectives and 'competencies', the life goal is to get to some employment and the reason why others don't get it is because they are lazy or spoilt or both.
These opposing sides, which divides all the people concerned with college in one or the other camp, miss the broader point that history, as it repeats itself, has again become, as H G Wells observed at the beginning of last century, 'a race between education and catastrophe'. Things are changing - technologies, habits, beliefs, our economic organisations - and education must go with it. Seeing change as a conspiracy is missing the point of life itself. On the other hand, this change is indeterminate: While the consultancies and investment houses must claim that they know its direction - pretending to be certain being part of their job description - they themselves are as much last century institutions as the universities, and their pretensions as weak and exposed as ever. Like the other times before this, education both shapes the change as it is shaped by it. The educators' disengagement from the conversation of '21st Century College' is somewhat an abdication of their role, and proving instead the very accusation they want to disprove: That teaching has lost the sense of its social mission - and have become a den of cozy bureaucrats.
The advocates of the '21st Century College', on the other hand, do little justice to the responsibility they claim to be taking on. They don't want to engage into a conversation about what needs changing, presenting instead an industrial doctrine for education, which they claim is right because the industrial age is over! They present a fixed view about the future - the rise of a globalised superstar economy - and deny all other possibilities, and yet in their very certainty, they deny the central claim of their case, that future has become uncertain. In summary, the case for 21st century college being different from 20th century college is rested upon the future being very different, and doesn't allow the wriggle room that it is human beings, and their education, shapes that future. The doctrine of 21st century college, in short, is constructed on the lack of human agency, the very thing education is supposed to create.
There is, therefore, a job to be done to explore the nature of the changes, going beyond both the apathy and rhetoric. The strange inter-mixture of human agency and technological reality, which has produced so many unexpected outcomes in the past that any endeavour in prophecy would certainly fail, presents any commentator a great opportunity to engage and explore. And, indeed, because an exciting future does not spell the end of history, but rather a certain glory for the past, the idea of 21st century college is best reviewed not just as a matter of emerging technologies, but in the context of ideas that shaped college through the time every time we came up with a period of exciting change.
Popular posts from this blog
A friend has recently forwarded me a quote from Lord Macaulay's speech in the British Parliament on 2nd February 1835. I reproduce the quote below: "I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation." The email requested me to forward me to every indian I know. I was tempted, but there were two oddities about this quote. First, the language, which
Introduction : The Business of Gift Giving Business gift giving has always been common and contentious at the same time. Business gifts are usually seen as an ‘advertising, sales promotion and marketing communication medium’ (Cooper et al , 1991). Arunthanes et al (1994) points out that such gifting is practised usually for three reasons: (a) in appreciation for past client relationships, placing a new order, referrals to other clients, etc.; (b) in the hopes of creating a positive, first impression which might help to establish an initial business relationship; and (c) giving may be perceived as a quid Pro quo (i.e. returning a favour or expecting a favour in return for something). The practitioners of gift-giving generally argue that doing business is often an aggregation of personal interactions and relationships, and gift-giving should be seen as a natural way of maintaining and enhancing these relationships. ‘Business gifts, especially one given in the course of the festive s
Buzzwords have disadvantages. Right now, experiential learning is one, and that means we put the label on everything and it stops to mean anything. Also, this means reasonable conversation about experiential learning becomes difficult - at times such as this, either you preach experiential learning or you are traditional, antiquarian and hopelessly out of touch. But, overlooking the limitations of experiential learning can cause big problems. Experiential Learning does many things - putting practice at the heart of learning is an important paradigm shift - but not everything, and it is important to be aware what it does not do. Usually, we equate the terms Project-based Learning (the method) with Experiential Learning (the idea) and Learning from Experience (the ideal), treating them as one and the same and using the terms interchangeably. Any talk about distinctive meaning of these terms is usually seen as pedantic, but really represent very different ideas about education.
Today, Helen Goddard, 26, a highly popular music teacher of a City School for Girls, has been sentenced to 15 months in prison. Her crime was to carry out a year long lesbian affair with one of her pupils, who appeared in the court and admitted that the affair was consensual and it was she who pressured Helen into the affair. For Helen, a bright musician and a devout Chistian, this is an extraordinary lapse of judgement. Also, she was teaching in the £13,000 private girls only school in London. She was surely aware what the consequences of her action will be. The fact that she still could not stop herself tells us that lovers do not always act rationally, something we always knew. There is more in this affair than personal tragedies. For a start, this has all the dramatic elements: a bright, beautiful teacher more in Julia Roberts mould [as in Mona Lisa Smile], a stiff upper lip school [not unlike Wellesley] and a story like Notes On A Scandal with an added twist. Indeed, Helen
In most societies today, making profits are accepted as moral, if not especially praiseworthy. This was not as obvious as it appears today – people used to be embarrassed about making a profit not so long ago. Crazy as it seems today, it is worth thinking why it was so. Profits, as economists will put it, is the reward for risk-taking, for putting a business enterprise together in the pursuit of an objective. In this definition, remember, profits are not what it is commonly understood to be – the gross middle-line towards the bottom – but a figure net of entrepreneur’s earning [wages for his labour], dividends and interests on borrowed capital, and provisions for building and other physical assets [a sort of rent, offsetting what these assets could have earned if leased out]. This pure profit – surplus – accrues to a business as a reward to its organisation, for the act of entrepreneurship itself. Economists were divided on how this surplus comes about. The conventional wisdom was,
Introduction Erna Petri née Kürbs, a farmer’s daughter from Herressen in Thuringia, arrived in Ukraine with her three year old son to join her husband Horst in June 1942. Horst, an SS leader inspired by Nazi ideologue Dr Richard Walter Darré, settled in the plantation of Grzenda, just outside today’s Lviv, to become a German Gentleman-Farmer. Erna saw Horst beating and abusing the workers in the plantation within two days of arriving there, which was, as Horst explained, necessary for establishing authority. Erna joined in enthusiastically, settling into a combination of roles of ‘plantation mistress, prairie Madonna in apron-covered dress lording over slave labourers, infant-carrying, gun-wielding Hausfrau.’  However, there were clear rules in the plantation, and Erna was very much expected to play the woman’s role of being a Cake-and-Coffee hostess. When four Jews were caught in the estate while trying to escape from a transport to a death camp, Horst told Erna and her female
I wrote a note on Kolkata, the city I come from and would always belong to, in July 2010. Since then, the post attracted many visitors and comments, mostly critical, as most people, including those from Kolkata, couldn't see any future for the city. My current effort, some 18 months down the line, is also prompted by a recent article in The Economist, The City That Got Left Behind , which echo the pessimism somewhat. I, at least emotionally, disagree to all the pessimism: After all Kolkata is home and I live in the hope of an eventual return. Indeed, some change has happened since I wrote my earlier post: The geriatric Leftist government that ruled the state for more than 30 years was summarily dispatched, and was replaced by a lumpen-capitalist populist government. Kolkata looked without a future with the clueless leftists at the helm; it now looks without hope. However, apart from bad governance, there is no reason why Kolkata had to be poor and hopeless. It sits right
Introduction: Hastings in the history of Indian Education Whether or not one includes Warren Hastings in the history of Education in India is a matter of perspective. If writing the history of education means writing the history of schools, the impact of Hastings' administration would be quite limited. If anything, the rapid implosion of local rulers in Eastern, Southern and Northern India during Hastings' tenure had meant a bleak period for the indigenous education system, as patronage and funds would have dwindled away for many of them. The Company administration really concerned itself with the schooling of the natives only after 1813, as Nurullah and Naik rightly pointed out ( see my earlier post ) and one can legitimately start the story at this point. However, if history of Education in India is to encompass the transformation of Indian Scholarship, on which foundation the new, colonial, system of Education would be built, the story must start with Warren Hast
The ‘Why’ Question? Adolf Hitler was appointed the German Chancellor by President Von Hindenburg on 30th January 1933. This was an extraordinary turn of events. Previously, President Von Hindenburg consistently refused to appoint Hitler the Chancellor, despite the impressive electoral performance of NSDAP in July 1932, Hitler’s uncompromising demand of the Chancellor’s post and a repeat election in November 1932 which failed to break the deadlock. Explaining his refusal, Hindenburg wrote in a letter on 24th November, “a presidential cabinet led by you would develop necessarily into a party dictatorship with all its consequences for an extraordinary accentuation of the conflicts in the German people.” The question ‘why’ Hitler was appointed Chancellor, despite the President being acutely aware of what might follow, is therefore a significant one. The NSDAP had election successes throughout 1932, and was already the biggest single party in the Reichstag and various Landtags acros
In our age, the only way to be politically correct is to be democratic. This is a post-70s affair - those days, still, some people had alternative ideologies in mind. Those alternate ideas are dead and gone, long discredited, and it seems that we have only one system which can make people happy, free and live longer. So, we have this huge export industry of democracy, and democracy's warriors, which the American security establishment has lately become. The democracy's businessmen, the bond traders, the media barons and the Hollywood types, are feted everywhere. The consensus is deafening and dumbing. It is indeed awkward to ask now - whether democracy is the right system for every society. It indeed should be. Collective wisdom is better than individual autocracy. In societies where democratic elections have been few and far between, the popular vote has demonstrated the extra-ordinary political savvy of the usually disinterested masses. Democracy has proved to be an excell
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.