Raphael's painting of Plato teaching is a popular PowerPoint item for Higher Education conferences these days. This is to be seen in the context of today's classroom, somewhat like the MIT's in the other picture here. The point is not the architectural contrast and the drab predictability of today's windowless classrooms, but rather the similarities between the two - indeed, the speakers use these pictures to emphasise that education has changed very little - and the fact that it is still the students in conversation with each other and with the teacher that make education. That, announces the PowerPoint crusaders armed with incontrovertible visual evidence, needs to change.
However, one may indeed be able to point out several differences in the two spaces, which directly points to the changes happening in education. To start with, the humble table must not be overlooked, as well as the pen and paper, all pointing to a writing culture to replace the Oral tradition that reigned supreme in Plato's days. The blackboard is the teacher's response to the tradition of written knowledge. The setting of the modern classroom suggests that it is acoustically optimised, as well as its various lighting, computing and projection technologies demonstrate that the room here is indeed fittingly equipped for the elite standard of the MIT. Further, there are things not present in the photo, but can be safely assumed to exist - such as books in libraries not just of this venerable institution but also in various free public facilities, existence of a recommended textbook for the subject taught, private access to computers, mobile phones and tablet computers capable of accessing information on the go and to send information (this photo might have been taken with one) - all of which add to the educational experience and change what could happen in this room. The other, almost invisible, difference is the windowless partition at the end of the classroom, suggesting not just a deliberate attempt to keep away distraction but the existence of an industrial facility for education, with the possibility of another identical classroom next door. And for those who would claim that education remained unchanged, one should be reminded how big a fight it was to get women into universities.
So what are the change evangelists of education trying to change? Apparently the teacher and the students in the same place is the bugbear of these change agents, which they see as the central 'inefficiency' of the educational enterprise. Notwithstanding the fact that this teacher-student interaction proved remarkably resilient, if we accept their very logic that nothing has really changed despite the massive changes in the classroom environment as we just described, the crusade for change rests its case on the twin issues of access and cost. Once the two pictures are shown side by side on PowerPoint and all the finer points glossed over, the evangelists of new education would immediately state (rather than establish) that this model of education can't possibly be workable when millions more are trying to get a Higher Education, and the fact that this form of education suffers from a 'cost disease'. It is worth examining both these statements in greater detail.
It is true that hundreds of millions today are coming to Higher Education and it is pretty obvious that it would be impossible to squeeze them into the MIT classroom (or for that matter, in the classrooms of elite universities in any of the countries). However, it is logically imperceptible how this proves that the current model is inefficient. The fact that we don't have enough capacity to educate is more down to the fact that we don't have enough teachers, and enough good teachers, which, in turn, is due to the carefully cultivated social attitude that teaching is not the best of the professions. No one in India goes to the elite Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) to become a teacher; nor the profession pays well. For all their enthusiasm about access, the gurus of change in Education do not talk about making the profession of teaching rewarding: Paradoxically, they talk about making teachers redundant as far as possible. So, while the problem of access to Higher Education may be real, it may be down to the fact that we are building our societies based a certain self-obsessed, competitive, money-focused model of success, which does not fit the teaching profession.
Similarly, the costs of Higher Education has risen, and it has been cleverly ascribed to a 'cost disease', based on William Baumol's model of 'String Quartet'. Baumol's thesis was that it would still take the ensemble of four very skilled musicians to play Beethoven's late String Quartets, but the wages of these four musicians will be many times more today than they used to be, say, a hundred years ago: However, they can only entertain a certain number of people at a time sitting in an auditorium, and this, therefore, will result in a 'cost disease', people having to pay many times more to attend a live concert. One can understand the temptations of Educational Change gurus to adopt this model: One clear extrapolation of Baumol's model is the attractiveness of recording technology and music distribution business, which help reach out to a wider audience and may effectively subsidise the costs of a live concert. But the parallels between music performance, which is temporal in performance and arguably temporary in terms of impact, and Higher Education, which is all about enhancing knowledge and ability of its attendees and should result in enhancement of his/her 'productivity'. It is only if we see Higher Education just as a credential machine, an activity which does not enhance a person's life chances in other way except just certifying his/her attendance, the costs issues become applicable.
The point of this post is not to claim that technologies do not change education: As illustrated in the tale of contrasting classrooms, it has indeed fundamentally changed education already. This is also not to say that we don't need to change our education system any more: There are many issues with what we teach, who gets access to what we teach and whether our system of education is focused on maintaining social positions rather than creating opportunities, which need to be explored. However, this is not the focus of the arguments about the change in education as narrated by the current band of education revolutionaries. Their case, often presented as blindingly obvious, of replacing the classrooms with teachers with educational technology is based, if we bother to understand, on a deeper agenda: A quest for 'Scale'.
'Scale', which can be seen as a combination of Access, the ability to reach out to millions, with lower Cost of delivery, is what investors love: This is the way to make money go a long way and earn a spectacular return. These are the lessons modern investing has learnt from technology companies, and which they see as obvious. The case for change in education through automation of the classrooms is not the change one seeks for the sake of better education, but in the context of 'financialisation' of education, a mandate from the City Boys how education must be structured. It is, as it must be, coated in the language of expanding access and reduction of costs, a language designed to appeal to unthinking politicians hungry for soundbites, but at the heart of it, this is - if you care to think - about creating a vast system of credentialling with as little human contamination as possible.
The problem with this approach should be obvious: That it may strip away all that has been valuable in education, the community, the slow process of learning something, the ability to change oneself through deliberate interactions with texts and with others, the gradual flowering of wisdom leading to the membership of a community, and replace it with a dumbed down process of consumption and certification, is a clear and present danger. The poor education, in turn, would undermine social stability and the very process that creates it in the first place, is only an obscure point for its champions who are pathologically unable to see beyond their next bonus cycle. But the rest of us need to stand our guard. This is not about software eating the world, not at all. Instead, this is rather about finance eating the world, and in the end, eating itself.
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
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
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.
There is no other city like Kolkata for me: It is Home. The only city where I don't have to find a reason to go to, or to love. It is one city hardwired into my identity, and despite being away for a decade, that refuses to go away. People stay away from their homeland for a variety of reasons. But, as I have come to feel, no one can be completely happy to be away. One may find fame or fortune, love and learning, in another land, but they always live an incomplete life. They bring home broken bits of their homeland into their awkward daily existence, a cushion somewhere, a broken conversation in mother tongue some other time, always rediscovering the land they left behind for that brief moment of wanting to be themselves. The cruelest punishment, therefore, for a man who lives abroad is when his love for his land is denied. It is indeed often denied, because the pursuit of work, knowledge or love seemed to have gotten priority over the attraction of the land. This is particularly
Nations are ideas. We try to fashion them as territories. But how can a river, a mountain ridge or sometimes an imaginary line in the middle of a field can explain the wide division in the lives, thoughts and futures of the people who live on different sides? Nations are not the people too. Indeed, people build nations and become its body. But the soul of the nation is an idea: People come together on an idea to build a nation. While that's what a modern nation is - an idea - and that way exceptionalism is not an American exception, very few nations are as completely defined by an idea as Pakistan. There was hardly any political, geographic or military rationale of Pakistan other than the idea of an Islamic homeland in South Asia. [In that way, the ideological brother of Pakistan in the family of nations is Israel] This, abated by the short term political calculations of some backroom colonialists, created a modern state which must be solely sustained on that singular idea. Reli
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: 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
India's employment data is sobering ( see here ). The pandemic has wrecked havoc and the structural problems of the economy - service sector dependence, uneven regional development and health and education challenges - are more evident than ever. Something needs to happen, and fast. To its credit, the government acknowledges the education challenge. Belatedly - it took more than 30 years - India has come up with a new National Education Policy. It is a comprehensive policy, which covers the whole spectrum of education and perhaps overcompensates the previous neglect by advocating radical change. As I commented elsewhere on this blog, it shows a curious mixture of aspirations, cultural revival and global competitiveness put under the same hood. However, despite its radical aspirations, the policy document often betrays same-old thinking. One of these is India's approach to foreign universities. The NEP makes the case for allowing foreign universities to set up operations in Ind
The story of British influence on Indian Education, to which Macaulay's Minutes of 1835 belong, has been told in six distinct phases. Syed Nurullah and J P Naik's very popular and influential History of Indian Education calls these 'six acts' of the drama: From the beginning of Eighteenth Century to 1813 The British East India Company received its charter in 1600 but its activities did not include any Educational engagement till the Charter Act of 1698, which required the Company to maintain priests and schools, for its own staff and their children. And, so it was until the renewal of its charter in 1813, when the evangelical influence led to insistence of expansion of educational activities and allowing priests back into company territory. From 1813 to Wood's Education Despatch of 1854 The renewal of Charter in 1813 re-opened the debate, which seemed to have been settled in the early years of the company administration, between the Orientalis
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.