I am in the midst of a change: After teaching in a public institution for two years, I am looking to give up teaching and get back to other kind of work. Indeed, teaching was primarily to cover me during the bootstrap years so that I can pay my bills. However, there was more to it: I chose to take up teaching responsibilities, dating back to 2010, in order to learn the practice of teaching, concurrently with my Masters in Education. This was part of my commitment to get into education and a demonstration of my deeply held belief that education is an art by itself and to get into it, one must understand the domain.
That may seem obvious, but it is not. Because education touches almost everyone, everyone has a view about it, which is good. However, what's problematic is that everyone seems to think that they have a definitive view what education should be. So, the technologist thinks that education is all about neat technology, the business person thinks that it is about capacity utilisation, the publisher thinks it is about the content, and the employer takes the view that this is about the employability skills, whatever they are. To me, it seemed like the story of those blind men who went to see the elephant: Some thought it was like a tube, some thought it was like a tower, some thought it was like a mountain and some thought it was no bigger than a mouse. I wanted to know what it really is.
Indeed, I don't claim that I know, just with my teaching experience of last five years. But this adds on to the various things that I have done before or since: Written courses, set up projects, planned and executed marketing campaigns, built industry partnerships, ran recruitment companies, implemented ed-tech projects. Each, valuable in itself, appeared to me one aspect of educational engagement: I wanted to have a view of the whole.
I do feel that teaching experience had made me wiser. To be sure, I have taught different kind of learners, which included highly educated entrepreneurs, senior managers of large businesses, school leavers as well as matured learners, and many international students, from about 20 countries by my last count. I have been through different kinds of exposure, ranging from soul-destroying to enlightening, as any teacher will know. I have taught different subjects, international marketing initially, but lately subjects such as innovation and knowledge management. I have had my 'run in' with quality assurance departments and with managers, and debates about views of education, again perhaps a common theme in many teachers' experience. In summary, I enjoyed the experience, it was financially rewarding at a time when I needed the money, and it gave me insights that are invaluable as I wanted to build educational institutions eventually. But, now, I wanted to stop teaching.
This is because I now want to commit myself to the next thing: That of creating the educational models fit for a jobless world. The more I taught in a traditional environment, the more I became aware that the practices, the content and the engagement work with a presumption of traditional jobs and careers. In fact, my greatest difficulties with the students, and sometimes with the institutions, were to bring this point to the fore, that a new approach is needed, in education as well as in lives, to succeed in this new environment. Too many educators, particularly those hardwired to Ofsted kind, think that the world will go on as usual. Some of my learners, though not all, believe that this is only about a certificate in the end, and that will ensure everything. Working inside the classroom and alongside other educators enhanced my sense of urgency in committing myself to the agenda of change in education.
Too many educators seem to think that talking about the jobless future is a neo-liberal conspiracy. The underlying view is that the employers are automating and cutting jobs because they are in an inhuman pursuit of profit. None of these angry educators are indeed not going to do anything about it other than writing very complicated academic papers for self-consumption, and only very occasionally take political action in the form of a walk-out, though this is more likely to happen when their own pay and perks are threatened rather than for the sake of the jobless.
The point, of course, is not to resent the world but changing it. I have come to see the 'second Machine age' as a reality rather than a conspiracy, and I believe that educators should be involved in designing an educational response, rather than sulking about it. After pursuing my teaching ambitions for a while, I have come to the realisation that such response will perhaps come from outside the public institutions rather than from them.
Indeed, I have spent my time in For-Profits and know their inherent limitations, their short-term perspectives, in advancing an educational response to a changing economy. In my view, these institutions may be good at filling the skills gaps when it is obvious, but not so good at a time of structural change such as now. Therefore, I am not looking to transition into some kind of work with a For-Profit institution, but rather looking into alternatives which allow me to commit to the cause of educational change completely.
There was a time when I wanted to get into the classroom. I would remember that this is how I approached a For-Profit college in London several years ago, and eventually ended up joining the Senior Management team there, doing many things including teaching. And, even after my plans to morph that college into the base to execute my plans for a global college failed, I continued down more or less the same path exploring the opportunity within the traditional format. But, finally, I have reached that inflection point, with a mixture of desperation and courage, to make the commitment that whatever I do from now on will be towards building an educational model fit for the changing economy and society (impacted by hyper-globalisation plus intelligent machines). This is the reason I must stop teaching.
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.
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
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
As India's democracy reaches a critical juncture, with a very real danger of a authoritarian take-over, Rabindranath Tagore's birth anniversary is a perfect occasion to revisit the founding idea of India once again. There are many things in his politics that we may need to dust up and reconsider: Tagore's political ideas, because of his inherent aversion of popular nationalism and enthusiasm about Pan-Asianism and universalism, were outside the mainstream of the Indian National Movement, seen as impractical and effectively shunned. He was seen mostly as the Poet and the mystic, someone whose politics remains in the domain of the ideas rather than action. Tagore himself, after a brief passionate involvement in politics during the division of Bengal by Lord Curzon in 1905, withdrew from political action: He never belonged to the political class, despite his iconic status and itinerant interventions, such as returning the Knighthood after the massacre of Amritsar in 1919.
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.