Preparing students for life in the future

Mrs Pam Tunney International School of Luxembourg Luxembourg

Introduction

‘What does the future hold for our children? What does the future hold for the graduates of 2001, 2007, 2013 and beyond? What kind of world will they graduate to? The problem is that this is hard to imagine because we have very little context for the kind of rapid change we are all experiencing right now.’
(Jukes, 2003: 3)

What are we doing now to ensure that our students are being prepared for this difficult to define future? Why should we concern ourselves with this issue when we cannot begin to imagine what the world of the future will hold?

What will constitute ‘education’ in the future’? Who will be involved and how? How can education be ‘reengineered’ in order to prepare students to participate, interact and contribute to a new global society?

In his article ‘The future of schools in Australia’, Brian Caldwell (1998:341) proposes that ‘enduring reform in public education cannot be achieved within frameworks devised for state schools more than a century ago’ and that ‘there is a crisis that cannot be resolved by simply doing better the way we have done things in the past’.

His proposals through the course of this article suggests reform in the areas of funding, the ‘reengineering’ of the current system of education in Australia, and the need for strong leadership to achieve these goals. (Caldwell, 1998: 341-344). This paper will propose that the level of reform suggested in this article do not go nearly far enough to address the extent of reform that is required in education and educational thinking and that the reforms proposed by Caldwell go no further than ‘simply doing better the way we have done things in the past’. (Caldwell, 1998: 341)

Why is reform in education needed?

1. The PISA report , that is, there is a  need for reform of educational practices and belief systems because international assessments of student readiness to deal with the future indicate a failure or inadequacy to do so using current practices.

The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA),(OECD, 2000:3) was a measure of student knowledge and skills taken in the year 2000, in the areas of reading literacy, mathematical literacy and scientific literacy and was administered in 32 countries (between 4,500 and 10,000 students tested in each country). The ultimate aim of this assessment was measurement of the capability of students to analyse, reason and communicate their ideas effectively, the capacity of students to meet the challenges of the future and the level of desire to continue learning throughout life. (OECD, 2000:3).

The resultant report contains some very noteworthy findings which have given cause to a large number of the countries involved in the year 2000 assessment to reflect on the quality of education and the level of preparedness for the future that each national system provides. Basically, the test results indicated that many national systems were not achieving these aims to a satisfactory or acceptable degree.

The stated aim of this form of international assessment is to provide ‘solid and internationally comparable evidence on educational outcomes’ (OECD, 2000:3).

2. Educational research, that is, there is a need for reform of educational practices and belief systems because research has indicated that current practices are inadequate to meet the needs of the future. Research acquired has therefore been translated into identifiable practice which should lead to significant progress.

Senge (2000:10) suggests that ‘the safest prediction is change; schools can no longer prepare people to fit in the world of twenty years ago, because that world will no longer exist’. He goes on to suggest that what is needed is the ‘idea of building a school that learns’. He defines learning as ‘mastery of the way of self improvement’ (2000:11). This type of learning environment must be built on a solid foundation of research, which according to Marzano will allow us to:

 ‘enter an era of unprecedented effectiveness for the public practice of education – one in which the vast majority of schools can be highly effective in promoting student learning’ (2003: 1).

The premise upon which this is based is the understanding that qualitative research can provide a basis for improvement in student achievement. Marzano (2003: 15), through synthesis of this research has identified five school level factors that will achieve this aim:

• a guaranteed and viable curriculum
• the setting of challenging goals and provision of effective feedback
• parent and community involvement
• a safe and orderly environment
• collegiality and professionalism.

as well identifying a significant range of teacher and student level factors. If we therefore have the knowledge gleaned from this research to better prepare our students for the world of the future, are educational institutions able to withstand, fight against and:

‘face intense pressure to slow down change, to be conservative, to reinforce traditional practices, and not to leave any one behind?’ (Senge, 2000:10).

3. Global Responsibility, that is, there is a need for reform of educational practices and belief systems because the world economy is changing significantly and rapidly and humans are stretching the world’s resources to the limit. For all to be able to contribute productively and effectively to dialogue about the choices being made and the directions being taken worldwide, improvement in basic education is essential.          

What does globalization mean and why should this be the concern of educators, particularly in regard to education of the future? Pieterse offers the following definition of globalization:

‘Globalisation refers to the accelerated worldwide intermeshing of economies, and cross-border traffic and communication becoming ever denser’ (2000:263).

He further suggests that: ‘globalization means global effect and global awareness, and therefore increasingly it also means global engagement’.

Participation in, and contribution to, this new global outlook creates its own challenges. People across the globe now share common ‘concerns that affect the species and the planet – such as the environment, population, development’ (Pieterse 2000:263). Awareness of these issues is rising, as is an awareness of the need to solve them in a systematic, measured way.

Rischard, in his book, High noon: 20 global issues, 20 years to solve them (2002: 157), suggests that:

‘the complexity of many global issues and their lack of boundaries don’t sit well with the territorial and hierarchical institutions that are supposed to solve them: the nation states’.

He contends further then that the currently devised ways of addressing these global issues (i.e. treaties, conventions, intergovernmental conferences and multilateral institutions), whilst they have achieved useful things, have basically failed to problem solve urgent global issues. (Rischard, 2002:164). Neither does he advocate world government – this too, he believes will not succeed due to:

• the sheer complexity of the arrangements to achieve this aim
• the unavoidable distance between people and the new government
• ‘nationality games’ that would emerge as members jockey to ensure their nationals were in key positions
• too many issues concentrated at the top of the new system. (Rischard, 2002:166).

Rischard therefore contends that education holds ‘the key to building the sense of global citizenship that global problem-solving requires’ (Rischard, 2002:102). When so many people worldwide (one in six adults on the planet (Rischard, 2002:101)) can neither read nor write, participation in dialogue that is truly democratic in nature cannot and will not occur. Rischard also asserts that education is the tool that will ultimately reduce poverty and inequality and will lay the foundations for sustainable worldwide growth.

To achieve this aim, developed nations must contribute resources (financial, material and human) to ensure that at the very least basic education exists globally for all. This form of reform does not so much address the ‘what and how’ of education (curriculum, teaching and learning strategies etc) but the ‘why’ of education, that is, why education is a fundamental human right and a means of addressing global issues positively and systematically.

What is in need of reform?

Caldwell (1998:341-342) appears to focus on two types of reform:

• the resourcing of education – who will fund or contribute to it in the future
• the way in which schools will be managed and led in the future.

It can only be assumed that the most urgent and essential areas in need of reform within educational settings, that is, reform of the teaching and learning that occurs in schools and outside it; the method, modes and places of learning; the structure of the system of education in all sectors; meeting the needs of all learners; and most importantly, societal expectations and beliefs about education are somehow subsumed within Caldwell’s main two areas of focus.
 
Without doubt, the funding of education in the public sector and the management of significant transformational change are essential to ensure its success. The level of reform necessary to begin to address the needs of our students for the future goes beyond the ‘merely’ transformational. Reform of this magnitude demands a whole new way of thinking about education, about funding about delivery methods and modes.

The greatest obstacle to this type and level of reform is societal expectations. Such notions as ‘I went through school in the old system and I’ve managed to achieve success….’; ‘I have passed through an education system, therefore I am an expert’; ‘Standards are going down – students do not have to remember anything therefore they are not learning…’ (comments gleaned from conversations with parents at The International School of Luxembourg, The International School of Ho Chi Minh City, and so on) need to be addressed through systematic ‘reeducation’  projects with parents and other stakeholders in the education process. These education sessions should be designed to raise levels of awareness, communicate current research and increase understanding (not just knowledge) of current educational thinking.

According to Ian Jukes (Director of the Infosavvy Group), education in the future (and here he is referring to no more than 11 years hence), will not be confined to:

• a single place
• a specific time
• a single person
• human teachers
• paper-based information
• memorization
• linear learning
• the intellectual elite
• childhood
• controlling learners. (Jukes, 2003, 3-5)

The ‘global Information Age’ is not only upon us but has been the catalyst in the development of:

‘a global civil society made up of millions of citizens groups that are now electronically linked and which are challenging both governments and corporations as a third ‘independent sector’ (Henderson, 1996, 283).

Our students are already constituents of this global citizenship and are literate and fluent in the language of global information and interaction, despite the best attempts of many educational institutions to lock them out. Understanding the possibilities that technology can unleash, exploring and  utilizing these possibilities to create and stimulate significant changes from totally new and creative angles is not only imperative, but has virtually overtaken us.

Education Queensland develops this theme further in its ‘New Basics Project Technical Paper’ by suggesting that the responsibility with new technology goes beyond mere knowledge about the possible options.

‘The curriculum challenge is not just preparing people to learn with and through new technologies. It is also about preparing people to deal with the cultural and community changes that flow from their use.’
(Education Queensland, 2000:11)

This is the role the school must assume – a role that focuses on the development of understandings about not only the possibilities but also the consequences, be they global, social, economic.

How might education be funded in the future?

As Caldwell suggests, the expectation of:

‘more from the public purse when the community is demanding relief from current levels of taxation, and when much of the population is pressing for even higher priorities in health and care for the aged’ (1998:341).

is neither sustainable nor defensible. Again, funding of public education requires the same level of creative thinking as is needed for the establishment of new and creative uses of technology. Examination of the possibilities, not based on what has occurred in the past, but from new angles and perspectives is urgent and essential if significant reform is to be achieved. Caldwell offers some of these possibilities:

• funding based on students attending the school of choice
•  all schools resourced at different levels according to the stage of schooling of the attending students and individual educational requirements.
• Parent contribution
• corporate funding/involvement
• funding not necessarily spread evenly. Some communities will require more funding based on needs, others less.
• a single grant from state and Commonwealth governments.
• decentralisation of funding
• ownership of buildings and land by outside organizations and agencies.
• development of a common set of principles to fund all schools, regardless of ownership: government or non-government (Caldwell, 1998:341-342).

A note of caution, however, does need to be sounded. Corporate involvement has been a feature of some educational institutions in the United States of America for some time and much has been written about the benefits and challenges this brings. Concerns raised include the following.

• The vision of schools as ‘pipelines’ for the development of skilled, technologically adept workers. This demands the question: “What is the purpose of education?” – to develop and provide tailor-made workers of the future or to create global citizens who are capable of making decisions, solving problems, thinking creatively and who have the desire to continue learning throughout their lives?
• Corporations become more vocal in stating and demanding what they expect as to the business of schools. As this occurs to a greater extent, the role of the governments as regulators of educational development and content lessens. 
•  Corporations have in some cases had or expected greater involvement in the selection of staff, particularly at management level.
  (College of Education, University of Oregon, 2000:2)

Leadership for a sustainable future

If indeed ‘leadership is the key’ (Caldwell, 1998:342), then the a systematic process to develop the kind of leaders who can not only manage transformational change effectively, but go on to provide effective leadership and management within a reformed system, is a key starting point.

In his quest to identify the key attributes of effective leaders, Education Minister (Victoria, 1992-1996) Don Hayward sought the advice of key academics and business leaders. (Caldwell, 1998:342). From the knowledge and understandings gleaned from this process, significant changes have been initiated in Victoria to ensure the development of leaders who are more able to meet the challenges of the future. (Caldwell, 1998:343).

Fullen (2001: X1),  would suggest that leadership within business and educational institutions has more and more in common, and  much to learn from each other. Schools in particular are:

‘beginning to discover that new ideas, knowledge creation, and sharing are essential to solving learning problems in a rapidly changing society’ (2001: X1).

Fullen goes on to suggest that:

‘At the most basic level, businesses and schools are similar in that in the knowledge society, they both must become learning organizations or they will fail to survive’ (2001: X1).

What then, does this mean in practice? What does the creation of a ‘learning organization’ entail, what does it look like in schools and how can this be instigated and developed? Why are they required? Fullen provides those seeking to give the concept definition with some insights.

• People in each and every setting must work together to figure out what is needed as they ‘set in motion the internal process by which people progressively learn how to do what they need to do in order to achieve what is worthwhile’ (Elmore in Fullen, 2001:270).
• You cannot get such internal commitment and ingenuity, or more accurately context-specific expertise, from the outside.
• The only problems worth solving are the ones that exist in each and every organization.

• These days organizations are constantly facing internal and external change forces. Put another way, problems don’t stay solved, so you have to learn to do the right thing over and over again.
• Ergo, the learning organization. (Fullen, 2001:270)

Leadership, therefore in a reformed system of education, needs to stimulate the environment for this type of learning to not only occur, but to be built into the fabric of the learning environment for all. Leaders must also be prepared to continue to learn themselves. 

Don Hayward suggests that two types of role are required of school leaders of the future:  ‘the strategic leader’ – which entails  ‘building understanding and commitment among staff and the community to act on this information to ensure that the school and its students are positioned for success’ (Caldwell, 1998:344) and secondly, the school leader needs to be an ‘educational strategist’. This role requires the leader to have a significant knowledge base about current research and strategies for successful school development as well as knowledge about current information technologies (Caldwell, 1998:344).

This new style leadership role is significantly altered from any past model. Don Hayward’s extensive investigation into the identification of attributes to achieve these aims appears to have been a successful means of providing information for the creation of effectiveness training for a new wave of principals in Victoria. (Caldwell, 1998:343). Education institutions worldwide have much to be gained from study and emulation of this model.

Conclusion

Educational institutions and decision makers cling tightly and fearfully to the familiar, the conservative. Decision-makers are often fearful of the possible repercussions that may be brought to bear on them if suggestions of a paradigm shift in thinking about education and the practice of education are proposed. Slaughter advocates a solution to this through:

‘addressing fears and exploring high quality images of futures; building up knowledge and understanding of the global outlook; developing personal confidence; exploring issues and contexts using futures tools; approaching problems and issues creatively; and identifying projects and proposals for constructive change’ (1996:106).
     
All stakeholders in the education process from the decision makers to the parents and ultimately the students must be involved in ‘creating futures’ in education together. (Slaughter, 1996:107)

Rischard views education in the future as having a second, arguably more powerful purpose. He clearly identifies the ‘two big forces’ that will impact and deeply change the world over the coming 20 years:

• ‘a demographic explosion – which is putting and will continue to put unprecedented levels of stress on world resources
• a new world economy – which is providing unprecedented stresses but also unprecedented opportunities’ (Rischard, 2002:3)

Education building or rebuilding is one of what he believes to be the first urgent steps to ensuring that all members of a global community are in a position to be influential in addressing these issues and challenges. (Rischard, 2002: 103). 

Visualising the world that our current and potential students will inhabit in the future is difficult; however, it is possible to achieve some degree of option generation within a solid framework of ‘futures discourse’ (Slaughter, 1996:390). Difficult as it may be, visualization and forecasting the needs of our students is essential. Radical reform is imperative. Technology must not be ignored or undervalued. Creative thinking, the generation of diverse possibilities and strong leadership are essential.

Bibliography

Caldwell, B., 1998, ‘The future of schools in Australia’. In PDAS 415: Managing organisational transition resource book 2003, University of New England, Armidale, NSW.
College of Education, University of Oregon, 2000, Corporate involvement in school reform, ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. Retrieved 6 September 2003 from: eric.unoregon.edu.
Education Queensland, 2000, New Basics technical paper, Education Queensland, Queensland.
Fullen, M. Leading in a culture of change. 2001. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Fullen, M. The new meaning of educational change, 3rd ed. 2001. Teachers College Press, New York.
Henderson, H. ‘Socially Innovative Strategies for Sustainability’. 1996. In PDAS 415: Managing organisational transition resource book 2003, University of New England, Armidale, NSW.
Jukes, I. ‘New Schools for a New Millennium’. In Journal of innovative teaching, 1st Issue, May 2003, pp.3-5.
Marzano, RJ. What works in schools: translating research into action. 2003. ASCD, USA.
OECD, 2000, Measuring student knowledge and skills: the PISA 2000 assessment of reading, mathematical and scientific literacy, OECD Publication Service, Paris.
Pieterse, JN. Global futures: shaping globalization. 2000, in PDAS 415: Managing Organisational Transition Resource Book 2003, University of New England, Armidale, NSW.
Rischard, JF. High noon: 20 global issues, 20 years to solve them. 2002. Perseus Press, Oxford.
Senge, P, 2000, Schools That Learn, Doubleday, New York.
Slaughter, RA, 1996, ‘Futures Concepts’ in PDAS 415: Managing Organisational Transition Resource Book 2003, University of New England, Armidale, NSW.