Well, I want to start with a scenario. What happens if you press something down? You put pressure on it until breaking point. However, rather than pressing the same thing down instead you hold it up, by putting your hand underneath it, what would happen? The outcome would be completely different in that there is no pressure to bear on the object, rather you would be supporting it.

Now the current education systems in North America and Europe are similar to the first scenario. Because there is pressure to perform with strict outcomes expected, then Administrators through to Principals, teachers and students all feel under pressure. This is a direct result of education system that is results orientated and has tests and league tables. This results in a win/loss or success/failure culture. There has been winners and losers, both in terms of individual students and individual schools.

This does not create a healthy learning environment, but leads to stress for all concerned. But hasn’t the system been changed? The main reasons are cost and convenience. Low cost in herding 20-30 students into a classroom and the convenience of a standardized curriculum that does not into account of an individual student’s ability, knowledge and skills.

A bottom-up approach would be completely opposite of the current education system. There will be no formal testing i.e. SATS, no League tables and no standardized curriculum. The learning would be learner lead facilitated by their teachers. Gone would be a classroom of 30 students, replaced by learning areas with small groups of students working on their own learning program, but collaborating with other students. Gone are the days of learners competing to be the “best”, but rather as learning would no longer be a competition rather a cooperation, then learners will want to share their new-found knowledge and skills.

This approach to learning would support the teachers and learners and not put stress on them, as the hierarchy of control would no longer be present nor necessary.

However, this would need a completely new approach and thinking about what education is and for what purpose. Are we still wanting to manufacture compliant workers for the workplace, or are we wanting to create human beings that have had a varied and engaging education that prepares them for life in their community, and for the 21st Century?

I know this is a radical proposition, but what is the norm is not working. But who is listening?

The current accepted view of education is that it has to be of a mass-production type, quantity over quality, impersonal over personal, curriculum centred over learner centred. Education administrators know that because the curriculum has a scatter-gun approach, then not every child/adult is going benefit from the education provided. This is accepted as inevitable when mass education exists.

However, the narrative needs to change, if we are going to have young people and adults who can be innovators, thinkers and change makers. A system that teaches conformity over critical thinking is one that produces a docile population that does what its told, rather than one that wants to see change as the norm.

The education system needs to be dismantled, and locally based centres of learning are created where each learner follows their own learning path, young and old. There would be a sharing of community history and collective experiences on which the learning experience is based.

The old would teach the young from their experience whilst the young can teach the old their new-found knowledge.

The teacher would facilitate rather than lead the learning. It would be their responsibility to guide the learner in the path that has been negotiated and agreed upon by both facilitator and learner. The learning would be personalized, but not done in  isolation, there would be times for group discussions, debates and discourse. The goal would be an education that empowers rather than subdues the learner. The facilitator will see progress with the learner’s desire for learning enhanced by their direct involvement and ownership of their own learning. This is vastly different to the Education systems we currently have in North America and Europe. They are after all ”systems”, which have pre-ordained outcomes. This might be convenient for the powers that be, but not for those being feed through the system. They are certainly not the beneficiaries. Everyone loses out from such a system, both the gifted learner and the one who has special educational needs. Learners do not get the education that relates to their needs, personality, ability, experience and interests.

The narrative needs to change, but is anyone listening?

The number one reason that colleges and schools do not use 1:1 learning programs, is COST.

The current education system is based upon the premise that young people are trained to work in the factories, hence the classroom learning technique and curriculum still in force harps back to the 19th Century when it was first created. Learning for the masses wasn’t designed to encourage children to think and be individually focused, it was simply an economic arrangement of creating docile fodder for the growing factory system, and maintaining the status quo. The problem the same system created in the 19th Century is still the norm today, even when the 21st Century demands a different educational approach and ways of thinking. The educational system is still top down and imposing curricula and associated demands on both teachers and learners. This does not meet the individual needs of each learner, by its nature it is very hit and miss.

1:1 Learning empowers the learner, it gives them both input and control of their own learning. The learning is customized and personalized to their needs, and not simply following a pre-prepared program of learning, which does not consider the learners own needs and how they best learn.

We are all different and our life experiences are different, so then why are we expected by colleges and universities to follow the same learning program as the next person?

The only exception in the past was that the elite English Universities of Cambridge and Oxford would not have classes for their undergraduates, rather they would be individually tutored by the University Dons. This was not for the ordinary person, but for those from families of the aristocracy and powerful. They saw the benefit of 1:1 learning for their sons, and later daughters too, however they didn’t want the same for the masses. They had to make do with the Elementary school system teaching the 3 R’s.

1:1 Learning is costly, but the benefits far outweigh the negativity of cost. Shouldn’t education be expensive if it is to be the best. Mass education is cheap, but totally ineffective.

The way forward is to turn the current system upside down, giving the learner the say as to what they learn and how they learn. Teachers need to be allowed to teach and mentor their learners to develop their own learning paths, and not be pushed in only one direction whether it benefits them or not.

The current education system only survives because no one wants to challenge and change it. But at the same time the system is failing generations of children and young people. A huge personal and collective loss and waste.

The time is for change but who is listening? 

Hi

I am the owner and Adult Skills Developer for a Moncton, NB, Canada based company. We offer Adult skills development to companies in the Greater Moncton Area. The simple aim is help companies better utilizing their existing workforce and not looking to recruit from outside which can be extremely costly, and not always successful. This is through developing “soft” skills advancement with selected employees.

Learning4U offers a unique service in three ways.

1. The learning program is built around the learner at the workplace, and it is both customized and personalized to their individual personal and professional needs.

2. The Individualized Skills Development Program is undertaken where the learner is working, so they in both a familiar setting, and they do not have to travel to their training location. This again saves the employer time and money in lost productivity time. The other benefit for the employer is that they can check on their worker’s progress at any time, and give informed feedback.

3. The Skills Development Program is a negotiated curriculum between the Adult Skills Developer and the learner. The competencies and skills areas developed are based on an initial Assessment between the Adult Skills Developer and learner, and outcomes and targets are also mutually agreed.

The benefits to the company is that they have workers skilled up to taken on more responsible positions in the company. It will also make the workers feeling more valid by their company because there has been investment in their professional benefit. This would lead to the company having a higher skilled and motivated workforce and being at an advantage over their competitors, and a leader in the marketplace.

To contact me for more information email me at learning4u@hotmail.ca

Leslie Smart, Learning4U, Owner and Adult Skills Developer

View article about Learning4U published today at http://nbbusinessjournal.canadaeast.com/transcript/article/1425822