Education and the Knowledge Based Economy

This is such a good blog posting by Piaras I have quoted it in its entirety.

So the INTO (Irish National Teachers Organisation) held their annual conference a couple of weeks ago. There was back and forth between the teacher’s union and Minister for Education, Mary Hanafin T.D., on a number of points including class sizes, IT in classrooms and education for disadvantaged and disabled students.

What’s of particular interest for me about how the whole knowledge based economy was thrown into the mix yet again. I’ve given my two cents on the topic in the past, but not so much in the context of the Irish education system (and what’s probably relevant to other education systems across the globe.)

We’re at a bit of a crossroads at the moment. On the one hand, we have business leaders, government and teachers talking about how we need to innovate in order for the country to continue on its path of unheralded economic success. On the other hand, we’re staring blankly at the huge waves of innovation taking place in front of us currently and failing to acknowledge how these new creative processes are affecting the current socio-economic environment.

Firstly let’s look at a new White Paper published by the UK government recently. The BBC reports that the UK government’s viewpoint is that “the key to the UK becoming a world leader in innovation is to forge closer links between industry and higher education.” However, when you read down through the article, the Association for Science Education points out that while that is all well and good, the current education system in the UK (like Ireland) stifles innovation when it comes to science. The BBC quotes’s Alan Rhodes from the Association for Science Education, “Our curriculum is so test orientated that children are being taught to pass tests and you do not innovate when teaching children to pass tests. I believe in high standards, but there is insufficient time for creativity in the curriculum from primary school up to the age of 18.”

The main problem facing most education systems is that they are centred on rote learning which by definition avoids understanding of a subject and instead focuses on memorisation. Ultimately this does not instill the type of creativity and free thinking that innovation depends on. The CAO system adds to the problem as it simply incentivises people to study subject like law or medicine simply based on the fact that they require high points. Some commentators are calling for bonus points to be given to maths, but this fails to recognise that the system is the problem. Professor Ferdinand von Prondzynski, President of DCU, offered some other reasons why the CAO system is flawed in the Irish Times last year (subscription required):

It may be useful to describe briefly what the points system is. In order to be admitted to the third-level programme of her or his choice, a student needs to have the points required for that programme.

The points themselves are, it could be said, a market currency. There is a minimum number for each programme, reflecting the educational attainment thought necessary to succeed in that programme; but the actual points required are the product of supply and demand: where there are more applicants for a programme than there are places - ie where there is strong demand for a scarce product - then you will have higher points. Therefore if a subject becomes particularly popular, the points go through the roof. This does not reflect the intellectual demands of the programme, just its popularity; and the points can go up and down dramatically from year to year without the syllabus changing at all. If you want to buy a scarce product, you need to pay a high price; and if few want it, you can get it very cheaply.

So what is the effect of that in practice? Let us take the case of points required for entry to various subjects in University College Dublin last September.

A student wanting to study architecture or law, for example, would have to have between 500 and 600 points. But if the same student wanted to study chemical engineering, food science or biochemistry, she would need only 300-400 points.
What does that tell us? Nothing at all about the intellectual demands of the subjects concerned; in fact arguably the more difficult ones seem to require the lower points in the above examples (though all third-level studies require intellectual application). Maybe these points reflect national priorities? Certainly not, as the country’s needs in technological studies and life sciences are much greater than its need for more lawyers, for example.

It could be argued that points are a beauty parade of college programmes, reflecting current fashions rather than any assessment of need. But my worry is that they don’t reflect student preferences and aptitudes either. A student with 550 points will tend to look at programmes that require these.

Disproportionately few students with 550 points apply for programmes requiring 300, so that the brightest often shun the less popular programmes, though these in turn often reflect real national needs.

It is also arguable that some of the most popular subjects provide training for the professions, such as the law, accountancy, architecture, the Civil Service, and so on. Social pressures may be pushing students into those professions, influencing the points. But national needs don’t necessarily point in the same direction, since the biggest need for more graduates is not in areas like law and architecture, but arguably in technology-related subjects and life sciences.

If the points system is a market, then it should be assessed like any other market - is it a good distribution mechanism for the resources being traded? I would find the evidence on that count to be fairly damning, and I would fear that we are institutionalising a set of trends that are not particularly good for the colleges, the students and the country.

The other factor in the mix is how sites like Wikipedia are challenging traditional perceptions of learning in the education system. There’s a really interesting post on one of our new Edelman blogs about the difference between colloboration and cheating. Phil Gomes points out that an acquaitance if his, a scientist-turned-business-leader, once said, “In the workplace, they call it ‘collaboration’. In academia, they call it ‘cheating’.” Gomes highlights the case of Chris Avenir, a student at Ryerson University, who “is fighting charges of academic misconduct for helping run an online chemistry study group via Facebook last term, where 146 classmates swapped tips on homework questions that counted for 10 per cent of their mark.” according to an article in the Toronto Star. Gomes simplifies the situation as:

Study group wherein it’s entirely possible that solutions for chemistry and math problems are freely swapped: Perfectly okay.

Study group on Facebook, where it is demonstrably clear that no solution was traded, only helpful tips (as in any IRL study group): Expulsion-worthy!!

Education as we know it is fundamentally changing. We’re operating a system that is around one hundred years old. If there needs to be innovation in any sector, then it’s the education system. The INTO hit the nail on the head in one of the demands of Minister Hanafin at their conference and that was not to reduce the invesment in the education system in the face of an economic downturn. It’s a bit like selling your star player when a sports team gets relegated. It might make financial sense, but when it comes to getting promoted next year, you’ve effectively chopped your own legs off before you’ve started.

The main challenge facing teachers though is that change needs to be built into the education system. How prepared are Irish teachers to be constantly challenging themselves and self-improving. Why do I say this? Let’s look at the whole IT in the Irish education system debate. A number of people are saying that 252 million euro is too little, the government are saying its just fine. They’re both right in a sense.

The problem with most IT investment is that it’s a capital investment. The lifetime of a laptop is 18 months before it’s effectively obselete, but a secondary school student’s educational lifetime is six years so they will have seen four laptops in that period alone.

The big problem with introducing anything new into the classroom is that teachers need to be confident enough to use it. No-one wants to stand up in front of a class of 30 kids and be heckled because they don’t know where the ANY key is. ANY key aside, if a laptop is installed as a bare minimum into every classroom across the country then teachers need to be prepared to know how to use it and commit to further training for hardware and software upgrades.

What really needs to happen in classrooms when it comes to teaching IT is that the concepts behind the applications need to be taught. Focusing on the software is shortsighted as students will be using something completely different when they graduate. Instead they should be learning about collaboration and using the Internet as a research tool, but at the same time realising that they need to investigate a number of information sources, before ultimately offering their opinion rather than repeating what they read on Wikipedia or in a text book.

The big worry however is the resistance to change in any institution, especially public sector. Just look at the health system, everyone admits that there needs to be change, but no-one will implement it. In effect, that’s the complete opposite of what the knowledge based economy should be - the ongoing development of new processes and their incorporation into organisations.