The Lost Generation...

It is a broad generalisation, but not inaccurate, to say that many young people have less sense of their responsibility and need for self sufficiency today. This is in my view caused by, amongst other reasons, a generous welfare state which can lead to dependency within a family across generations. We are subsequently faced with young people without motivation who are in fact selecting the rational choice based on what they observe around them of less work to achieve payout comparable to the working population. The solution here needs to be of the “stick” variety rather than “carrot”. The former is needed to stem the spread of the problem; the carrot is used to address the prevalent symptoms.

For the wellbeing of individuals and society as a whole, it is in our collective as well as selfish interest for each of us to pursue occupations that we hopefully enjoy and have a natural interest in. This is the ideal aim that most working adults might not relate to as they head to work each morning but it is the ideal that ought to be targeted through increasing exposure. Students and young people can only identify what they enjoy based on what they have come across. The education system needs to be able to expose them to ideas beyond their usual comfort zone. This can be in the form of exposure to occupation, languages, culture but also the working environment, social work, community involvement, etc. The aim here is to also provide a reality bite by subjecting them to the real world notion that actions have consequences and that there are pressures of adult hood to be prepared for. If students see more, they identify options that they are naturally inclined towards and are self motivated in pursuing these (the “carrot” approach).

Along with Sir Terry Leahy’s publicised remarks about the education system not supplying employable youth, the recent articles in the FT(Jobs for the young and Education system ‘failing business and workforce’, Feb 21) discuss the softer skills and training that are lacking in young people ranging from personal presentation, conversational skills, work ethic etc.

How do young people get the idea that wearing a hoodie to a job interview is not appropriate? To some extent it is an observation of a generational gap. The evolving trend over time has been to adopt informality and the younger generations are naturally less formal and more relaxed than older ones. However there continues to be a need (at least for now) for professionalism in the work place. The stick approach will state that young people learn to do whatever is needed else they pay the consequences for not abiding i.e. unemployment and low income. The carrot approach means that they are given experience while at school to become familiar with and understand this concept of making themselves better employees and productive workers.

At the end of the day, this is a social issue. The culture supported or created by the welfare state has contributed to its establishment. Poor standards of literacy and numeracy are more directly targeted by education but the softer skills and life training needs to become a core part of the school experience. This is not about the state taking over and interfering it is about the state (since we have one) being concerned for its overall wellbeing.

A few points I would like to see executed in mainstream education that every student has to go through:

1. Classes for managing personal finance

2. Compulsory community work

3. Compulsory work shadowing/experience (paid or unpaid)

While attending University and further education is not a must for every student, getting a job and being self sufficient is.
 

My Letter to the Editor of the FT re. Education

Below is my letter to the editor of the FT in response to a few articles published in today's edition on education and the failings of the current system. Let's see if it's good enough to be selected for being published!

I’ll follow up with another post outlining my views on the causes of the observed failing.

__________________
Dear Sir,

In his article Brian Groom (Education system ‘failing business and workforce’, Feb 21) discusses the skills and training that are lacking in young people ranging from poor levels of literacy, numeracy to interpersonal skills. Certainly professionalism at work means adopting a certain presentation and style of interaction. This has to either be learnt through observation or instilled through education. We are back at the starting point of tackling a social issue, where young people do not have a role model to absorb these life skills from and education is not filling the void.

As a 28 year old, I am perhaps of the generation immediately preceding the one being described as “lost” which is facing record high unemployment and rightfully causing much concern.

I fear that the approach being taken to address the issue, today as well as in the past, is inherently ineffective. There may be much wisdom amongst the experienced politicians and educationists but they are severely lacking in empathy towards a young generation which even I at my age feel disconnected from. We have to create solutions that tackle the true cause which is social in nature and deliver it through the education system in a design that is appealing to the recipients, the young people themselves. Imposition will only face a reluctant audience.

A doctor should prescribe the medication but it is the patient’s prerogative to select the honey flavoured syrup over the orange flavoured one.

I am not an educationist but I have spent some limited time thinking about this subject while working on a documentary and helping to kick-start a campaign by young people to tackle these issues of young people. A solution needs to be found through a dialogue between young people (NEETs, current students, recent students, etc) and policy makers; this is currently missing but is desperately needed when determining what shape policy should take so it will be adopted rather than be resisted.

Yours Faithfully,

Miss Riddhi Bhalla
Volunteer for Change the Future

Listen out for my interview with BBC Radio 4 You and Yours on this subject....Available on iPlayer (fwd ahead to 41 min) 

Nick Clegg is championing the social mobility drive so getting an internship is “open and transparent” to change the “who you know not what you know" culture.

It appears that 100 companies have signed up which include some of the largest supermarkets, banks, law firms and energy providers including Barclays, HSBC and Santander, and retailers Asda, Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Marks & Spencer and Morrisons.

 The companies have agreed to advertise work experience places in schools and over the internet, rather than just telling informal contacts.


They also agreed to work with schools to encourage pupils' ambitions and make internships “open and transparent” so poorer children were not put off.


The firms also agreed to use so that application candidates were not screened out because they went to the wrong school or come from a different ethnic group.


While this is all rather commendable I’m afraid Nick is behind the times. 11 years ago as an A Level student I managed to go online and apply to various internships or work experience days being offered by Investment Banks. I repeated the same process with one of the Big 5 accountancy firm and then again during my first year at a University to get a 3 week internship at an investment bank. Lastly I secured a summer internship in my penultimate year of University which led to a full time job offer.


I assure you that I neither knew the difference between a consultancy firm and an investment bank, nor did I know anyone who worked at either. The process to apply, the requirements and timeline were clearly posted online.


This is the reality of the financial sector broadly. The internship process is transparent as is the graduate recruitment process. There are also very strong diversity drives within this industry championed by the very senior most people. Banks like to make money. They want to hire smart people who they think can help them make more money;  They don’t care where a student went to school and even what degree they may have done. All it comes down to is aptitude and being able to demonstrate ability.


Unfortunately, private schools in the UK are very good at providing opportunity to their students that allows them to develop this work ethic and also be able to demonstrate it in an interview when asked “can you give me an example of when you assumed the role of a group leader?” Students have more support through careers advice, mock interview and training that leads to better interview performance.


By comparison, state comprehensives do not provide the same support. Hence students don’t perform as well in interviews. It is also a reality that they are perhaps less likely to apply to the financial sector because of less information.


What Nick Clegg needs to do is address this issue with state schools so more students are encouraged to apply. I can assure him that the financial industry has had an open door for the last decade or more, at least.


This observation about how accessible the financial sector is can largely be applied to larger firms. The 100 or so that have signed up have reached a level of institutionalisation where there is a clear process for everything aspect of functioning and recruitment is one of them. The big HR departments at these other large firms outside of finance also have invested in creating clear processes and then presenting them on their websites and offering opportunities for students to learn about them. For any profit seeking company the aim is to attract the best. The larger firms have the resources to advertise themselves and they have already done so. Nick’s drive for social mobility will not cause much improvement since he’s trying to change the wrong elements of the equation.

Besides motivating students across the state sector broadly and informing them of opportunities beyond what they see in their immediate surroundings, Nick needs to tackle opacity within small, medium sized businesses and less “institutionalised” sectors. Media, films, arts broadly, etc do not have a clear process of how they hire and who they hire.

As someone who tried to make a documentary, short films and a feature film I can confirm that unless you have the former head of BBC drama on your side, you ain’t getting a big wig casting agent to return your call. That’s where the “who you know” culture really has a stronghold. It’s those smaller businesses and informal sectors that don’t have huge HR departments or websites that explains step by step how to apply at different stages of your life.

So good for Nick for promoting a noble cause but if he really wants to make a difference then he needs to:

1.      Make the state school sector better at informing and preparing students so more apply for internships

2.      Get the informal sectors and SMEs to sign up for providing clearer guidance on their recruiting policy

2. a.       But don’t criticise them for firing incompetent interns!

3.      Provide government support to businesses that cannot afford to hire interns through grants etc

The result of these actions will be that the pool of students applying for internships will be braoder, beyond just the very motivated and private school educated, but also sectos of the economy beyond finance will become more accessible hence helping in some small way to redress the unbalanced UK economy.

The Oxbridge race row (apparently they don't like Black people)

I'm a brown woman who went to Cambridge. In my second year at Queens' college the JCR Committee (Junior Combination Room, ungrad reps) announced a special competition.

What is the sum of the number of letters in the last names of all the Sri Lankans in Queens'?


Why? Coz there were a darn too many of them and on average, they had 15 letters in each of their last names. Now, that was just 7 years ago.

Unless Queens' had a preference for Brown over Black or had a disproportionately large number of the Cam Lankans (which is didn't), I think that is a fairly good example of how prevalent all of us ethnics were around the University. I left uni with 6 good black friends and I wasn't even out looking for any of them! Desperately trying to get away from the masses of Indians, frankly, I was stretched to find adequate white company.

Does Oxford have a materially different representation? Cameron, I fear, did mess this one over. His reference to the sole black student admitted by Oxford in 2009 appeared to be missing the word "caribbean". Perhaps that should make it a more reasonable statistic however from my experience at Cam, which had a scholarship arrangement with Trinidad, there were a bus load more around. Why not ask the Oxford African society of their perspective? Does Oxford actually have a restrictive policy?

Well, given that applicants are selected at the individual college level rather than through some omnipotent University level admissions committee, this is unlikely. Getting 30+ colleges at either Ox or Cam to agree to anything is pretty challenging. To execute a unilateral, anti-black acceptance campaign seems preposterous.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was an element of self selection through which fewer black candidates applied to Oxford, even in comparison to Cambridge. It could be anything - arts reputation over a science orientation, etc. In my experience, the black students in Cambridge were Africans rather than Black Brits. There is an important difference. Black Africans who apply abroad, as any foreign student, are doing so from a very different platform to local students. Applying to a foreign university for them means a greater educational focus, scholarship or wealth. In being a local applicant, Black Brits don't need to compete at the same level and I think in many cases that is reality.

What this points to, once again, is a need for reform in the British education system so a comprehensive educated student can develop aspirations and the aptitude to attend university. Where Oxford and Cam perhaps fall short, is in how far they go in encouraging students to apply to them, beyond the top independent school presentations. But then, I don't really blame them. They have finite resources and targets and need to maximise their marketing potential. I don't expect them to replace their day at Eton with a day at Chatham High but perhaps on the back of this attack (another one!) they should consider changing their image. Moreover, projecting a more informed image of themselves where potential students of all backgrounds realise that they will have familiar company and that the door is open for all colours.

If the government wants to see more Black faces at Oxford, the government needs to provide a better system that delivers more worthy black candidates to Oxford. This black row is a lazy argument. 

Jamie's Dream School... still waiting for Superman

Jamie's Dream School is a pretty interesting experiment at the very least. It is the laboratory that education reformists could only have dreamt of until now: pick the worst examples that the system has rejected and then find solutions to turn them around. Startlingly, as Episode 1 points out, these rejects are in fact a huge group, growing in thousands every year. So perhaps it is the system that needs fixing (so goes the hypothesis).

It is noble cause to give these 20 kids another chance - and not just any ordinary chance either. We can argue about whether the show has the kids' best interests at heart or whether it just makes for good TV (as I am about to), but there is some merit to the effect that it has highlighted some very important points about the student-teacher dynamic - notoriously through David Starkey's outburst but also through Simon Callow's gentle persuasion, that eventually gives way to "shut the fuck up".

Well, how many geniuses does it take to light the spark of inspiration?

This petri dish exposes the views of many practitioners - good and bad. Hence revealing the misalignment in many cases between what wisdom preaches and what practice may prove otherwise. It also exposes the various types of mentality, characters and backgrounds of the rebellious youth who present themselves as a problem to the system.

Some of us viewers might have held sympathy for the teachers at the outset; some of us may have felt for the hard done-by students. Watching the teachers erupt upon trying students and students overreacting disrespectfully towards shocked celebrities has most likely neutralised any prejudices we started off with.

Undeniably the involvement of famous folks grabs our attention but it may also make us more receptive to changing our minds.

Ultimately though, what is the purpose of this Dream School experiment?

I think it is to plug the holes in the mainstream education system which is failing to address the needs of a growing group of individuals and delivering illequiped citizens to drive society forward. The two are related.

Without commenting on what might perhaps be Jamie's true intentions behind spearheading this, I'll stick to assessing his execution. First the facts.

a. Millions of pounds spent on facilities - new school building, provision of specialised equipment such as for the biosphere, history artifacts, science labs, etc

b. famous names and generally well acknowledged experts - albeit without any teaching experience at the school level

c. dedicated time individually to figure out personal issues and identify interests

d. small class sizes

Given that the goal is to find sustainable solutions that can be implemented for the benefit of masses i.e. through mainstream education, the expense of this experiment renders it less relevant for this purpose. The cost of such a micro project can of course not be borne by state education. Why not take a derelict school building or one that recently belonged to a failed school that may have been shut down (as numerous do)? Let's firstly kill the pretty factor in this documentary.

Arguably we shouldn't be hand picking the students either but I suppose they appear to be a diverse enough bunch and in all practicality this may have been the easier solution given parental approval, insurance, etc type of issues that need to be resolved.

But you know what, let's even put this stuff aside. There are more severe failings to consider.

Teachers are not just a knowledge bank. If that was the case, Jamie ought to have distributed encyclopedias and saved a few quid. Teaching is a skill, and one that develops with experience. Watching celebrities who might be experts no doubt, crashing on the learning curve as they learn to teach, is frankly a waste of time we have with these kids. This is where the Dream School gets self indulgent. Instead why did JO not simply pick experienced teachers who have dealt with such kids before, as he did for the role of the headmaster? The students would have had an easier time not having to deal with Starkey's tantrum (amongst other things) and teachers around the country watching this, who might be struggling with similar kids, could have learnt a thing or two about how to better deal with them. Additionally, families, parents, guardians could have benefited from that observation as well.  But sure, it wouldn't have made for as exciting TV...

What do these kids really need?

Watching their disrespectful behaviour, lack of accountability, selfishness, short attention span - what they need is a reality bite.

As one of the grandparents said (and I paraphrase), "..she's looking for way to start claiming benefits instead of getting a job for the rest of her life like normal people...".

That's the truth. Most of these kids have a sense of entitlement without any responsibility. Perhaps they get that from their families who may have a similar attitude or from families who have not instilled any independence or self dependence in these kids.

Struggle, perseverance, focus and commitment are entirely alien concepts to them.

I recognise that there are teenage mom's understandably overwhelmed by the situation they are in and they need support. But I have no sympathy for kids who sense of time passing is based on the number of fags they have burnt through that day...

The greatest service Jamie can do for these kids is to get them to face reality while he has their attention. Let them spend may be a month doing the job they can get based on their current qualifications. Let them queue at the Job Centre, face rejection, be interviewed and support themselves 100% independently for this time. Struggle to make ends meet. Face the consequences of their actions till date and lose their get out of jail cards.



Right now they rebel and get celebrity attention. Too many people care for them and pick up after them. Why would they change?

A true service to the community would shadow their real world experience and document their shock on facing reality. On national television that will serve as a stark lesson to all other similar voluntary truants and troublemakers.

It's laughable and unhelpful to make them think that their schools have failed them without any fault of their theirs. Henry was on camera saying he couldn't make up his mind about either becoming an actor or a photographer or something else. Seriously? Does he have any sense of the struggle needed to become an actor. The job juggling, waiting on tables desperately waiting to hear back the nth audition.

The current school day at the Dream School is exceptionally stimulating but wasted on kids who treat it as an amusement park ride. Enjoy and move on.

There is no denying that schools need fixing but so do the kids. The school system needs upgrading and revising in terms of content, structure and culture. The kids need to grow up and take responsibility. Would I ever want to hire Harlem if I were running a business ? No. As a tax payer do I want to support her and her family? Definitely no.

School's need fixing but this show is not providing the solution. Hugely disappointing for the amount of resources it has splashing about and geniuses at its disposal. It seems the world is still Waiting for Superman to Change the Future...

No exams, More exams or Less exams?

My skepticism towards the abilities of the coalition government are quickly melting. More recently the thawing has been spurred on by Michael Gove's proposals for education policy.

A. Fees: universities can charge more and students pay it off after exceeding a higher salary threshold post graduation, based on a percentage of their income.
B. School leaving age: raising this to 18 yrs
C. GCSE's: potentially scrapping
D. Core subjects: broadening this to include sciences, language, history or geography to form the English Bac.
E. Teacher requirements: minimum 2.2 at graduation

I'll leave A for another blog but for the record here - I entirely support this.

B: Great!

The consequence of this is that it brings into question the need for GCSEs since this level is no longer the stamp kinds will need for their first job after leaving school at 16. This has then also opened up the way for discussing what we will do in school during all those years between 11+ and A Levels.

Here D becomes relevant because the proposals broaden students' exposure and education. Arguably, without GCSEs, teachers can now have the flexibility to teach around subjects rather than just focus on passing exams. Great! I'm sure most of us enjoyed those lessons most where teachers indulged in their interests with passion that was not exactly, but perhaps loosely, related to the curriculum. Invariably what makes those lessons interesting are the methods teachers adopt when they veered off the beaten path. This creativity is crucial in capturing the imagination of students to attain that all important moment of inspiration that sparks their interest and motivates them. So, all good proposals so far.

For some people, this flexibility necessitates removing GCSEs and ongoing exams running up to A Levels.

First, because GCSEs impose a goal that needs to be met and so in the run up to them, prevents teaching anything off the map or approaching subjects differently to the prescribed method. Hence stifling the creativity of content and method we would love to introduce to schools.

Second, constant examination brings about undue pressure on kids. Late bloomers will feel like failures for not performing well in exams that take place in lower school years and so in losing self esteem they will work to their detriment when it comes to doing the national exams that matter, hence locking themselves into a downward spiral. Hence let's not have unnecessary exams until the time they are actually needed.

Third, in this age of austerity measures, exams are an expense the government could perhaps do without.

I disagree with all of the above.

Let's start with considering what "examinations" entail. This is simply a mode of assessment. This is valuable for the teacher to be able to know whether her class of 20+ kids is keeping up with her. It also means kids work towards absorbing it otherwise it'll be in one ear and out of the other. Just because we are sitting in a classroom and being talked at, doesn't mean we are actually absorbing the subject. That eureka! moment of understanding a subject and how it relates to another, usually happens when you are on your working your way through homework or revising for exams. Exams, tests, coursework, verbal conversations, pop quizzes, etc are very helpful in providing a gauge for teachers and students as to how they are doing and what needs to be addressed. It's a way to keep on track. What we need to discuss, is the form and frequency.

One of my gripes with the education system is how inadequately it prepares students for life beyond school. Life's tough. Shit happens. Failure precedes success. Kids need to toughen up and realise life is not a bed of roses. Alternatively there are those who work in different ways and need to be able to flex their mental muscles in the way that works for them, so the standardised method of testing isn't a fair test for them because in the real world they would (hopefully) gravitate towards work and challenges of their selection. So why not at these formative stages in school?

I'm certainly not prescribing a set 3hr essay writing exam but frequent assessment does provide that essential experience of surviving urgency, setting targets, achievement, planning, focus and coping with stress.

The form of assessment needs to be flexible in keeping with a flexible curriculum and teaching methods. Teachers determining the details of their own curriculum should also determine the most appropriate methods of assessment appropriate to the content and individual student tendency. This flexibility in these formative years running up to A Levels are crucial in exposing students to a broad range of ideas and subjects and consequently helping them identify their areas of interest and strength. The aim being to identify that match between skills and interest.

At the time of A Levels, or even if GCSEs are maintained, kids have the adequate knowledge foundation  and over the years of being assessed, they are able to cope with the pressure of revising for the all important national exams. The reality is that it is easy to get out of the practice of revising and preparing, but very difficult to get back into it when it matters so another reason for constant assessment (at the appropriate frequency) is to keep students in practice.

A concern with the proposal to let teachers decide that details of curriculum is that not all teachers are good teachers. The current close guidance takes away that responsibility from the teacher and limits their input to simply data transfer. I'm not against examinations for this reason but I do think it needs to be addressed. Teachers who are also not experts on their subjects or passionate about it will not make the most of this flexibility which can work to the students' detriment. Hence strengtheningTeachfirst and Teachnext programmes is a tremendously helpful as well.

My rough suggestion for the structure of education is:

Teachers have to maintain assessment through all school years which are based on the content and method of teaching. The national exams remain at A Level standards. Even if GCSEs are kept, the years leading up to A Levels and including GCSEs must be made more complex and challenging in terms of content.

What motivates people? Fear, Passion or Incentive?

What motivates man?

One or more of these:

Passion
Fear
Incentive

Over the last year I produced two short films in the time I was unemployed and living off the grid. This immediately followed my four years at an American investment bank which perhaps epitomises most people's concept of a capitalist institution. Going from that world driven by unashamed monetary incentivisation as blatant as a carrot on a stick, the world of independent film makers working on a no-budget project (note: that does not mean porn!) taught me a few things about human nature. Today as I am working within a small, again independent, self supported team of volunteers trying to make a dent in the debate over education reform, my observations on factors of motivations continue.

The charity sector is significantly reliant on unpaid, volunteered services of people who simply care about a cause. The same people in their bread-and-butter jobs are contrastingly driven by what they get paid. in my two short films I was mesmerised when working with teams of 30 odd people, each of whom were complete strangers, to see that they actually turned up for each of the 3 days of shooting at different locations around the Greater London area; all for the opportunity to meet other like minded people, grow their list of experienced and with the hope to be part of the next big thing. Unfortunately, I didn't produce the next big thing so it was just another notch in their belt and they moved on to the next project to work on, receiving nothing more than food and drink for the days on set which by my own admission is not an incentive by anyone's food quality standards.

In parallel, they go on to their waitressing jobs or computer programming desk and haggle over their pay, holidays, benefits for each and every last penny. It's not also the case that these 30 odd people simply turned up as most do for their daily work routines. They gave a shit. There was passion, creativity and a general unarguable sense that we were working towards the same cause united only by the fact that we all wanted it to be as good as it could possibly be. In other words and in every employer's ideal, each worked to the best of their ability and worked as if they owned the set.

Incentive is the most common tool deployed to motivate and is a reminder for many of us for why we wake up every weekday morning. Even if it is not money itself, it is perhaps what money can acquire for us that motivates and so inevitably acquiring more money is the objective. Often where passion and incentive collide, it can lead to reduced wealth as we trade off incentive for the ability to follow our passion and that ability to follow our own path compensates for the lack of or reduced monetary compensation.

The most successful people conversely are an example of where the pursuit of passion generates wealth. I seriously doubt those who top the Forbes Rich List despise the start of each day for work related reasons.  Undoubtedly many of them reached where they are today purely in the pursuit of profit - the incentive motivation to get rich or die trying.

The benefit of passion over incentive as a motivation is also a point of administration. Lack of meritocracy or inaccurate assessment of skill, effort, etc can destroy the chase for the carrot and leave behind a group of disgruntled employees. The classic case of perception vs. productivity kicks in - a game so many of face timers know well. As long as the boss thinks we are working, all is well.

Fear, I will argue, in fact the most efficient method of motivation and one that undoubtedly leads to the desired result fastest. The eerily perfect running of the Chinese Olympics is a recent example. A simple example we can all empathise with is the one of a student desperately cramming the night before an exam to avoid the consequences of not achieving a certain grade.  Perhaps also why fear is so effective is because, of the three factors, it is the most primaeval feeling driven by our instinct to survive. Understandably, the unpleasantness associated with this and the coercive methods to achieve it clearly undermine its use.

Passion is self administering and a cheaper solution. Most importantly, the results are arguably superior to those delivered by either incentivisation or fear.

Passion has no ceiling in terms of targeting achievement. Fear targets the outlined goal in the prescribed way with no room for creativity or individual contribution. Incentivisation has a glass ceiling to the limit where there can be no more marginal increment in incentive due to greater output. In light of this, it astonishes me why every business, institution or government doesn't operate along the principle of inspiring passion amongst its citizens. The first step towards this would be to acknowledge it.

I think it is quite timely that my recently acquired hero, PM Cameron is championing research to monitor  the happiness of Britons and the quality of life at a time where so many feel despair and are struggling. Unfortunately inspiring passion isn't as easy as writing a cheque so motivation is more often driven by a suboptimal factor that can boost but not sustain our satisfaction or happiness. The good thing however is that Passion is contagious. Your worst subject at school becomes less dreadful when you have a cool teacher who cares about the subject and shows you why its interesting which often enough leads to better results.  The limitation in spreading the passion factor is that most of us are in situations we don't care for, subordinate to seniors who suffer the same. At the other end, this is perhaps why we harbour some envy for entrepreneurs who appear to do what they like and seem to have a lot of fun being successful.

Sure, you may argue that if we each did want we wanted, who would do what nobody wants but everybody needs? And even then I'm pretty certain that there would be takers for driving the city garbage trucks. There will of course also be the flip scenario with over subscribed posts and even if we all would rather like to have Jeremy Clarkson's job and get paid to blow stuff up, there is only so much stuff in the world to blow up! This selection process would however be automatically smoothened out to avoid such excesses as passion is not the sole determinant in selection. Many of us have multiple interests and the selection is realistically subject to living standards and ability.

I commend Cameron for attempting to implement his Big Society talk into action. It won't be easy as we trudge our way through daily strife but hopefully, if he holds on to his passion, it will eventually trickle down and at some point, each of us will feel that domino fall.

Fixing Education

Last night I was invited at the very last minute to accompany a friend to a charity ball. One of those lavish black tie affairs, with free flowing champagne, wine and an auction at the end of the night to raise funds through overprices lots, for a food case, It could have been a dull affair if it wasn’t for the company I had.

An innocent comment relating to my involvement with a group of friends on working towards an education campaign driven to bring about reform led to a ferocious crosstable debate – the kind that involves multiple people talking simultaneously and making various tangential comments without any being sufficiently addressed.

Education is one of those topics that most people have an opinion on and usually, a strong one. This simple underlines its importance since we all have these opinions because of our involvement with education in some share or form.  The good thing about this topic is that the urgent need for its reform is undisputedly recognised. Ok, so we all know something needs to be done. The difficulty is figuring out the what and the how.

From amongst all the campaigns, reports and investigations, we are yet to find the solution to how to improve the provision of education. The first question we all need to answer and agree on is what is the purpose of education?

The difficulty in resolving this grave matter is heightened by the fact that education permeates across numerous spheres – society, psychology and economics. Each angle leads to a different conclusion and satisfying all of them is likely to lead to a solution which is impractical – the ”how” is just as important as the “what”.

In my mind the purpose of education is to develop each individual’ potential to help achieve their own best and consequently satisfy the needs of society through the provision of better services and innovation. I believe that individuals perform best when they are enjoying themselves i.e. doing something they are good at an interested in  - the perfect combination of where skills meet interest. At this point an individual is self motivated and engaged and very importantly, gives a shit. It’s quite simple. We do something we care about, then we try to do it well and do well at it. What elements of our involvement here lad to overachievement relative to a role that doesn’t match our skills and interest (hereby known as “skint”)?

-       Curiosity and exploration because we will apply ourselves (stemming form interest in the subject)

-       Competitive nature that leads us to do better (I know about this so I do better than the other guy)

-       Attention to detail (coz we care)

Our experience at school needs to lead us to reaching the point of skint. Along the way it needs to help us develop the characteristics above so when we ultimately applied to our skint role, will lead us to flourish.

So that’s the kind of the “what” half of our answer, but how do we get there?

Let’s break down the education reform debate into two – the top down reform such as curriculum, policy related matters, etc and then bottom up reform that deals with the school experience that each student has and that case be affected immediately through altering individual behaviour. The top down reform is a big battle. Battle with government, with educationists, head teachers, parents, etc. We’ll come back to that.

The bottom up stuff is now. You can do it. Each of us can walk this path immediately and make a bi difference.  And it costs nothing.

The tangibles to fill this hippy concept – as individuals we react to our environment whether we feel safe, threatened, aggravated or uncomfortable, etc.  A young person’s life’s has two broad halves. One that they send in their homes and the other that they spend in school. Educating parents is likely to be an even more ferocious debate than young people’s education so lets leave that for another blog. So then we are back to school. That’s 50% of a young person’s growing up experience.

In the last year I’ve spend some time travelling to different schools around the country, trying to reach different demographics and a broad set of issues to figure out every type of individual education needs to cater to. Clearly I am a long way from comprehensively investigating this but in my experience thus far, there are a few conspicuous common factors that can be changed to make a significant different to this school going experience that impacts 50% of their nurturing environment.

The ideal school environment needs to allow students to relax, gain broad exposure, receive guidance, inspire curiosity, and be challenged along with providing the fundamentals of reading, writing and arithmetic. It is a combination of providing stimuli, engaging minds and then offering guidance towards those aspects of education that are essential and no negotiable (such as literacy) and those which are relating to individual inclination.

Now of course the parental home plays a huge role in determining which students get support to either lead to their so called success or break what might otherwise be a downward spiral. But let’ assume a ceteris paribus, where school influence is the sole determinant. Students who have marched in step till the age of 16 years cannot abruptly be expected to know themselves and follow their unique dreams because until now they have aspired to the goal selected for them. This is one of the greatest flaws in the provision of education generally.

Students need an environment where they are comfortable and are relaxed enough to explore their creativity and ideas whether that leads to success or failure. Let’s not be afraid of failure! Kids need to get comfortable with this concept and not be averse to new challenges for the fear of failing which certainly should not be stigmatised. It is equally important that students are encouraged to set their own goals and hence gauge their own success and failure. Let’s call this the variable element of education. All of this while also providing those certain essentials of an education which includes reading, writing and maths and in the early years an introduction to broader subjects: global current affairs, history, science, foreign languages, community service, music, art, team work and leadership development opportunity. Let’s call this the constant element where students are judged through a combination of objective (examinations) and subjective targets.

From kindergarten through to high school, the balance between the variable and constant elements needs to vary, as does the composition of broader subjects. Starting from a higher skew towards constant elements and all of the broader subjects, students near the later years of school should squarely be pointing towards the variable element with a smaller selection of subjects that they have identified their own interest in through many previous years of exposure. The different between this and the practice today is that this variable element of choice, selection and responsibility should be provided in smaller but increasing doses through school and so gradually reaching a point where students are prepared to face making their own decisions rather than approach this point as abruptly as facing the end of a cliff.  At the time of picking GCSE, A Levels and later my university, I failed to empathise with the vast number of my classmates who were overwhelmed with making those basic decisions. How can we expect such individuals to cope with the unpredictability of life?

The method of presenting information (teaching) of course is key. Inspiration is undoubtedly paramount. We all achieved more in classes when we liked out teacher. Students are certainly not homogenous in their interests but in earlier school years, cajoling them to appreciate subjects they may not necessarily have an immediate affinity for (some of the broader subjects in the constant element) is key. This should not be based on the usual answer of “well, do you want to pass your GCSE’s or not?” but on figuring out how a subject can be made interesting for a student and that’s where the importance of teachers lies.

This is about the top down reforms. We need policy to attract and retain the right people in teaching jobs rather than the teaching profession becoming the de facto fall back option for people who cant think of other options they would like to pursue in stead or those attracted by the vacation days.

The content that is taught also needs to be addressed to be made more current, flexible and broader. I don’t think we need to be concerned about overexamining students – it’s the quality of testing and to what purpose, which needs to be questioned. Lets not shy away from increasing the complexity of the subject matter younger ages and neither should we worry about harbouring too much competition through grades that leads to anxious students.

Jeez, come on! The world’s a tough place and every new job throw’s up a steep learning curve so why insulate kids from this when they are young? Instead prepare them to be well-informed, adaptable individuals who can cope with living in the real world.

I went to school in Delhi till the age of 13 and then joined a private school in Oxford my GCSE’s and then moved to North London for my A levels. From the age of 13-17 till I started my A-Levels, I practically did not learn any thing new. The exception being French and some episodes in modern history. Algebra, the periodic tables, dual sciences and surprisingly, my grasp of English, was significantly superior.

I was shocked. The outdated Indian CBSE system is based on what was inherited from the Raj. Clearly the education standard in Britain has evolved tremendously but the decline in standards is unmistakable if I as a 13 year old was aware of concepts, 16 yr olds were being introduced to for the first time.

The UK mainstream system needs major overhauling reform, all around. The content of education, the structure of examination, the provision of information and the purpose of education in fulfilling what individuals and society need must be addressed. Sure, it’ll take time, but one school at a time is not difficult and let’s not hold ourselves back form implementing change step by step because the big picture seems too daunting. We can all make changes today to make an impact immediately.

Check out:

changethefuture.co.uk