Our educational purpose: compliant economic units, or creative human beings?

I was recently privileged to attend the ‘Long term Insights Briefing; Youth employment, the way forward’ organised by MBIE, MSD, and MOE.  There was an interesting cross-section of people and organisations in the room (there were no young people in the room, but we were assured that there were to be separate hui designed to capture their voice, a collective sigh of relief could be heard and felt across the room when we heard that).

As you’d hope, it had me thinking (there would have been little point in going if I hadn’t been prepared to think about the issues!!). I listened to the discussion from around my own table, and the feedback from the other tables in the room, and some themes were pretty evident. There was a general view that education didn’t meet the needs of the group of young people who are most at risk.. There were also views about the willingness and ability of employers to take on young people, to mentor and support them in the work place, and many many more. The views on education were the ones that (understandably) most caught my attention. 

I heard the view that young people ‘graduate’ from secondary school lacking both the technical and the (so called) soft skills to take their place in the workforce. The general tenor of the comments was that schools are not fit for purpose.  There, I’ve said it!!! That sentiment fascinates me. It’s not one I’d disagree with for a single moment. What fascinates me is this. We now live in world in which see young people (actually people in general) as little more than economic units rather than as human beings. In my opinion this is very likely to be the result of thirty five years of market driven economics, and what I believe has been the ‘idolisation’ of the free market. A corollary of this was a discussion at our table that maybe young people at age 13 or 14 aren’t yet ready for the sort of ‘learning’ that we try to deliver, that they are not yet ready for such vocationally focussed learning. How many 13 year olds know what they intend to do in the economy as 20 year olds? How many 13 year olds know enough about themselves to be able to start thinking about that issue, let alone resolve it?

Now an understanding that we are economic units may might not in itself be bad, but I reckon that this has been to the exclusion of other far more fundamental things. I hold the view that being human, being allowed to be human, feeling culturally located and culturally safe, and being capable of forming strong and meaningful human relationships, are all things that are essential before we can learn. These are essential prerequisites before we can be the best that we can be and, if you are wedded to the free market paradigm, before we can be the ‘most efficient economic units that we can be’.

These things are the basis of the so called soft skills that people at the hui were talking about. They are also the same ‘soft skills’ that NZ employers are talking about. Take a look at the ‘Employability skills’ listed on the CareersNZ website. We are assured that they reflect what employers want in employees. Here is the list of the seven essential skills.

The seven essential employability skills

Here are the seven essential employability skills with examples:

1. Positive attitude: Being calm and cheerful when things go wrong.

2. Communication: You can listen and say information clearly when you speak or write.

3. Teamwork: You help out when it gets busy at work.

4. Self-management: You get to work on time every day.

5. Willingness to learn: You want to learn new things to improve your skills.

6. Thinking skills (problem solving and decision making): You try and solve problems or can see where something won't work.

7. Resilience: You get an angry customer but you keep calm, keep working and laugh about it later.

I don’t see any mention there of such things as ‘can differentiate an equation with two variables’ or ‘can draw a circuit diagram’ or ‘can illustrate the impact of an increase in income on a demand curve’. Now I’m NOT suggesting that specific knowledge is unimportant. It most certainly is. I am however suggesting that much of that specific knowledge has less importance than the capacity to be human, to communicate, collaborate, empathise, and think creatively and critically. I am making reference to the key competencies listed in the front half of the New Zealand curriculum. That document aligns really well with what employers want. And what they want are functioning human beings. Functioning human beings are most likely to be the highly productive little economic units that employers want, too.

I am often amused by the contradiction between what employers tell us they want, and what the right wing political pundits often (not always!!) seem tell us they want in terms of ‘standards’. That ‘free market’ mantra lead us down the path to ‘national standards’, and also drives our common assessment of the effectiveness of secondary schools by looking at their NCEA results. Such ‘data’ fails completely to identify those ‘damaged’ young people whom we foster and bring through to near adulthood as functioning humans. Yes they may not have the literacy levels we hope for, but if they are caring compassionate humans, that in itself may have been a massive shift for them when compared with where they began life’s journey. We all too often find ourselves simply trying to overcome the incredibly traumatic beginnings to life that our rangatahi bring to the educational table.

This brings me back to a paper that has resonated very strongly with me, Professor Peter O’Connor’s paper “Replanting creativity in post normal times” (October 2020). From that paper:

“The future of work is human. This inspiring insight follows Deloitte Access Economics’ analysis of changes to the nature of skills in demand since 1988, and extrapolations to 2030. From work of the hands (manual labour), to work of the head (cognitive labour), Deloitte Access Economics has identified an emerging need for work of the heart (i.e. soft skills such as judgement, resolving conflict and customer service).”  (O’Connor page 13)

However I am suggesting that even that position is far less important than the contention that what we most urgently need is human beings. We need people who are kind, empathetic, and can think, both creatively and critically, which of course brings me right back again to my regular hobby horse of creativity.

Even a brief read of Professor Peter O’Connor’s paper “Replanting creativity in post normal times” (October 2020) will show that supporting the development of creativity supports wellbeing.

“Upitis (2014) discusses how ..fostering creativity in students helps them to develop resilience, resourcefulness, and confidence—preparing them to address life’s challenges. Creativity also carries its own intrinsic value. Developing creative sensibilities and habits enhances quality of life for teachers and students. (p. 2).”  (O’Connor Page 17)

Another of my ‘fave’ educational thinkers and writers is Yong Zhao. In amongst his many profound observations and reflections is the notion that our current education systems (globally) are narrowing rather than broadening human talent. I’ve used this diagram before, and it warrants revisiting.

It ought to be our fundamental role to broaden creative talent, to amplify the diversity of human thinking and creativity. The benefits of such a broadening are potentially profound. And there is one of the many strengths, the may promises. that the Manaiakalani kaupapa offers with our "Learn Create Share' pedagogy, that possibility of developing and enhancing creativity amongst students and teachers alike. 

It begs the question of exactly who we are serving in education? What is our main purpose in education? Is it to produce compliant economic units? Or is it to support humanity to grow, to thrive and flourish? I’ll wait and see if any of that filters through in the ‘Long Term Insights Briefing’ material that goes to ministers.