【國外編輯部專欄】就讀明星學校真的重要嗎?

 

作者/ Jonathan Wai Ph.D

編譯/李苾琳

[tabs]
[tab title=”中文”]

就讀明星學校真的重要嗎?

法蘭克布魯尼(Frank Bruni)對名校的想法也許錯了。

布魯尼的新書Where You Go Is Not Who You’ll Be告訴我們說,你讀哪間大學根本無所謂。申請常春藤聯盟和菁英學校的學生一年比一年多,但是布魯尼建議陷入申請學校泥淖而焦慮不安的學生和在乎兒女未來社經地位的父母應該先冷靜下來,畢竟學校不能代表你的全部。

機會,成就命運。但是布魯尼身為一個具影響力的紐約時報專欄作家、甚至是美國名校的一員,說這種話根本和他自己的求學背景相違。布魯尼畢業於北卡羅萊納大學教堂山分校和哥倫比亞大學的研究所,兩者都是極其頂尖的學府。

如果他當初隨便選個大學或研究所,還會是今天的布魯尼嗎?

布魯尼之所以決定寫這本書是因為他朋友就讀高中的小孩們和他的甥姪輩近乎瘋狂的討論哪間大學好。他說:「我對此現象長期關注,並比較了我和我身邊的成功人士的學歷,我好奇我們是否都來自特定幾間學校,但並未發現任何關聯性。」

為求公信力,布魯尼進行了一些能支持他論點的研究。例如他調查財富雜誌〈Fortune〉全球五百大企業前一百名的美國執行長,提出只有約三十位曾就讀常春藤聯盟或是菁英名校。

然而,為什麼只查到第一百名而已呢?何不完整考察全球五百大企業五百位執行長的學歷?其實我兩年前也做過類似的研究。我發現1996年到2014年間,全球五百大企業約有38%的執行長們曾就讀名校。

如要全面評估布魯尼的說法,何不更廣泛地檢驗美國名校呢?而這就是我現在在做的。下方圖表中的數據取自其他研究報告,我參閱了全球五百大企業執行長的教育背景,還有聯邦法官、參議員、眾議員、達沃斯世界經濟論壇的與談者(包括執行長、記者、學者、政府官員等等)、和富比世全球富豪排行榜得主的學歷。

藍色是畢業於明星大學或研究所的比例,紅色則是畢業於非名校研究所的比例,綠色是一般大學畢業的比例,紫色則是沒上大學或是沒有資料的比例。

有人可能會質疑,全球五百大企業僅有38%的執行長來自名校,這比例一點都不高,但仔細看一下紫色所占的比例,幾乎每個菁英份子都有大學學歷,最成功的中輟生如比爾蓋茲和馬克祖克柏也曾是「哈佛」的學生。44.8%的億萬富豪、55.9%最傑出的女性、63.7%的達沃斯論壇與談人、和85.2%最傑出的男性都曾讀過明星學校。此外,出席達沃斯論壇的記者過半來自名校。紐約時報的數據系統上來說不具效用,也與原結果差異不大,更可能因為紐約時報的聲望而有更多出身優越的就職者投入。

根據人口普查和各大專院校提供的數據,我估計只有2~5%的美國大學生畢業於這些明星學校,而這些菁英族群就讀明星學校的比例遠高於此,這還不包括就讀非明星學校研究所的人數。

布魯尼對菁英學府固著性的批判也許正確,因為蘿蔔就只有這麼多坑而已,所以多數學生和他們的家長根本無法獲得敲門磚,但做出讀哪間學校根本沒差的結論是錯的。在現今美國的教育體系和職業結構下,選擇有名望的學校的確較有可能邁向光明似錦的未來。當然這並不代表名校背景或經驗是必備條件,人格特質如智識和動機才是最終成功的依歸,這些東西才是打開成功之門的鑰匙。

汲汲營營於前進名校的的想法不一定是錯的。就像很多人會認為,不論吸收知識的多寡,進入學術殿堂都能打開你的新視野,這也是為什麼家長希望自己的兒女可以躋身前幾學校。身為美國菁英的一份子,若孩子不能青出於藍勝於藍,至少也要達到跟自己差不多的的水平,才能在競爭中取得優勢,享受特權帶來的龐大利益。由我的研究所見,若想成為菁英份子,名校或是研究所的確可以給你更多機會。

經濟學家克拉克(Gregory Clark )在他的著作The Son Also Rises寫道,多數家長極其重視孩子將來的社經地位,上層階級的父母尤其在乎。他們不惜花時間跟金錢為他們的孩子尋求最安全同時又不會傷害到他人的機會,然而我們身處的世界唯有地位、權力、和財富才能創造這些機會。

布魯尼認為成功的人生可以藉由很多方法達成,就算你今天沒能進入理想學校,未來仍有機會功成名就。家長當然會關心孩子的學業表現,但他們通常只是想增加孩子成功的可能性,所以當社會談論到入學話題時,這些家長(和他們的孩子)可能也只是在文憑至上的環境下,做出「合乎情理」的決定。

【作者介紹:Jonathan Wai Ph.D】

Jonathan Wai, Ph.D.現為美國杜克大學能力鑑定專案計畫研究員和凱斯西儲大學客座研究員。他的研究領域為人才發展和其對社會的影響,著作常刊於紐約時報、華爾街日報、華盛頓郵報、經濟學人等。他同時也是今日心理學的專欄作家。

 

[/tab]
[tab title=”English”]

Does It Really Matter Where You Go to College?

Frank Bruni may be wrong about elite schools

Frank Bruni’s new book, Where You Go Is Not Who You’ll Be, argues that the college you attend doesn’t really matter so much. The coveted Ivy League—and the wider range of elite schools—have more applications than ever before, but Bruni recommends that anxious students and their status-obsessed parents caught up in the admissions madness should calm down and relax—the school you go to cannot define you.

Which is, of course, both trite and true. In life, you are what you make of each opportunity. Yet Bruni himself, an influential New York Times columnist and prominent member of the US elite, makes an argument that somewhat contradicts his own educational history. After all, he graduated from a top public institution—The University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill—and an Ivy League graduate school—Columbia University.

Would he be where he is today if he had just chosen a college or graduate school at random?

Bruni told The Washington Post that he decided to write the book “because of the constant chatter among his friends who have kids in high school and among his nieces and nephews ‘all whipped up in a frenzy’ over where to go to college.” He went on to say: “I was watching this and comparing it to my own life and the successful people I know… I wondered if there was anything in their résumés, a uniform attendance at a few select schools, and I didn’t see it. It wasn’t the case.”

To Bruni’s credit, he does conduct some research to support his point. For example, he examined the American-born chief executives of the top 100 companies in the Fortune 500 and noted that roughly 30 went to an Ivy League school or equally selective institution.

However, why stop at 100? Why not examine the entire Fortune 500? And why not examine both undergraduate and graduate schools? That is, in fact, what I did in my research, published two years ago. And in an extended analysis from 1996 to 2014, I uncovered that roughly 38% of Fortune 500 CEOs attended elite schools (see the paper for the full list) for the last two decades.

But to more fully evaluate Bruni’s claim, why not examine the US elite more broadly? This is exactly what I did. The following data in the graph below are taken from another research paper which can be found here. I looked at the educational backgrounds of US Fortune 500 CEOs, federal judges, senators, House members, attendees at the World Economic Forum in Davos (which included CEOs, journalists, academics, and people in government and policy), and the most powerful men and women according to Forbes. The blue bars indicate the elite school percentage (undergraduate or graduate school). The red bars indicate the graduate school percentage not included in the elite category. The green bars indicate those who graduated from college independent of the other two categories. And the NR/NC category indicates people who did not report or had no college.

Source: Jonathan Wai

One might argue that the Fortune 500 CEO elite school percentage of roughly 38% is not very high. But this value should be taken in the broader context. Note the purple bars, which show that nearly everyone in the US elite graduated from college. This flatly contradicts the stories glamorizing college dropouts—such as Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg—who both were accepted by and attended Harvard. Next, it’s interesting to note that 44.8% of billionaires, 55.9% of powerful women, 63.7% of Davos attendees, and 85.2% of powerful men attended elite schools. Finally, 55.6% of the journalists who attended Davos went to elite schools. I conducted my own analysis of the data on The New Republic masthead, suggesting that roughly 64.2% attended elite schools. Data on the New York Times was not systematically available, but it is unlikely to be much different, and may even be more select given its reputation.

Based on census and college data, I estimate that only about 2% to 5% of all US undergraduates went to one of these elite schools. That makes all these US elite groups well above what you would expect in the general population (roughly 10 to 20 times base rates). And this doesn’t even include the percentage who went to a “non-elite” graduate school.

Bruni may be right to criticize the fixation on elite schools, as there are only so many slots at these institutions—so most students (and their parents) by definition simply will not be able to gain access. But to suggest that where you go to school doesn’t matter makes little sense. For students throughout the range of colleges and universities, going to a more recognized school is likely to help open doors for their future—at least in the current US educational and occupational structure. This, of course, doesn’t mean that it is necessarily the elite school education or experience that is the driving factor. Among other things, eventual success could be attributed to individual characteristics such as brains and motivation, which unlocked the door to admission to begin with.

But among people similar to Bruni’s social and family circle, who appear fixated on which college to go to, perhaps their hunch is not wrong. This is likely because many of these people know that where they went to school opened doors for them, regardless of the quality of the education they received—and that is why they want their kids to have those same opportunities. As members of the US elite, they want their kids to at least match if not surpass them, to have an advantage in life, and to reap the enormous benefits that come with that privilege. As my research shows, if you want to become a member of the US elite, an elite school (or grad school) appears to improve your chances.

As Gregory Clark explained in The Son Also Rises: “Most parents, particularly upper class parents, attach enormous importance to the social and economic success of their children. They spare no expenditure of time or money in the pursuit of these goals. In these efforts, they seek only to secure the best for their children, not to harm the chances of others. But the social world only has so many positions of status, influence, and wealth.”

Asking whether parents should send their kids to the Ivy League if they qualify raises an important discussion of US cultural values, something William Deresiewicz already thoughtfully and persuasively argued against in his book Excellent Sheep. Bruni is right that success in life can be found through many paths and educational institutions—and his message that even if you don’t get into the college of your dreams you can still achieve them is positive, uplifting, and true. Parents certainly can become overly concerned with the outcomes of their children. But parents often think of increasing the likelihood of success of their children. So when it comes to college admissions they (and their kids) might be acting in an entirely rational manner given the credential-obsessed society we live in today.

【Author:Jonathan Wai Ph.D】

He researches and writes about the development of talent, broadly conceived, and its impact on society. His interests focus on the role of cognitive abilities, education, and other factors that contribute to the development of expertise in education, occupation, and innovation. Additionally, he is interested in policy implications of developing (or failing to develop) talent, and connecting his work with the larger global conversation.

[/tab]
[/tabs]

圖片來源:flickr@ジェイ。Sō

原文經合作媒體:《Psychology Today》授權編譯,未經許可不得轉載

 

【國外編輯部專欄】新世代的教師能運用科技創造教學創新嗎?

 

作者/Jeff Utecht

翻譯/黃于馨

[tabs]
[tab title=”中文”]

新世代的教師能運用科技創造教學創新嗎?

學生翻轉創新科技

我知道這個標題很嚇人,但師資職前教育課程並不會幫助老師適切地運用科技於課堂中。

根據國際性教育非營利組織Project Tomorrow的報導:『學校校長期望聘用的新老師,除了俱備創意思維外,也能實施差異化教學。然而實習教師們卻指出,受訓的課程僅著重在簡易的管理工具上。此外,那些能左右新老師命運的前輩們,完全無法接受使用新興科技教導學生。』

針對這個問題,我很榮幸能有機會接觸到華盛頓州正攻讀學士和碩士的教育系學生。部分學校的教育學程正嘗試進行不一樣的事情,採用不一樣的教學方針,但是科技工具的運用仍只占全部課程中的一小部分,學校並沒有實質執行。

科技應用應該是門獨立的課程。拿歷史老師的培訓為例,學程應該教育老師如何運用Google地球(Google Earth)裡的圖層;數學老師要知道如何使用拍照計算機(PhotoMath);而英文老師更要明白作文型式的演變,讓學生改用部落格和推特(Tweets)等社群媒體練習。

 

我很好奇到底有多少學程設有電子書信和相關課程,教授以下幾點:

1.如何回覆一位不開心的家長?

2.如何回覆一位不開心的學生?

3.如何以專業口吻回覆你的同事?

4.如何完整的寫出你的想法和意見?

5.當家長透過FB頻頻為他們兒女講話,該怎麼處理?

6.當每位學生的口袋裡都有台相機,要怎麼維持教學專業?

7.如何在不違反學校規定的前提下,適當地更新你的班級網頁,正確地向整個社群傳達訊息?

 

根據Project Tomorrow的報導,師培中心表示師資培育注重科技使用,協助老師有系統的教學,而非與學生的互動。所以課程設計上偏重教授老師課堂經營的技巧。71%的受訓老師指出他們學到簡易的文書處理、電子試算表和資料庫,64%的老師學到如何製作多媒體演示,55%的老師學到怎麼使用互動式電子白板。

以上數據說明了科技根本沒有被運到到學科和教學法上,本應創造出的優勢也沒有被好好把握。雖然有64%的老師學習到怎麼製作多媒體演示,但這些演示法真的有將大腦研究列入考量嗎?我猜一定沒有。

設計師資職前教育課程的人有想過淘汰某些舊時的教學法嗎?他們真的有在學習新的教學法,像是遊戲化學習或是倒轉教學嗎?他們知道新世代的連結主義(Connectivism)理論嗎?

我不該抱怨這些,但我猜這就是為什麼教育科技和資訊素養認證(COETAIL)會這麼受歡迎的原因。

我們都有責任引領學生邁向更好的未來,然而我們無法冀望從這些新老師身上得到答案。他們在生活中廣泛地使用科技,卻沒有將科技以學習為導向的方式應用在課堂中。這些新老師或許比較跟的上時代,但如果他們不明白為何現有的學習模式需調整的話,真是白白浪費生活中所習得的科技能力。

 

我們其實能做的更好的…..

 

【作者介紹:Jeff Utecht】

Jeff Utecht是教育科技顧問兼作家。他擁有課程教學碩士學位,關注科技。

[/tab]
[tab title=”English”]

New Teachers Won’t Save Us

學生翻轉創新科技

This is going to come as a shock I know…but pre-service education programs are not preparing teachers for a technology rich classroom teaching experience. Or to put that another way the classrooms of today.

According to a Project Tomorrow Report

…principals concluded that they want to hire new teachers with creative ideas about how technology can be leveraged to create authentic and differentiated learning experiences. But student-teachers report that their tech training focuses only on simple management tools. At the same time, the report concludes that those who have the biggest influence on new teachers — veteran educators –  don’t always embrace new ways of using technology to engage students. ~MindShift

This is an issue and one I have seen first hand. I have had the privilege of meeting with pre-service educators in both undergraduate programs and Master’s In Teaching programs…mostly here in the State of Washington. Now some of these programs are doing things different, trying to do things differently or bring a different approach. However, for the most part what I’m finding is technology is still an afterthought in these programs and not a true representation of what is happening in schools.

One of the main issues I see is that technology, in many programs, is a separate course and is not integrated into each of the subject/classes that a pre-service educator takes. History teachers….as part of their program should be required to know how to use all the amazing layers found in Google Earth. Math teachers should know about things like PhotoMath and how you could leverage this in the classroom. English teachers should study and understand how writing has changed over the years and have students practice writing in mediums that apply to 2014. Blogs, Tweets, Status Updates, images and videos. Those are the writing tools of today and of the future.

Or how about just on an professional level. I wonder how many pre-service program cover things like:

l   How to respond to an upset parent over email

l   How to respond to an upset student over email

l   How to respond to colleagues professionally over email

l   How to write a professional email that conveys your message and will be read

l   How to handle a situation in which a parents sends you a DM on Facebook about their child (yes they can…yes it happens)

l   How to handle yourself professionally when everyone has a camera in their pocket

l   How to update your “class website” in a manner that is appropriate, within school guidelines and gets your message across to your community

That’s a list that just rolls off my head in about 5 minutes…I’m sure you can add more to the list in the comments.

Teachers-in-training say coursework focuses on technologies that help a teacher stay organized, rather than ways to engage students. In their methods courses, where teachers learn the mechanics of running a classroom, 71 percent report that they’re taught to use simple word processing, spreadsheets and database tools, 64 percent report learning how to create multimedia presentations and 55 percent say they’ve learned how to use interactive whiteboards. ~MindShift

It’s not just that technology is not being integrated into the course subjects and methods courses but that what is required to be produced is not good stuff typically. Sure 64% report learning how to create multimedia presentations but are they good presentations that take into account what we know about brain research? I’m going to guess not.

Are pre-service programs and methods courses looking at what skills need to be replaced for this generation? Are they studying new approaches to learning such as gamification and reverse instruction. Where they might work and where they might not. Are they studying new and emerging learning theories like Connectivism that was written and has been around since 2005 and is the foundation to what MOOCs are based on.

I shouldn’t be complaining I guess this is exactly what has made COETAIL so popular. We cover all these topics and so much more over the course of our program. BTW a new cohort is starting in February…feel free to spread the word!

We have work to do throughout education and preparing students for their future. We can’t rely on new teachers coming from pre-service programs to be the answer. Yes…they use a ton of tech in their own lives but have never been taught how to apply that to the classroom in a safe and learning focused way. Are they ahead of the game….sure….but without the focus on how and why learning changes when we have access to a connected classroom that tech life skill is wasted.

We can do better…..

 

【Author:Jeff Utecht】

Jeff Utecht is an educational technology consultant, educator and author. He holds a Master’s degree in Curriculum and Instruction with a focus in Technology as well as his administrative certification through Washington State.

[/tab]
[/tabs]

 

圖片來源:uoeducation@flickr

原文刊登於《thethinkingstick.com》,經作者Jeff Utecht授權編譯,未經許可不得轉載

 

美國人何以一再忽視芬蘭教育的成功?(下)

 

閱讀此文前,歡迎先閱讀:

美國人何以一再忽視芬蘭教育的成功?(上)

 

作者/Anu Partanen

編譯/李明洋

[tabs]
[tab title=”中文”]

美國人何以一再忽視芬蘭教育的成功?(下)

早在幾十年前,當芬蘭的學校體系糟到急需改革時,他們設立了一個目標,也因為該目標的確立,才會有今日如此豐碩的成果,那個目標就是”永遠不要追求卓越,而是要追求公平。

自1980年代以來,主導芬蘭教育政策的主要想法就是,每個孩子,無論其身家背景、家庭收入或居住位置,都應該擁有完全相同的學習機會。芬蘭人一直都認為,教育並非用以培育出明星學生,而應該是用以擺脫社會的不公平。

就芬蘭人的看法,這意味著,學校對孩童來說應該是個既健康又安全的環境。這是最起碼的要求。芬蘭學校提供所有學生免費的餐點,便於獲取醫療保健、心理輔導,以及提供學生個別化的指導。

事實上,芬蘭從來就沒有特別把追求卓越列為優先項目,所以當芬蘭學生在2001年的第一屆PISA獲得如此高的成就時,許多芬蘭人都認為一定是搞錯了。但隨後的PISA評量結果,證實了芬蘭正因為特別著眼於公平性的政策,而能獲得如此優異的成就。

然而,針對這一點,美國人似乎永遠置之不理,即使在歷經經融危機,以及”佔領華爾街運動(Occupy Wall Street movement)”將美國境內社會不公平的問題推到頂點的這一刻,橫亙在那些支付得起一個學生每年35000美元學費,抑或負擔得起好學區附近房價的家庭,以及剩下的99%的家庭中間的,是一條痛苦且顯而易見的深淵。

Sahlberg表示,任何國家都是不同的,如同許多美國人所說的,芬蘭是個小國,他的人口組成同質性甚於美國。但是Sahlberg認為美國人不能把國土大小和人口組成當成不能仿效芬蘭的理由。就2010年的資料顯示,人口組成上,相較於美國擁有12.7%的移民人口,芬蘭只有4.6%的移民。然而,芬蘭在過去10年以來的移民人口增加了兩倍,但政府並沒有因此而讓教育的品質打折。移民家庭往往聚居在同一區,使得某些學校的學生組成比其他學校更複雜,但是從PISA的結果可知,芬蘭學校間的差異並沒有很大的差別。

對於國土大小和人口組成對國家教育成就的影響,哥倫比亞大學師範學院(Columbia University’s Teachers College)的訪問學者Samuel Abrams提出了解釋,他指出,和芬蘭同屬於北歐國家的挪威國土面積也和芬蘭一樣很小,人口組成更同質,但是和芬蘭不同的是,挪威的教育較傾向於美國模式。結果如何呢?在PISA的表現平平。因此,Abrams認為,教育政策對於國家教育的影響程度遠比國土大小或種族組成還要重要。

的確,芬蘭的人口只有540萬,相當於美國許多州的人口,而且,美國大多數的教育是由州政府管理。而根據位於華盛頓的移民政策研究所(Migration Policy Institute)的資料顯示,在2010年,美國有18個州的移民人口和芬蘭相當,甚至比芬蘭還少。

更重要的是,儘管芬蘭和美國有許多不同之處,但兩者的教育目標卻是相同的。當1970年代芬蘭的決策者決定進行教育改革時,他們說到做到,因為他們意識到,芬蘭不能總是依賴製造業或有限的天然資源,而是應該將投資放在以知識為基礎的經濟上,唯有這麼做才能讓芬蘭具有競爭力。

如今,美國製造業的景氣下滑,美國教育政策的目標,如同Obama總統所說的,就是要採用相同的方法來維持美國的競爭力。芬蘭經驗讓我們知道,一個國家若要在這場新的經濟競賽中獲勝,那麼就不能只是讓部分國民做好準備,而是要讓全體國民都做好準備。如果只是擁有幾所世界首屈一指的學校,但卻有許多孩子落後了,那就不足以算是好。

這是個遙不可及的目標嗎?

Sahlberg表示,他的書不是一本教導人如何去實現目標的書,而是一本帶給人希望的書。Sahlberg說,”當年美國總統Kennedy發願,要全力發展美國的科學和技術,預計在1960年代末把人類送上月球,結果許多人認為那是痴人說夢。…但他懷抱著夢想,就像幾年後金恩博士(Martin Luther King)所發表的”我有一個夢想”一樣。那些夢想真的實現了。芬蘭的夢想是,不論孩子就讀的是哪一所學校,不論孩子來自於什麼樣的家庭,我們都能給他一個良好的公校教育,當初也有許多芬蘭人說那是癡人說夢。”

很顯然的,這些人都錯了。

要創造公平是可能的。對美國人來說,要從這點切入教育改革或許是個挑戰,但卻是更加重要的。芬蘭經驗讓我們知道,要達到卓越是可能的,但不是靠競爭,而是相互合作,不是靠選擇學校,而是公平的教育機會。

美國教育所面臨的問題不在於人口組成的多樣性,而是社會經濟地位的不公平,而這正是芬蘭教育改革所解決的問題。美國人想要更有競爭力,那麼,讓家家戶戶的社經地位更加平等可能才是他們需要的。

【作者介紹】

本文作者Anu Partanen為芬蘭籍駐紐約記者,為”The New York Times“和”The Atlantic“等報紙撰文,目前正籌畫出版一本分析美國該如何從北歐諸國的教育汲取經驗的書,經營有部落格ANU PARTANEN

[/tab]
[tab title=”English”]

What Americans Keep Ignoring About Finland’s School Success 2

Everyone agrees the United States needs to improve its education system dramatically, but how? One of the hottest trends in education reform lately is looking at the stunning success of the West’s reigning education superpower, Finland. Trouble is, when it comes to the lessons that Finnish schools have to offer, most of the discussion seems to be missing the point.

The small Nordic country of Finland used to be known — if it was known for anything at all — as the home of Nokia, the mobile phone giant. But lately Finland has been attracting attention on global surveys of quality of life — Newsweekranked it number one last year — and Finland’s national education system has been receiving particular praise, because in recent years Finnish students have been turning in some of the highest test scores in the world.

Finland’s schools owe their newfound fame primarily to one study: the PISA survey, conducted every three years by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The survey compares 15-year-olds in different countries in reading, math, and science. Finland has ranked at or near the top in all three competencies on every survey since 2000, neck and neck with superachievers such as South Korea and Singapore. In the most recent survey in 2009 Finland slipped slightly, with students in Shanghai, China, taking the best scores, but the Finns are still near the very top. Throughout the same period, the PISA performance of the United States has been middling, at best.

Compared with the stereotype of the East Asian model — long hours of exhaustive cramming and rote memorization — Finland’s success is especially intriguing because Finnish schools assign less homework and engage children in more creative play. All this has led to a continuous stream of foreign delegations making the pilgrimage to Finland to visit schools and talk with the nation’s education experts, and constant coverage in the worldwide media marveling at the Finnish miracle.

So there was considerable interest in a recent visit to the U.S. by one of the leading Finnish authorities on education reform, Pasi Sahlberg, director of the Finnish Ministry of Education’s Center for International Mobility and author of the new book Finnish Lessons: What Can the World Learn from Educational Change in Finland? Earlier this month, Sahlberg stopped by the Dwight School in New York City to speak with educators and students, and his visit received national media attention and generated much discussion.

And yet it wasn’t clear that Sahlberg’s message was actually getting through. As Sahlberg put it to me later, there are certain things nobody in America really wants to talk about.

* * *

During the afternoon that Sahlberg spent at the Dwight School, a photographer from the New York Times jockeyed for position with Dan Rather’s TV crew as Sahlberg participated in a roundtable chat with students. The subsequent article in the Times about the event would focus on Finland as an “intriguing school-reform model.”

Yet one of the most significant things Sahlberg said passed practically unnoticed. “Oh,” he mentioned at one point, “and there are no private schools in Finland.”

This notion may seem difficult for an American to digest, but it’s true. Only a small number of independent schools exist in Finland, and even they are all publicly financed. None is allowed to charge tuition fees. There are no private universities, either. This means that practically every person in Finland attends public school, whether for pre-K or a Ph.D.

The irony of Sahlberg’s making this comment during a talk at the Dwight School seemed obvious. Like many of America’s best schools, Dwight is a private institution that costs high-school students upward of $35,000 a year to attend — not to mention that Dwight, in particular, is run for profit, an increasing trend in the U.S. Yet no one in the room commented on Sahlberg’s statement. I found this surprising. Sahlberg himself did not.

Sahlberg knows what Americans like to talk about when it comes to education, because he’s become their go-to guy in Finland. The son of two teachers, he grew up in a Finnish school. He taught mathematics and physics in a junior high school in Helsinki, worked his way through a variety of positions in the Finnish Ministry of Education, and spent years as an education expert at the OECD, the World Bank, and other international organizations.

Now, in addition to his other duties, Sahlberg hosts about a hundred visits a year by foreign educators, including many Americans, who want to know the secret of Finland’s success. Sahlberg’s new book is partly an attempt to help answer the questions he always gets asked.

From his point of view, Americans are consistently obsessed with certain questions: How can you keep track of students’ performance if you don’t test them constantly? How can you improve teaching if you have no accountability for bad teachers or merit pay for good teachers? How do you foster competition and engage the private sector? How do you provide school choice?

The answers Finland provides seem to run counter to just about everything America’s school reformers are trying to do.

For starters, Finland has no standardized tests. The only exception is what’s called the National Matriculation Exam, which everyone takes at the end of a voluntary upper-secondary school, roughly the equivalent of American high school.

Instead, the public school system’s teachers are trained to assess children in classrooms using independent tests they create themselves. All children receive a report card at the end of each semester, but these reports are based on individualized grading by each teacher. Periodically, the Ministry of Education tracks national progress by testing a few sample groups across a range of different schools.

As for accountability of teachers and administrators, Sahlberg shrugs. “There’s no word for accountability in Finnish,” he later told an audience at the Teachers College of Columbia University. “Accountability is something that is left when responsibility has been subtracted.”

For Sahlberg what matters is that in Finland all teachers and administrators are given prestige, decent pay, and a lot of responsibility. A master’s degree is required to enter the profession, and teacher training programs are among the most selective professional schools in the country. If a teacher is bad, it is the principal’s responsibility to notice and deal with it.

And while Americans love to talk about competition, Sahlberg points out that nothing makes Finns more uncomfortable. In his book Sahlberg quotes a line from Finnish writer named Samuli Paronen: “Real winners do not compete.” It’s hard to think of a more un-American idea, but when it comes to education, Finland’s success shows that the Finnish attitude might have merits. There are no lists of best schools or teachers in Finland. The main driver of education policy is not competition between teachers and between schools, but cooperation.

Finally, in Finland, school choice is noticeably not a priority, nor is engaging the private sector at all. Which brings us back to the silence after Sahlberg’s comment at the Dwight School that schools like Dwight don’t exist in Finland.

“Here in America,” Sahlberg said at the Teachers College, “parents can choose to take their kids to private schools. It’s the same idea of a marketplace that applies to, say, shops. Schools are a shop and parents can buy what ever they want. In Finland parents can also choose. But the options are all the same.”

Herein lay the real shocker. As Sahlberg continued, his core message emerged, whether or not anyone in his American audience heard it.

Decades ago, when the Finnish school system was badly in need of reform, the goal of the program that Finland instituted, resulting in so much success today, was never excellence. It was equity.

* * *

Since the 1980s, the main driver of Finnish education policy has been the idea that every child should have exactly the same opportunity to learn, regardless of family background, income, or geographic location. Education has been seen first and foremost not as a way to produce star performers, but as an instrument to even out social inequality.

In the Finnish view, as Sahlberg describes it, this means that schools should be healthy, safe environments for children. This starts with the basics. Finland offers all pupils free school meals, easy access to health care, psychological counseling, and individualized student guidance.

In fact, since academic excellence wasn’t a particular priority on the Finnish to-do list, when Finland’s students scored so high on the first PISA survey in 2001, many Finns thought the results must be a mistake. But subsequent PISA tests confirmed that Finland — unlike, say, very similar countries such as Norway — was producing academic excellence through its particular policy focus on equity.

That this point is almost always ignored or brushed aside in the U.S. seems especially poignant at the moment, after the financial crisis and Occupy Wall Street movement have brought the problems of inequality in America into such sharp focus. The chasm between those who can afford $35,000 in tuition per child per year — or even just the price of a house in a good public school district — and the other “99 percent” is painfully plain to see.

Pasi Sahlberg goes out of his way to emphasize that his book Finnish Lessons is not meant as a how-to guide for fixing the education systems of other countries. All countries are different, and as many Americans point out, Finland is a small nation with a much more homogeneous population than the United States.

Yet Sahlberg doesn’t think that questions of size or homogeneity should give Americans reason to dismiss the Finnish example. Finland is a relatively homogeneous country — as of 2010, just 4.6 percent of Finnish residents had been born in another country, compared with 12.7 percent in the United States. But the number of foreign-born residents in Finland doubled during the decade leading up to 2010, and the country didn’t lose its edge in education. Immigrants tended to concentrate in certain areas, causing some schools to become much more mixed than others, yet there has not been much change in the remarkable lack of variation between Finnish schools in the PISA surveys across the same period.

Samuel Abrams, a visiting scholar at Columbia University’s Teachers College,has addressed the effects of size and homogeneity on a nation’s education performance by comparing Finland with another Nordic country: Norway. Like Finland, Norway is small and not especially diverse overall, but unlike Finland it has taken an approach to education that is more American than Finnish. The result? Mediocre performance in the PISA survey. Educational policy, Abrams suggests, is probably more important to the success of a country’s school system than the nation’s size or ethnic makeup.

Indeed, Finland’s population of 5.4 million can be compared to many an American state — after all, most American education is managed at the state level. According to the Migration Policy Institute, a research organization in Washington, there were 18 states in the U.S. in 2010 with an identical or significantly smaller percentage of foreign-born residents than Finland.

What’s more, despite their many differences, Finland and the U.S. have an educational goal in common. When Finnish policymakers decided to reform the country’s education system in the 1970s, they did so because they realized that to be competitive, Finland couldn’t rely on manufacturing or its scant natural resources and instead had to invest in a knowledge-based economy.

With America’s manufacturing industries now in decline, the goal of educational policy in the U.S. — as articulated by most everyone from President Obama on down — is to preserve American competitiveness by doing the same thing. Finland’s experience suggests that to win at that game, a country has to prepare not just some of its population well, but all of its population well, for the new economy. To possess some of the best schools in the world might still not be good enough if there are children being left behind.

Is that an impossible goal? Sahlberg says that while his book isn’t meant to be a how-to manual, it is meant to be a “pamphlet of hope.”

“When President Kennedy was making his appeal for advancing American science and technology by putting a man on the moon by the end of the 1960’s, many said it couldn’t be done,” Sahlberg said during his visit to New York. “But he had a dream. Just like Martin Luther King a few years later had a dream. Those dreams came true. Finland’s dream was that we want to have a good public education for every child regardless of where they go to school or what kind of families they come from, and many even in Finland said it couldn’t be done.”

Clearly, many were wrong. It is possible to create equality. And perhaps even more important — as a challenge to the American way of thinking about education reform — Finland’s experience shows that it is possible to achieve excellence by focusing not on competition, but on cooperation, and not on choice, but on equity.

The problem facing education in America isn’t the ethnic diversity of the population but the economic inequality of society, and this is precisely the problem that Finnish education reform addressed. More equity at home might just be what America needs to be more competitive abroad.

【Author:Anu Partanen】

Anu Partanen is a Finnish journalist based in New York City. She is writing a book about what America can learn from Nordic societies.

[/tab]

[/tabs]

 

圖片來源:The Atlantic

原文刊登於《theatlantic.com》,經作者Anu Partanen授權編譯,未經許可不得轉載

 

美國人何以一再忽視芬蘭教育的成功?(上)

 

作者/Anu Partanen

編譯/李明洋

[tabs]
[tab title=”中文”]

美國人何以一再忽視芬蘭教育的成功?(上)

每個人都同意美國必須大幅度地改善其教育體系,但該怎麼做呢?晚近教育改革最熱門的趨勢之一,就是效仿西方的教育超級強國芬蘭。

自2000年開始,在OECD每3年舉行1次的PISA當中,芬蘭15歲學生在閱讀、數學和科學的排名均位居或接近頂端,與同屬教育超強國的南韓和新加坡非常接近。在2009年的評量中,芬蘭稍微滑落,但仍緊逼成績最好的上海。相較之下,美國在PISA的排名,最好也只落居中間位置。

相較於花費許多時間進行填鴨教學及死記硬背的東亞模式,芬蘭的成功特別耐人尋味,因為芬蘭學校少有回家功課,而且教導孩童係採取創造性的遊戲方式,也因而吸引了無數的外國代表團前往芬蘭,參訪其學校,與其教育專家交流,並且不斷在媒體上播放舉世驚嘆的芬蘭奇蹟。

最近,”芬蘭教育部國際行動中心(Finnish Ministry of Education’s Center for International Mobility)”主任,同時也是”芬蘭經驗(Finnish Lessons: What Can the World Learn from Educational Change in Finland?)”作者的Pasi Sahlberg也來到美國進行交流。本月初,Sahlberg前往紐約市的杜懷特中學(Dwight School)訪問,和該校的教師及學生互動,他的造訪不僅引起全美媒體的關注,也引起廣泛的討論。

然而,在交流的過程中,有某些議題是美國人不想談的。例如當談論到學校改革的時候,Sahlberg特地提到,”芬蘭沒有私立學校。”雖然這是千真萬確的事實,卻似乎很難被美國人所接受。

在芬蘭,獨立學校(independent schools)只占少數,而且這些學校的經費也都由政府支應。任何學校均不可收取學費。芬蘭也沒有私立大學。亦即在芬蘭,所有的人,下自幼兒園,上至博士班,全都是在公立學校就讀。

衝著這一點,Sahlberg造訪杜懷特中學這件事,無疑充滿了諷刺意味,因為該校就像全美最好的學校一樣,是一所私立高中,每年收取的學費高達35000美元。而像該校這樣以營利為目的私人機構,在美國有愈來愈多的趨勢。

雙親皆為教師的Sahlberg,從小接受芬蘭的學校教育洗禮。長大後,他也從事教職,在Helsinki擔任中學的數學和體育教師。後來,他在芬蘭教育部(Finnish Ministry of Education)從事不同職務的工作,並且在經濟合作與發展組織(Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD)、世界銀行(World Bank),以及其他國際組織擔任多年的教育顧問。如今,除了這些工作外,Sahlberg每年還負責招待包括美國在內的上百個各國教育參訪者,這些訪客無不想了解芬蘭成功的秘訣究竟為何?而Sahlberg所寫的新書,目的就在回答這些提問。

就Sahlberg的觀點,他認為美國人始終陷在某些問題當中,例如:”如果你們不持續地評量學生,又怎麼能夠監控他的表現呢?”、”如果不針對差勁的教師實施績效責任制,或給優秀的教師較多的薪水,你們如何增進教師的教學呢?”、”你們如何促進競爭,以及經營私立學校呢?”,以及”你們如何提供家長選擇學校呢?”

結果,芬蘭所提供的答案似乎和美國學校改革者正試圖進行的每件事都背道而馳。

芬蘭的學校沒有標準化測驗,唯一的例外就是高中生畢業時務必參加的”全國性高中畢業會考(National Matriculation Exam)”。芬蘭學校的考試都由各班教師自行設計,每學期結束時,學生都會收到成績單,但每位學生的成績都是按照個別學習的狀況予以評量。教育部會定期針對不同學校進行小樣本的評量,以了解學生的進步狀況。

至於針對教師及行政人員所實施的績效責任制,Sahlberg聳聳肩表示,芬蘭沒有績效責任制,但他隨後補充道:”績效責任這種東西就是,當責任已經被拋棄的時候,績效也就跟著消失了。”

對Sahlberg來說,最重要的是,芬蘭的所有教師和行政人員都備受尊敬,享有不錯的薪水,以及負有責任感。要想進入教學行列,碩士學位是起碼的條件,而且師資是在全國最競爭的師範學校中培育出來的。如果教師很差勁,那麼校長就有責任去提醒他,並加以處理。

針對美國人老喜歡談論競爭,Sahlberg在他的書中引用了一位芬蘭作家Samuli Paronen的話:”真正的贏家是不去和人競爭的。“這對美國人來說非常難以體會,但套用在教育上,芬蘭之所以成功就在於芬蘭人的態度所彰顯出來的優勢。芬蘭沒有什麼名校或名師。驅使芬蘭教育前進的動力,並非靠著教師之間乃至於學校之間的競爭,而是合作。

最後,很明顯的,在芬蘭,沒有人會把選擇學校看得很重要,也沒有什麼私立學校。Sahlberg指出,”在美國,家長可以選擇讓孩子就讀私立學校。這就像經營商店的市場概念一樣。學校就像商店,家長可以依照喜好購買喜歡的商品。在芬蘭,家長也可以做選擇,但選到的物品都是一樣的。”

【作者介紹】

本文作者Anu Partanen為芬蘭籍駐紐約記者,為”The New York Times“和”The Atlantic“等報紙撰文,目前正籌畫出版一本分析美國該如何從北歐諸國的教育汲取經驗的書,經營有部落格ANU PARTANEN

[/tab]
[tab title=”English”]

What Americans Keep Ignoring About Finland’s School Success

Everyone agrees the United States needs to improve its education system dramatically, but how? One of the hottest trends in education reform lately is looking at the stunning success of the West’s reigning education superpower, Finland. Trouble is, when it comes to the lessons that Finnish schools have to offer, most of the discussion seems to be missing the point.

The small Nordic country of Finland used to be known — if it was known for anything at all — as the home of Nokia, the mobile phone giant. But lately Finland has been attracting attention on global surveys of quality of life — Newsweekranked it number one last year — and Finland’s national education system has been receiving particular praise, because in recent years Finnish students have been turning in some of the highest test scores in the world.

Finland’s schools owe their newfound fame primarily to one study: the PISA survey, conducted every three years by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The survey compares 15-year-olds in different countries in reading, math, and science. Finland has ranked at or near the top in all three competencies on every survey since 2000, neck and neck with superachievers such as South Korea and Singapore. In the most recent survey in 2009 Finland slipped slightly, with students in Shanghai, China, taking the best scores, but the Finns are still near the very top. Throughout the same period, the PISA performance of the United States has been middling, at best.

Compared with the stereotype of the East Asian model — long hours of exhaustive cramming and rote memorization — Finland’s success is especially intriguing because Finnish schools assign less homework and engage children in more creative play. All this has led to a continuous stream of foreign delegations making the pilgrimage to Finland to visit schools and talk with the nation’s education experts, and constant coverage in the worldwide media marveling at the Finnish miracle.

So there was considerable interest in a recent visit to the U.S. by one of the leading Finnish authorities on education reform, Pasi Sahlberg, director of the Finnish Ministry of Education’s Center for International Mobility and author of the new book Finnish Lessons: What Can the World Learn from Educational Change in Finland? Earlier this month, Sahlberg stopped by the Dwight School in New York City to speak with educators and students, and his visit received national media attention and generated much discussion.

And yet it wasn’t clear that Sahlberg’s message was actually getting through. As Sahlberg put it to me later, there are certain things nobody in America really wants to talk about.

* * *

During the afternoon that Sahlberg spent at the Dwight School, a photographer from the New York Times jockeyed for position with Dan Rather’s TV crew as Sahlberg participated in a roundtable chat with students. The subsequent article in the Times about the event would focus on Finland as an “intriguing school-reform model.”

Yet one of the most significant things Sahlberg said passed practically unnoticed. “Oh,” he mentioned at one point, “and there are no private schools in Finland.”

This notion may seem difficult for an American to digest, but it’s true. Only a small number of independent schools exist in Finland, and even they are all publicly financed. None is allowed to charge tuition fees. There are no private universities, either. This means that practically every person in Finland attends public school, whether for pre-K or a Ph.D.

The irony of Sahlberg’s making this comment during a talk at the Dwight School seemed obvious. Like many of America’s best schools, Dwight is a private institution that costs high-school students upward of $35,000 a year to attend — not to mention that Dwight, in particular, is run for profit, an increasing trend in the U.S. Yet no one in the room commented on Sahlberg’s statement. I found this surprising. Sahlberg himself did not.

Sahlberg knows what Americans like to talk about when it comes to education, because he’s become their go-to guy in Finland. The son of two teachers, he grew up in a Finnish school. He taught mathematics and physics in a junior high school in Helsinki, worked his way through a variety of positions in the Finnish Ministry of Education, and spent years as an education expert at the OECD, the World Bank, and other international organizations.

Now, in addition to his other duties, Sahlberg hosts about a hundred visits a year by foreign educators, including many Americans, who want to know the secret of Finland’s success. Sahlberg’s new book is partly an attempt to help answer the questions he always gets asked.

From his point of view, Americans are consistently obsessed with certain questions: How can you keep track of students’ performance if you don’t test them constantly? How can you improve teaching if you have no accountability for bad teachers or merit pay for good teachers? How do you foster competition and engage the private sector? How do you provide school choice?

The answers Finland provides seem to run counter to just about everything America’s school reformers are trying to do.

For starters, Finland has no standardized tests. The only exception is what’s called the National Matriculation Exam, which everyone takes at the end of a voluntary upper-secondary school, roughly the equivalent of American high school.

Instead, the public school system’s teachers are trained to assess children in classrooms using independent tests they create themselves. All children receive a report card at the end of each semester, but these reports are based on individualized grading by each teacher. Periodically, the Ministry of Education tracks national progress by testing a few sample groups across a range of different schools.

As for accountability of teachers and administrators, Sahlberg shrugs. “There’s no word for accountability in Finnish,” he later told an audience at the Teachers College of Columbia University. “Accountability is something that is left when responsibility has been subtracted.”

For Sahlberg what matters is that in Finland all teachers and administrators are given prestige, decent pay, and a lot of responsibility. A master’s degree is required to enter the profession, and teacher training programs are among the most selective professional schools in the country. If a teacher is bad, it is the principal’s responsibility to notice and deal with it.

And while Americans love to talk about competition, Sahlberg points out that nothing makes Finns more uncomfortable. In his book Sahlberg quotes a line from Finnish writer named Samuli Paronen: “Real winners do not compete.” It’s hard to think of a more un-American idea, but when it comes to education, Finland’s success shows that the Finnish attitude might have merits. There are no lists of best schools or teachers in Finland. The main driver of education policy is not competition between teachers and between schools, but cooperation.

Finally, in Finland, school choice is noticeably not a priority, nor is engaging the private sector at all. Which brings us back to the silence after Sahlberg’s comment at the Dwight School that schools like Dwight don’t exist in Finland.

“Here in America,” Sahlberg said at the Teachers College, “parents can choose to take their kids to private schools. It’s the same idea of a marketplace that applies to, say, shops. Schools are a shop and parents can buy what ever they want. In Finland parents can also choose. But the options are all the same.”

Herein lay the real shocker. As Sahlberg continued, his core message emerged, whether or not anyone in his American audience heard it.

Decades ago, when the Finnish school system was badly in need of reform, the goal of the program that Finland instituted, resulting in so much success today, was never excellence. It was equity.

* * *

Since the 1980s, the main driver of Finnish education policy has been the idea that every child should have exactly the same opportunity to learn, regardless of family background, income, or geographic location. Education has been seen first and foremost not as a way to produce star performers, but as an instrument to even out social inequality.

In the Finnish view, as Sahlberg describes it, this means that schools should be healthy, safe environments for children. This starts with the basics. Finland offers all pupils free school meals, easy access to health care, psychological counseling, and individualized student guidance.

In fact, since academic excellence wasn’t a particular priority on the Finnish to-do list, when Finland’s students scored so high on the first PISA survey in 2001, many Finns thought the results must be a mistake. But subsequent PISA tests confirmed that Finland — unlike, say, very similar countries such as Norway — was producing academic excellence through its particular policy focus on equity.

That this point is almost always ignored or brushed aside in the U.S. seems especially poignant at the moment, after the financial crisis and Occupy Wall Street movement have brought the problems of inequality in America into such sharp focus. The chasm between those who can afford $35,000 in tuition per child per year — or even just the price of a house in a good public school district — and the other “99 percent” is painfully plain to see.

Pasi Sahlberg goes out of his way to emphasize that his book Finnish Lessons is not meant as a how-to guide for fixing the education systems of other countries. All countries are different, and as many Americans point out, Finland is a small nation with a much more homogeneous population than the United States.

Yet Sahlberg doesn’t think that questions of size or homogeneity should give Americans reason to dismiss the Finnish example. Finland is a relatively homogeneous country — as of 2010, just 4.6 percent of Finnish residents had been born in another country, compared with 12.7 percent in the United States. But the number of foreign-born residents in Finland doubled during the decade leading up to 2010, and the country didn’t lose its edge in education. Immigrants tended to concentrate in certain areas, causing some schools to become much more mixed than others, yet there has not been much change in the remarkable lack of variation between Finnish schools in the PISA surveys across the same period.

Samuel Abrams, a visiting scholar at Columbia University’s Teachers College,has addressed the effects of size and homogeneity on a nation’s education performance by comparing Finland with another Nordic country: Norway. Like Finland, Norway is small and not especially diverse overall, but unlike Finland it has taken an approach to education that is more American than Finnish. The result? Mediocre performance in the PISA survey. Educational policy, Abrams suggests, is probably more important to the success of a country’s school system than the nation’s size or ethnic makeup.

Indeed, Finland’s population of 5.4 million can be compared to many an American state — after all, most American education is managed at the state level. According to the Migration Policy Institute, a research organization in Washington, there were 18 states in the U.S. in 2010 with an identical or significantly smaller percentage of foreign-born residents than Finland.

What’s more, despite their many differences, Finland and the U.S. have an educational goal in common. When Finnish policymakers decided to reform the country’s education system in the 1970s, they did so because they realized that to be competitive, Finland couldn’t rely on manufacturing or its scant natural resources and instead had to invest in a knowledge-based economy.

With America’s manufacturing industries now in decline, the goal of educational policy in the U.S. — as articulated by most everyone from President Obama on down — is to preserve American competitiveness by doing the same thing. Finland’s experience suggests that to win at that game, a country has to prepare not just some of its population well, but all of its population well, for the new economy. To possess some of the best schools in the world might still not be good enough if there are children being left behind.

Is that an impossible goal? Sahlberg says that while his book isn’t meant to be a how-to manual, it is meant to be a “pamphlet of hope.”

“When President Kennedy was making his appeal for advancing American science and technology by putting a man on the moon by the end of the 1960’s, many said it couldn’t be done,” Sahlberg said during his visit to New York. “But he had a dream. Just like Martin Luther King a few years later had a dream. Those dreams came true. Finland’s dream was that we want to have a good public education for every child regardless of where they go to school or what kind of families they come from, and many even in Finland said it couldn’t be done.”

Clearly, many were wrong. It is possible to create equality. And perhaps even more important — as a challenge to the American way of thinking about education reform — Finland’s experience shows that it is possible to achieve excellence by focusing not on competition, but on cooperation, and not on choice, but on equity.

The problem facing education in America isn’t the ethnic diversity of the population but the economic inequality of society, and this is precisely the problem that Finnish education reform addressed. More equity at home might just be what America needs to be more competitive abroad.

 

【Author:Anu Partanen】

Anu Partanen is a Finnish journalist based in New York City. She is writing a book about what America can learn from Nordic societies.

[/tab]
[/tabs]

 

閱讀此文後,歡迎繼續閱讀:

美國人何以一再忽視芬蘭教育的成功?(下)

 

圖片來源:The Atlantic

原文刊登於《theatlantic.com》,經作者Anu Partanen授權編譯,未經許可不得轉載

 

【國外編輯部專欄】尋找教育的真諦

 

作者/Gary Marx

翻譯/ 陳嵩仁

[tabs]
[tab title=”中文”]

尋找教育的真諦

現在給你個題目:「如何判定一個人有無受過教育?」對你來說怎漾的人才叫受過教育?具備學術知識?專業技能?還是性情良好?接著想想有什麼方法能讓「所有人」都達到你所立下的標準?該怎麼做?或許接下來的討論可以幫助你我釐清教育真正的目標。

在快速變化的世界,也許我們花太多時間和精力在哲理的拳鬥上,而不是嘗試重新定義和重置教育的目標。

想像一下兩位心理學家爬進擂台的畫面。身處提倡進步主義教育(註1)的19世紀,他們戴起拳套猛擊對方。一位是美國心理學家,也是心理學行為主義代表人物之一的愛德華‧李·桑代克(Edward Lee Throndike),另一位是美國實用主義哲學的重要代表人物約翰·杜威(John Dewey)。在這場哲學拳擊賽中,桑代克聲稱學校應該秉持產業化的經營策略。對他來說,學校只是傳播知識的工具。學校的責任是傳授知識和評估學生有無吸收。杜威則認為學校應該培養學生熱愛終生學習和公民素質。誰贏了比賽?誰應該獲勝?還是拳賽仍在進行?其實這兩種教育制度同時並行才可能成功,若政客硬要爭個輸贏,對社會又有何幫助呢?

結果下場就是我們培養出眾多思想周密的教育者,他們想幫助學生做足準備好面對未知的將來,卻仍使用過時的做法。

業界跟社會迫切需要的是會獨立思考、會判斷、會解決問題的人,然而我們本身卻拒絕運用上述能力來因應我們逐日倍增的問題。在這場非贏即輸的比賽中,我們失去了教育的目標和意義。

大部分學生早就與時俱進,利用科技連到另一個充滿資訊和想法的世界。新的學習模式逐漸形成,隨時、隨地、按照自己的學習速度。他們開始質疑:「學校所教的能在接下來的未來幫助我什麼?」如果我們回答不出這問題,我們最好重新思考何謂教育、為何教育、如何教育。

我們早已進入21世紀,是時候讓我們引領這個生氣蓬勃的社會把焦點重新放在教育的目標上。科學、技術、工程、藝術和數學等五大領域固然重要,但這些科目不應僅是課本中的知識,而是學以致用以利幫助未來發展的能力,不是嗎?

所以教育的目標是什麼?除非地球停止轉動,不然我們不會放棄尋找答案。為了便於討論,我來提供幾個見解:

1.提升公民意識(對家庭、學校、社區、國家、世界而言)

2.創造雇用價值(教育不該是職業訓練所,而是教授知識讓我們能找到工作並成為一個五育並重的公民)

3.發現生活樂趣(當我們懂越多,就越能用廣闊的視野看待世界)

4.培養個人獨特性(我們期望能發現學生的天賦和熱情,並激發他們的想像和創造力)

幾年前,我在阿根廷的一個地方政府演講,主題是未來趨勢。結束時,主辦單位跟我說:「我們學生想送你一個禮物。」其中一名學生Florencia Fernandez抱著她的吉他唱了「重新出發」。

讓我們接受 Florencia的建議,開啟新的教育對談吧!幫助我們的學生做足準備好面對知識和資訊全球化、創新求變和突破性思考當道的世代。這會是我們有史以來做過最令人振奮、最值得回憶和最有影響力的事。急劇變化的世界,時間正悄然流逝。

(註1)進步主義(Progressivism)為西元二十世紀教育哲學思想的主流之一。它以實用主義(Pragmatism)哲學為基礎,並擷取希臘哲學、經驗主義(Empiricism)、自然主義(Naturalism),與達爾文(Charles R.. Darwin,一八○九~一八八二)的進化論(Doctrin of Evolution)等思想精華融貫而成。進步主義教育哲學體系的基本信念,係以教育為實現民主理想的工具;教育以培養民主社會的健全公民為最高目標。其整體的意識形態,亦即所謂的「民主教育理論」。此一理論,係以杜威(John Dewey,一八五九~一九五二)思想為出發點,並融合其他進步主義教育學者的觀點,試圖以個人論(Theory of Individual)、社會論(Theory of Society)和知識論(Theory of Knowledge)等三個層面來架構進步主義教育哲學體系。資料來源: 中華百科全書

 

【作者介紹】

Gary Marx是美國顧問公司Centre for Public Outreach董事長,同時也是名作家、教育家和未來思想家。

[/tab]
[tab title=”English”]

How to Find a Sense of Purpose in Education

Here’s the assignment: Describe an educated person. Include the academic knowledge, skills, behaviors, and attitudes or dispositions that would, for you, clearly define any person as well educated. Now, let’s figure out how to make sure we all fit that description. All of us, not just a chosen few. How will we get it done? Maybe the very discussion will help us clarify our sense of purpose.

Instead of constantly striving to redefine and reset in light of new knowledge and exponentially expanding demands of a fast-changing world, we have, perhaps too often, spent our time and energy engaging in philosophical fisticuffs.

Visualize this: Two psychologists climb into a ring. It’s the age of progressive education. They put on their gloves and start punching. One is Edward Thorndike. The other is John Dewey. In a philosophical boxing match, Thorndike declares that schools should be “structured around the methods of industrial management.” To him, they are just a delivery vehicle. Teach it and then evaluate whether the students have learned it. Dewey, on the other hand, counters that schools should cultivate a lifelong love of learning and develop the qualities of democratic citizenship. Who won the fight? Who should have won? Are the fists still flying?

Somehow, the system and a plethora of politicians have staked their sacred honor on a debate that helped shape schools for an Industrial Age. How much more mileage can we get from either-or when the answer is likely some reasonable version of this-and?

The upshot? We have growing numbers of thoughtful educators, determined to get students ready for the future, constrained by a mentality, a schedule, and an infrastructure of another time.

Employers and civil society are demanding people who can think, reason, and problem solve. Yet, as a society, as institutions, as politicians, we all but refuse to apply those skills to solving our own multiplying problems. Purpose and substance get lost in a game of win and lose.

Of course, many of our students are moving on. They’re already linked to a world of information and ideas, using interactive technologies and forming a new system of learning—any time, any place, any pace, and any way. Some ask, “How will what I’m being asked to learn in school be helpful to me in my life, today and tomorrow?” If we can’t answer that question, we’d better rethink the why, what, and how of education.

We’re well into the 21st century. Isn’t it time we led a spirited community or national conversation that zeroes in on the purposes of education? Granted, science, technology, engineering, the arts, and math (STEAM) are important, but aren’t they means rather than ends in themselves?

What are the purposes of education? That should be a question we’re still trying to answer as the earth makes its final turn. For the sake of discussion, let me suggest a few: citizenship (of a family, school, community, country, world); employability (not just training for a job but the multitude of things we need to know and be able to do to  be employable and to be good citizens); the opportunity to live interesting lives (the more we know, the more interesting life becomes);releasing ingenuity that is already there (which means we’ll be expected to discover and develop the interests, skills, talents, and abilities of our students); and stimulating imagination, creativity, and inventiveness.

A few years ago, after speaking about trends and the future to a large community gathering at the city hall in Intendente Alvear, La Pampa, Argentina, the host said, “Our students have a gift for you.” One of those students, Florencia Fernandez, embraced her guitar and sang “To Begin Again.”

Let’s take Florencia’s advice and start a fresh conversation about education that will get our students ready for life in a Global Knowledge/Information Age, even an Age of Knowledge Creation and Breakthrough Thinking. It could be among the most exhilarating, memorable, and influential things we ever do. In a world of exponential change, time’s wasting.

 

【Author:Gary Marx】

president of the Center for Public Outreach, is a noted writer, educator, and futures thinker. His books, articles, ideas, and workshops inspire leaders worldwide and in every walk of life.

[/tab]
[/tabs]

 

圖片來源:lililala_1121@flickr

原文刊登於《educationweek》,經作者Gary Marx授權編譯,未經許可不得轉載

 

世界在危機中:一個勢在必行的模式轉變,以培養出21世紀的學習者(下)

 

閱讀此文前,歡迎先閱讀:

世界在危機中:一個勢在必行的模式轉變,以培養出21世紀的學習者(上)

 

作者/Yong Zhao

編譯/李明洋

[tabs]

[tab title=”中文”]

世界在危機中:一個勢在必行的模式轉變,以培養出21世紀的學習者(下)

面臨大量年輕人失業的危機,我們應該對未來抱持怎樣的希望呢?

全世界數以百萬計的失業年輕人可以成為具有足夠能力的人才,以符合日益增加的商業貿易需要,抑或拜科技及全球化之賜,成為當今世界正需要的具有創新能力的創業者,讓機會操控在自己的手裡(Salkowitz, 2010)。在理論上,除非生活在極度隔離的孤立小島上,否則每一個人都會接觸到一個擁有70億人口的全球市場(Zhao, 2012)。所以問題在於,他們是否具備正確的技能和知識呢?因此,提供他們教育就成為解決年輕人失業危機的最為重要的行動(Gatti, et al., 2013; World Economic Forum, 2011a, 2011b)。

同樣的,人才短缺的危機也可算是另一個契機。

有鑑於問題的嚴重性,全球的商業界、政府以及國際組織業已付諸行動。目前世界上的普遍共識是,我們必須集體投資,讓我們的孩子具備得以因應新的經濟模式所需要的技能和知識(Krell, 2011; World Economic Forum, 2011a)。對於許多已開發或發展中國家來說,擴大教育機會及提升教育品質已成為首要的任務。而對於追求更良好的教育所下的決心和意志,都可以很清楚地在許多國家積極地,甚至是非理性地參與諸如PISA和TIMSS等國際評量測驗,以及對測驗結果所做出的反應看出端倪。

然而,堅守舊式的教育模式並以之為主導卻也令人備感無奈。已有充分的證據顯示,人才的匹配並非教育不足所致,而是因為錯誤的教育所造成的。例如,南韓因為考試成績優異而被世界公認為教育品質極高的國家,但是”南韓最優秀人才卻無法勝任工作”(Guilford, 2013)。中國也是另一個被世界公認為教育最卓著的國家,尤其當上海學生連續兩屆勇奪PISA各科冠軍後更是如此,可是中國只有10%的大學畢業生可以在跨國企業公司工作(D. Farrell & A. Grant, 2005)。而根據麥肯錫研究所(McKinsey Global Institute)的研究顯示,大約有45%的美國雇主表示,造成工作缺額的主要原因是”缺乏技能”(Mourshed, et al., 2012);此外,該研究也發現,全世界只有42%的雇主認為,大學應屆畢業生已為工作做好準備。

很明顯的,傳統的教育模式不僅不適用,更糟的是,還有害於培養21世紀的公民。新的經濟模式需要的是具有創業精神的個體,但傳統的教育模式卻是培養出滿腦子只知找工作的求職者。研究顯示,愈是因為考試成績斐然而被傳統認定為績效卓著的教育體系,就愈不可能培養出創業者。例如我們發現,PISA成績和各國的創業信心和活動具有負相關(Zhao, 2012)。

毫無爭議的是,世界需要追求教育上的卓越,但這所謂的卓越又該如何定義呢?

我認為目前有兩種教育模式,一種是就業導向(employee-oriented)模式,另一種則是創業導向(entrepreneur-oriented)模式(Zhao, 2012)。儘管這兩種模式的目的都是要讓孩子的人生獲致成功,然而前者著重的是將社會和經濟所需要的既定知識和技能傳輸給個體,而後者則是假定,如果個體的潛能已被開發,那麼他(她)將照著自己的方式去使自己成為有用的人。就業導向的教育模式重視的是學生應該學些什麼,但創業導向的教育模式則是著重於學生能夠學些什麼。就業導向的教育模式讓學生具備擔任既有工作的能力,但創業導向的教育模式則是讓學生具備創造工作的責任。

某個善於培育就業者的教育體系不盡然也善於培育出創業者,因為不同的教育模式會產出不同的教育體系和制度。對就業導向的教育模式而言,其主要目的就是要把既定的知識迅速有效地傳遞給學生,所以必須明確地訂定出每一位學生的學習成果,由訓練有素的教師熟練地把豐富的知識傳遞給學生,讓學生願意且能夠吸收這些內容,然後學校實施頻繁的標準化評量,以監控每一位學生的進步情形,其他資源也都和這些既定的內容有良好的連結。統一、一致、標準、競爭、被資料驅策的實務,以及強調學習成果都是就業導向教育模式的特徵。

相反的,創業導向的教育模式則是需要一個機制,足以把個體的差異最大化。遵循這個模式的學校教育將不需要為每一個學生訂定標準和共同課程,每個學生各自追求自己的興趣和熱情,教師則給予學生支持與回饋,學生的進步情形只按照其所追求的予以評量。差異、多元、包容甚或寬容、自主,以及由學生自我驅策的學習則是創業教育模式的特徵。

現今,我們仍然沿用舊有的模式來評量教育是否卓越。

我們認為卓越的教育體系,就是能夠快速有效地傳遞規定好的內容,把學生形塑成相同的性質,並且在少數科目的標準化測驗中獲致高分。只要某個學校和某個國家的學生考出優異的成績,那麼就會被認定為擁有優質的教育。正因為遵循著這套邏輯,學校、教師和教育體系無不汲汲營營於提高學生的考試成績,認為這麼做就是在追求卓越。正因為受到這樣的定義所指引者,全世界的教育改革都著重於強化舊有的教育模式,就如同”國家在危機中”所提議的,要把課程固定,把標準提高,把上學時間延長,把教師產力提升,以及要求教師和校長負起責任。

如果我們想要培育出21世紀所需的人才,那麼我們就必須重新定義何謂卓越的教育。

一個卓越的教育應該支持各種才能的發展,而不是有效率地將學生同質化;一個卓越的教育應該謹慎地培育創意和個人特質,而不是去打壓創意和個別差異。一個卓越的教育應該致力於鼓勵學生成為創業者,而不是順從的員工。一個卓越的教育應該培育孩子具有全球視野和能力,而不是過分地強調全球競爭力。因此,一個卓越的教育應該有效地提供(學生)個性化教育(personalized education),促進多樣性和創造性,讓學生在一個全球化的校園裡與來自全球各地的人互動,並且透過產品導向的學習(product-oriented learning),激發出學生創業和創新的精神(Zhao, 2012)。

我們擁有必備的原料讓我們所需要的教育改革得以落實,我們也擁有適當的工具讓(教育)模式得以完成轉變。

現代的研究證實了,世界上普遍存在著不同才能、興趣、熱情和文化的人(Ehrlich, 2000; Ridley, 2003; Pinker, 2003; Gardner, 2006; Rose & Fischer, 2011),然而,這些多樣性卻因為大規模生產的經濟體需要同質的生產力而備受打壓。全球化和科技的進步極度擴大了有用技能的殊異性,傳統上被輕忽的技能也變得愈來愈有價值(Florida, 2012; Pink, 2006)。在過度分工化的時代(Malone, Laubacher, & Johns, 2011),獨特、小眾的技能也可能極具價值。

科技如此進步,致使人們可以在任何時候,在任何地點,和任何人,學習任何東西(Bonk, 2011; Christensen, Horn, & Johnson., 2010)。所以,學習不必然要侷限在物理上的空間,跟著老師學習,也可能透過不同的學習風格和學習型態,使不同的興趣和才能獲得發展(Fischer & Silvern, 1985; Fischer & Bidell, 2006; Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000; Tomlinson, 2001)。

全球化已顯著增進人們進行跨文化及跨疆界的交流與移動,使學生更可能從事全球性質的學習活動(Zhao, 2009a, 2012)。

支持新教育模式的理論和實務已存在了幾個世紀之久,近年來甚至更加精進。目前,儘管新的教育模式只有小規模的落實,然而,許多教育先驅業已發展出成功的策略和作法,使其得以真切地在全世界運用(Zhao, 2012)。

只要這些原料,加上社會大眾的承諾、政府當局和企業界的決心,以及年輕世代的強烈動機,就有機會可以為下個世代創造出卓越的教育。我們所需要的是提起勇氣和擁有智慧,把過時的模式予以拋棄,並為創建新的模式而努力。

鑑於改善教育的工程迫在眉睫,不論就近期或就長遠來看,我提出以下的建議,若政策制定者和教育工作者能夠立即著手進行,那麼不僅只需幾年的時間就可實現,而且保證新時代的教育必將卓越。

1.停止透過共同課程標準和考試,繼續將窄化的既定內容強行灌輸給孩子,而是要開始實施個性化教育,支持獨特、創造和創業才能的發展。

2.停止耗費時間在選擇、培訓與留住所謂更好的教師人選,來固定教學人力,而是要開始賦予學生權力,去解放他們的潛能,讓他們充分利用自己的熱情,並且針對他們所追求的給予支持。開始把學習的所有權提供給孩子。

3.停止為孩子分派教室和教師,並在有限的物理空間裡限制住孩子學習的機會,而是要開始讓孩子超越班級和學校的圍籬,使其擁有在全球社會中學習的機會。

4.停止強迫孩子學習成人自認為他們需要學的內容,同時停止藉由考試來測試他們是否已精熟彼等內容,而是要開始讓孩子有機會著手創造出真實的產品,並且讓他們學習感興趣的。

5.停止過去訂定標準以驗證是否達到卓越的作法,而是要開始為未來做投資,如此才可能達到卓越。我們不可能搭著馬車前往月球,而是必須借助火箭的技術。

若要落實上述諸項建議,那麼首先,我們就必須拋棄就業導向教育模式的思維,這個思維不僅由”國家在危機中”所催生,而且還一直延用到現在。歷經了30多年的實驗,對美國的教育不但沒有任何改善,甚至造成了徹底的破壞,現在正是從這個思維中解脫出來的時候了。

(*原作發表於Society 52(2), pp 129-135, April 2015。國家在危機中30週年紀念特輯(http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12115-015-9872-8)。原作者有感於”國家在危機中”對美國所造成的巨大影響,以及本文的重要性,乃仿效該報告的文筆寫成此文。)

【作者介紹:Yong Zhao】

本文作者Yong Zhao為國際知名教育學者、作家及演講者,專精於全球教育方法及應用,目前任職於美國奧瑞岡大學(University of Oregon),擔任教育測量、政策和領導學系教授,發表學術文章百餘篇,以及出版20餘本書,包括2014年出版的”誰害怕大惡龍:為何中國擁有世界上最好(最差)的教育體系(Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Dragon: Why China Has the Best (and Worst) Education System in the World)“、2012年出版的”世界級的學習者:教育創新與學生創業(World Class Learners:Educating Creative and Entrepreneurial Students)“,以及2009年出版的”迎頭趕上或引領世界:在全球化時代的美國教育(Catching Up or Leading the Way: American Education in the Age of Globalization)“。此外,他尚有經營部落格: http://zhaolearning.com.。

[/tab]
[tab title=”English”]

A World at Risk: An Imperative for a Paradigm Shift to Cultivate 21st Century Learners[1]

“Our Nation is at risk. Our once unchallenged preeminence in commerce, industry, science, and technological innovation is being overtaken by competitors throughout the world” (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983, p. 1). The bedrock of American prosperity, the massive middle class, has been shrinking. The economy that once created the American middle class has been going through a hollowing-out process (Wohlsen, 2012). Traditional middle-class jobs have been disappearing quickly, offshored to other countries or replaced by machines (Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2012) (Goldin & Katz, 2008; McAfee, 2012). The U.S. economy is growing–companies are making record profits and investing, and new businesses are created every day. That growth, however, is creating jobs at the very top and the very bottom (Aspen Institute, 2012), hence the fast growth of rewarding opportunities for the creative and entrepreneurial and the low-paying jobs in the service sector (Auerswald, 2012; Florida, 2012).

Our schools and colleges that have historically contributed to the prosperity of the United States and the well-being of its people (Goldin & Katz, 2008) have been under assault and profoundly changed (Berliner, 2006; Carter & Welner, 2013; Darling-Hammond, 2010; Ravitch, 2010, 2013; Tienken & Orlich, 2013; Zhao, 2009a, 2012). The educational foundations of our society that once made America the center of innovation and created the American middle class are presently being eroded by a rising tide of misguided reforms that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people. “What was unimaginable a generation ago has begun to occur” (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983, p.1)—American education, once the envy of the world, is losing its traditional virtues and becoming more like its admirers’.

If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the misguided policies that threaten democracy, turn American children into robotic test takers, narrow and homogenize our children’s education, encourage standardization instead of helping the needy children and stimulating innovation, value testing over teaching, and scapegoat teachers that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war. As it stands, we have allowed this to happen to ourselves. We have squandered the opportunities brought about by technology, ignored research evidence, and paid no attention to what the future needs. “We have, in effect, been committing an act of unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament” (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983, p.1).

America is not the only nation that has “been committing an act of unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament” in the world. Over the past few decades, many Western democratic and developed nations have engaged in such suicidal educational reforms. Led by the same mistaken assumptions that gave birth to A Nation at Risk, Australia, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and others have made or are about to make similar changes in their education systems. These changes, just like the changes the U.S. has made, are simply trying to do the wrong thing more right. They are putting the world at risk.

The Risk

“History is not kind to idlers” (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983, p.1). It is even crueler to reckless reformers who keep fiddling with the past to meet the needs of the future. The time is long past when most people worked on assembly lines and other routine jobs, which required only basic and standardized knowledge and skills. A growing portion of these jobs has been automated or offshored to places with abundant people who are unable to demand higher wages. We have entered a new economy. The new economy favors highly skilled, highly educated workers, and their prosperity creates greater demands for low-paying service workers–but not for the kind of medium-skilled, middle-class jobs that formed the backbone of the workforce in the past (Wohlson, 2012). The new economy needs creative and innovative entrepreneurs to create jobs and new opportunities (Florida, 2012; Wagner, 2012; World Economic Forum, 2012; Zhao, 2012). Thus the new middle class will have to be equipped with “skills for which there are only imperfect (domestic or international) substitutes” (Goldin & Katz, 2008, p. 352). It was once possible to predicate and prescribe the skills and knowledge one might need for success in a given society because societies were isolated from each other and the pace of change was slow. Moreover, the majority of the jobs were created by a few exceptionally creative and entrepreneurial individuals and required similar skills. “It is no longer” (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983, p.1).

“The world is indeed one global village” (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983, p.1). In this interconnected and interdependent village, one cannot achieve prosperity alone by simply exploiting and competing with others. Globalization is not a zero-sum game. One nation’s rise does not have to be another’s demise, as suggested by A Nation at Risk. In a world where people, ideas, goods, and resources move across national borders constantly and freely, the prosperity of any individual or nation depends on working with others, treating others as potential customers and partners instead of enemies or competitors. To achieve global prosperity, our education has to help children develop the knowledge and skills to live and work across cultural and national borders as global citizens.

The risk is not only the destruction of the traditional virtues of education in America and other Western developed countries, which tend to tolerate exceptionality, respect individual differences, and condone unconventional behaviors—the beginning of creativity and entrepreneurial spirit (Zhao, 2009a, 2012). It is not just the rigorous but blind pursuit of test scores as the only outcome of education at expense of creativity and other non-cognitive skills that have been proven to be equally, if not more, valuable than academic test scores for life’s success (Brunello & Schlotter, 2010; Levin, 2012); or the imposition of uniform curriculum standards on all children in all classrooms that narrows children educational experiences and reduces the professional autonomy of educators (Alexander, 2009; McMurrer, 2007, 2008; Tienken & Zhao, 2013); or holding educators accountable for raising student test scores beyond reason that results in the loss of morale and widespread cheating (Nichols & Berliner, 2007).

The risk is also the choice of educational systems to idolize, to emulate, to benchmark to. The fixation on international test scores as indicators of educational quality and the fear of being surpassed by others that give birth to A Nation at Risk has made educational systems in East Asia the model because of their superb performances on international tests such as the PISA and TIMSS (Tucker, 2011). But these educational systems have been struggling to produce creative and entrepreneurial citizens for decades. They have ironically looked up to America and other Western nations for strategies to move away from their traditional practices, which produce great test-takers at the cost of creativity (Zhao, 2009a, 2012).

Creativity, entrepreneurship, and global competence are the new basic skills that will bring the “coming prosperity” to the world (Auerswald, 2012). If only to keep and improve on the accidental opportunities for cultivating creative and entrepreneurial talents that once existed in America and other Western developed education systems, we must stop the misguided reforms that have already brought tremendous damages and wasted resources. To prepare our children for the new economy, we must begin the shift to a different educational paradigm.

The concern, however, goes well beyond economical success of individuals or a few nations. It includes the very survival of humanity and the continuation of civilization. Globalization and technological advancement have the potential to both lift people out of poverty and engender greater inequality (Friedman, 2007; Stiglitz, 2006). They have also given individuals the destructive power that once could only be held by a state and thus could send disasters to anyone anywhere. Environmental degradation and destruction are no longer confined to one place. With over seven billion people living different economic, social, and cultural settings, some of which do not necessarily share the same values or interests, we must be concerned about how to get along and what we can equip our children with to make the world they will occupy peaceful and sustainable. They have to be educated as citizens of the world beyond citizens of a nation. A global perspective and genuine concern about the well being of others are essential for citizens in the age of globalization (Asia Society, 2008; Zhao, 2009b).

The risk, to summarize, is that educational reforms around the globe, aptly shortened by the Finnish education author Pasi Sahlberg as the GERM, which stands for Global Education Reform Movement, have focused on fixing an educational paradigm that has little chance of preparing the talents and citizens we need in the 21st globalized century (Sahlberg, 2012). The GERM, characterized by competition, standardized testing, and test-based accountability, have infected educational systems around the world and sent them to fiddle with curriculum, teachers, and assessment instead of inventing a new paradigm that cultivates creativity, entrepreneurship, and global competence. The old paradigm aims at strengthening schools to prepare citizens for a by-gone era, resulting in the global phenomenon of talent mismatch: the co-existence of massive youth unemployment and widespread talent shortage. As a consequence, the world is more at risk than before the reforms.

Indicators of the Risk

Indicators of the risk the world faces are well documented. First, there is massive youth unemployment around the world. Large youth unemployment is both a long-term and short-term economic and social risk. Second, while a large number of youth are unemployed and individuals who are highly educated in the traditional sense are unemployed, underemployed, or working on jobs that do not require the level of education, companies are facing a talent shortage. The shortage of talent around the globe is another economic and social risk.

Massive Youth Unemployment

  • World wide, almost 300m 15- to 24-year-olds are not working around the world. Nearly half of the world’s young people are either outside the formal economy or contributing less productively than they could, according to The Economist (The Economist, 2013).
  • With 45 million new entrants in the global job market annually – most of them young – 300 million new jobs will be needed between now and 2015 to keep pace with the growth in the labour force (World Economic Forum, 2011a).
  • In the Middle East and North Africa, 54% of working age population is unemployed or inactive; 1 out every 4 youth aged 15-25 are jobless, according the World Bank (Gatti, et al., 2013).
  • In Europe, the youth (ages 15-24) unemployment rate was over 23% in the last quarter of 2013 (Eurostat, 2013).
  • “In South Africa, 70% of under 35 year olds are out of work,” according to a 2013 BBC report (Mbele, 2013).
  • In Australia, more than 27 per cent of Australians aged 17-24 were not in full-time study or work in 2011 (McDonald, 2013).
  • In South Korea, the youth unemployment rate was 22% in 2013 (Guilford, 2013).
  • In the United States, the unemployment rate of youth aged 16 to 24 was 16% (International Labour Organization, 2013), with almost six million youth out of school and work (Elliot, 2013).

Unemployed, Underemployed, and Underpaid College Graduates

  • In 2012, an Associated Press study found that half of recent college graduates were unemployed or underemployed in the United States (Associated Press, 2012). At the same time, nearly half of the college graduates were in jobs that did not require a college degree, according to a study by the Center for College Affordability and Productivity (Vedder, Denhart, & Robe, 2013).
  • In the U.K., while some 8.6% of graduates were unemployed after six month in 2012, about 30% of college graduates were in jobs that did not require a college degree, according to a 2012 report by theTelegraph (Paton, 2012).
  • In China, nearly seven million college students graduated in 2013 but less than 30% of the college graduates in Beijing area had an employment contract in April, just two months before they head out of school (Li, 2013). The average starting salary for college graduates are similar to that of migrant workers because many of the jobs do not require a college education (Guo, 2010).
  • In South Korea, around 25% of college graduates were unemployed in 2011(Guilford, 2013).

The Global Talent Shortage

  • Out of the 30 world’s major economies, 18 are experiencing talent shortages, according to the Hays Global Skills Index 2013 (Hays, 2013).
  • The McKinsey Global Institute estimates that by 2020 there will be a global shortfall of 85 million high- and middle-skilled workers (Mourshed, Farrell, & Barton, 2012).
  • Worldwide, 35% of over 38,000 employers surveyed report they are experiencing difficulty filling jobs due to lack of available talent. 54% of employers surveyed reported that talent shortages impact their client-facing abilities to a high or medium degree (Manpower Group, 2013).
  • In the U.S., at least 3 million U.S. positions currently remain unfilled (Krell, 2011). 25 million workers will be needed to add to the U.S. talent base to sustain its economic growth (World Economic Forum, 2011a).
  • In 2010, 76 percent of Japan’s employers said they had difficulty finding the right people to fill jobs (Krell, 2011).
  • There are over 2 million unfilled vacancies in the European Union (European Commission, 2013). 45 million workers will need to be added in Western Europe by 2030 to maintain its economic growth (World Economic Forum, 2011a).
  • In China, one the top 10 concerns of international businesses in China has been the shortage of talent (The U.S.-China Business Council, 2013). Only about 10% of Chinese college graduates are reported to have the skills to work in multinational businesses (D. Farrell & A. J. Grant, 2005).

The world thus is faced with two paradoxical crises: massive youth unemployment and equally massive talent shortage. Both are dangerous if allowed to continue. Massive youth unemployment leads to not only personal poverty and psychological trauma, but also social unrest and inequality. Talent shortage slows down economic growth and in turn generates fewer employment opportunities. Talent shortage can also drive up the incomes of highly talented workers, which in turn result in even bigger income gaps between the high-skill and low-skill workers.

Hope and Frustration

In the crisis of massive youth unemployment lies tremendous hope for the future. The millions of unemployed youth around the world can become the qualified talents to meet the rising demand of businesses or the creative entrepreneurs the world needs to harness the opportunities technology and globalization present (Salkowitz, 2010). In theory, any individual (except in extremely politically isolated places) has access to the global market of seven billion as well as global collaborators and financing (Zhao, 2012). The question is whether they are equipped with the right skills and knowledge. Education has thus been considered the most important action to address the youth unemployment crisis (Gatti, et al., 2013; World Economic Forum, 2011a, 2011b).

Likewise, the crisis of talent shortage is another opportunity. The severity of the problem has already made businesses, governments, and international organizations willing to take action. There is general consensus around the world that we must collectively invest in better equipping our children with the skills and knowledge for the new economy (Krell, 2011; World Economic Forum, 2011a). Expanding educational opportunities and improving educational quality have become a top priority for many nations, developed and developing. The resolution and determination to better education are clearly visible in the active, almost irrational, participation in and response to international tests results such as the PISA and TIMSS.

Education presents hope. It also presents frustration.

The frustration comes from the persistence and dominance of the old educational paradigm. Ample evidence suggests that the talent mismatch is not the result of insufficient education, but the result of the wrong education. For example, in South Korea, a nation that has been globally recognized for its high education quality indicated by test scores, “Korea’s best aren’t suited to the jobs on offer” (Guilford, 2013). China has also been recognized as one of the best education systems in the world, especially after it’s Shanghai took the number one position on the PISA in all three subjects twice in a row but only 10 percent of its college graduates are qualified (D. Farrell & A. Grant, 2005). About 45% of U.S. employers said the main reason for entry-level job vacancies is the “lack of skills” in a study by McKinsey (Mourshed, et al., 2012). The same study found that only 42% of employers worldwide believe new graduates are adequately prepared for work.

Clearly the traditional model of education is no longer adequate. Worse, it is harmful for preparing citizens for the 21st century. The new economy needs entrepreneurially spirited individuals, but traditional education prepares employment-minded job seekers. Research shows that the more successful an educational system is in the traditional sense as indicated by test scores the less likely it is to cultivate entrepreneurs. PISA scores, for example, have been found to be negatively correlated with nations’ entrepreneurial confidence and activities (Zhao, 2012).

Excellence in Education

There is no disagreement that the world needs excellence in education but what defines excellence matters. There are two educational paradigms: employee-oriented vs. entrepreneur-oriented (Zhao, 2012). While both aim to prepare children to live successfully, the former focuses on transmitting a body of knowledge and skills predetermined to be valuable and the latter emphasizes on the developing the potential of each individual child. The former presumes that a body of knowledge and skills can be decided based on predications of needs of the society and economy, while the latter assumes if a child’s potential is developed she will become valuable in her own way. Employee-oriented education values what childrenshould learn, while entrepreneur-oriented education values what children would learn. Employee-oriented education prepares children to fit existing jobs, while entrepreneur-oriented education prepares children to take the responsibility to create jobs.

Excellence in one paradigm does not mean excellence in the other. When a school or system becomes extremely good at preparing employees, they are not necessarily good at preparing entrepreneurs because different paradigms lead to different arrangement of educational institutions and systems. Given its primary goal to efficiently and effectively transmit predetermined knowledge, the employee-oriented education paradigm requires an apparatus with clearly defined learning outcomes for all students, well-trained teachers knowledgeable of the content to be transmitted and skilled at doing so, engaged students willing and able to learn the content, standardized measures to monitor the progress of each student as well as institutions frequently, and other resources well-aligned with the prescribed content. Uniformity, consistency, standardization, competition, data-driven practices, and an emphasis on outcomes are the features of the employee-oriented education paradigm.

In contrast, the entrepreneur-oriented paradigm requires an apparatus that maximizes individual differences. School following this paradigm have no standardized and common curriculum for all students, each child pursues his or her interest and passion, teachers respond to and support individual student’s pursuit, and students’ progress is assessed only in accordance with their own pursuit. Variation, diversity, tolerance (or indulgence), autonomy, and student-driven are some of the features of the entrepreneur-oriented education.

Today, the measure of excellence in education follows the old paradigm. Excellence is defined as effectiveness and efficiency in transmitting the prescribed content and homogenizing children, indicated by standardized test scores in a few subjects. Schools and nations that produce higher test scores are considered having better education. Following the same logic, schools, teachers, and educational systems are working hard to raise test scores, believing that they are pursuing excellence. Guided by this definition of excellence, educational reforms worldwide have focused on strengthening components and arrangements of the old educational paradigm as suggested by A Nation at Risk: fixing the curriculum, raising standards, lengthening school time, improving the teaching force, and holding teachers and school leaders accountable.

To prepare the talents we need for the 21st century, we need to redefine excellence in education. Instead of effectiveness in homogenizing students, an excellent education should support the development of diverse talents. Instead of suppressing creativity and individual differences, an excellent education should deliberately cultivate them. Instead of preparing compliant employees, an excellent education should intentionally encourage children to be entrepreneurial. Instead of overemphasizing global competitiveness, an excellent education should foster global perspectives and competence. Excellence in education should thus be measured by its effectiveness in providing personalized education that promotes diversity and creativity, on a globalized campus that engages children in global interactions, through product-oriented learning that inspires entrepreneurship and innovation (Zhao, 2012).

The Tools at Hand

We have the essential raw materials to realize the true education reforms we need. We have the right tools to complete the paradigm shift.

  • Modern research supports the existence of the universal diversity of human talents, interests, passion, and culture (Ehrlich, 2000; Ridley, 2003) (Pinker, 2003) (Gardner, 2006) (Rose & Fischer, 2011), but that diversity had to be suppressed in mass-production economies that required a more homogenous workforce. Globalization and technology advances have drastically expanded the spectrum of skills that are valuable. Traditionally undervalued skills have become increasingly more valuable (Florida, 2012) (Pink, 2006). In the age of hyperspecialization (Malone, Laubacher, & Johns, 2011), unique, small niche skills can be of great value.
  • Technology has advanced so much that it is a reality that one can learn anything, at anytime, with anyone, from anywhere (Bonk, 2011) (Christensen, Horn, & Johnson., 2010). Thus human learning does not have to be confined to the physically present teacher in geographically isolated places, making it possible to support the development a diversity of interests and talents, as well as different learning styles and patterns (Fischer & Silvern, 1985) (Fischer & Bidell, 2006) (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000) (Tomlinson, 2001).
  • Globalization has significantly increased human interactions and movement across cultural and political borders, making it more possible for children to engage in learning activities on a global scale (Zhao, 2009a, 2012).
  • Theories and practices that support the new educational paradigm have existed for centuries and advanced even more in recent years. Pioneers have developed successful strategies and tactics to make it a reality all over the world, albeit on a very small scale (Zhao, 2012).

These raw materials, combined with the commitment of the public, determination of government agencies and businesses, and the strong motivation of today’s youth, offers us the possibility of creating the next generation of excellent education. All we need to is the courage and wisdom to abandon the outdated model and begin working on the new one.

Recommendations

In light of the urgent need for improvement, both immediate and long term, I propose a set of recommendations that policy makers and educators can begin to act on now, that can be implemented over the next several years, and that promise educational excellence for the new age.

  • Stop prescribing and imposing on children a narrow set of content through common curriculum standards and testing.
  • Start personalizing education to support the development of unique, creative, and entrepreneurial talents.
  • Stop fixing solely the teaching force by selecting, training, and retaining better teacher candidates. It takes too long and we cannot wait.
  • Start empowering the children by liberating their potentials, capitalizing on their passion, and supporting their pursuits. Start giving the ownership of learning to the children.
  • Stop constraining children to learning opportunities present in their immediate physical environments by assigning them to classes and teachers.
  • Start engaging them in learning opportunities that exist in the global community, beyond their class and school walls.
  • Stop forcing children to learn what adults think they may need and testing them to what degree they have mastered the required content.
  • Start allowing children the opportunity to engage in creating authentic products and learn what they are interested in, just in time, not just in case.
  • Stop benchmarking to measures of excellence in the past, such as international test scores.
  • Start inventing the excellence of the future. You cannot fix the horse wagon to get the moon. We have to work on rocket science.

A Final Word

To implement these recommendations, the first thing we need is to abandon the mindset deeply entrenched in the obsolete employment-oriented educational paradigm, they very mindset that both gave birth to and has been perpetuated by A Nation at Risk. After thirty years of experiments that have brought revolutionary, destructive changes to American education, without any measureable improvement, it is time to be freed from its spirit.

 

【Author:Yong Zhao】

Yong Zhao speaks around the world on educational issues, particularly on issues related to globalization and education, creativity, global competitiveness, educational reforms, and educational technology.

[/tab]
[/tabs]

 

圖片來源:昇典 葉@flickr

本文轉載自小李的特教資訊站,未經許可不得轉載

 

世界在危機中:一個勢在必行的模式轉變,以培養出21世紀的學習者(上)

 

作者/Yong Zhao

編譯/李明洋

[tabs]
[tab title=”中文”]

世界在危機中:一個勢在必行的模式轉變,以培養出21世紀的學習者(上)

“我們的國家正處於危機之中。我們曾經技超群倫的商業、工業、科學和技術創新正被世界上的競爭者給超越過去了(National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983, p. 1)”。美國繁榮的基石、廣大的中產階級均已萎靡了。而曾經締造出美國中產階級的經濟也已經歷了空洞化的過程(Wohlsen,2012)。適合中產階級的傳統工作則外包到其他國家或被機器所取代,因而快速消失(Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2012; Goldin & Katz, 2008; McAfee, 2012)。美國的經濟日益成長,企業所獲取的利潤和所做的投資均創下了歷史紀錄,而且每天都有新的生意誕生。然而,這種經濟的成長,只出現在非常頂層和非常底層的工作(Aspen Institute, 2012),所以只對那些從事創意和創新產業,抑或從事低廉薪資的工作者具有激勵的功效(Auerswald, 2012; Florida, 2012)。

我們的(基礎)學校和大學均曾在歷史上締造了美國的繁榮,並促進了人民的福祉(Goldin & Katz, 2008),如今卻一再地遭到打擊,而徹底地改變了(Berliner, 2006; Carter & Welner, 2013; Darling-Hammond, 2010; Ravitch, 2010, 2013; Tienken & Orlich, 2013; Zhao, 2009a, 2012)。我們社會的教育基礎曾經將美國形塑成(世界)創新的中心,並創造出美國的中產階級,如今卻被日益升高的錯誤改革浪潮所啃噬,使我們的國家及人民的前途受到了威脅。美國教育的固有美德正日益喪失,轉而變得愈來愈像她以前的敵人及崇拜者,而這”在前一個世代就已開始發生,實在令人無法想像(National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983, p.1)。”

正當美國政府執行錯誤的政策致使民主遭到威脅,致使美國的孩童被塑造成考試機器,致使教育的內容被窄化及同化,致使標準化橫行,致使貧困孩童求助無門,致使創意未受重視,致使考試重於教學,致使教師淪為替罪羊的此時,如果某個不友好的國家企圖痛擊美國,我們恐怕早已視之為一種戰爭行為。之所以如此,是我們自己造成的。我們浪費了科技所帶來的機運,忽視了研究所提出的證據,也忽略了未來的需求為何。”我們根本想都沒想,就單方面地在教育上繳械(投降)了。”

美國並不是世界上唯一”想都沒想,就單方面地在教育上繳械投降”的國家。在過去的幾十年以來,許多西方的民主和已開發國家都在從事類似的自殺式教育改革,從而導致其”國家在危機中”。澳大利亞、英國、紐西蘭,以及其他已然如此作為,或刻正仿效此等教育改革的國家。這些改革,就好比美國曾經做過的,根本就是試圖把錯誤的事情做得更加錯誤。她們是把整個世界陷於危機當中。

“歷史不會對遊手好閒的人仁慈(National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983, p.1)。”歷史甚至還會對搖擺不定的莽撞改革者異常殘忍。過去,大多數的人集中在生產線前進行著例行作業,而工作內容也只需要基礎和標準化的知識和技能,然而,那樣的時代早已消逝無蹤了。如今,有愈來愈多的工作已採取自動化作業,抑或外包到海外,給薪資要求不高的人們去做。我們已經步入了全新的經濟(模式)。新的經濟模式有利於具有高技能及高學歷的工作者,由其締造的榮景又創造出了大量薪資低廉的工作者,而不是擁有中等技能,在過去勞力市場上居於中堅地位的中產階級(Wohlson, 2012)。新的經濟模式需要的是具有創意和創新的企業家,能夠創造出新的工作和新的機會(Florida, 2012; Wagner, 2012; World Economic Forum, 2012; Zhao, 2012)。因此,新一代的中產階級必須學會技能,以因應國內外僅剩的不完美的替代品(Goldin & Katz, 2008, p.352)。以往,由於社會與社會之間處於隔離狀態,而且改變的步調相當緩慢,所以一個人若要在社會上成功,或許會有所謂的既定技能和知識。此外,大多數的工作是由極少數具有創意和創新的人所創造出來,而且所需要的技能也極為相似。但,”這樣的情況已不復見了(National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983, p.1)。”

“世界確實是個地球村(National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983, p.1),”一個人不可能只依靠著利用他人或和他人競爭,就可以獲致成功。全球化並非”零和遊戲(zero-sum game)”。誠如”國家在危機中”報告書所說的,一個國家的興起,不必然就是另一國家的消亡。在這個世界,人們、想法、物品和資源都在國際間不斷且自由地流動,任何人或國家若想獲致成功,就必須靠著和他人或國家合作,善待他人如同對待客戶和搭檔,而非將之視為敵人或競爭者。而為了締造全球的榮景,我們的教育就必須協助孩子成為全球公民,發展出能夠和不同文化及國家的人一同相處與工作的知識和技能。

我們的國家處在哪些危機中呢?

在以往,美國和西方已開發國家的教育具有以下諸項美德:包容特殊性,尊重個別差異,並且容許非常規行為,這些都是創意及創新所具備的精神(Zhao, 2009a, 2012),然而,這些美德如今都遭到了摧毀。其次,由於現在的美國和西方已開發國家盲目地追求考試成績,將考試分數視為衡量教育成就的唯一指標,結果付出的代價就是喪失了創意,以及其他對一生的重要性更甚於學業成就的非認知技能(Brunello & Schlotter, 2010; Levin, 2012)。再者,由於針對每間教室裡的每個孩子強制施行統一的課程標準,致使孩子的教育經驗被窄化,也限縮了教師的專業自主性(Alexander, 2009; McMurrer, 2007, 2008; Tienken & Zhao, 2013)。此外,由於採用學生的考試成績來做為評鑑教師的績效,導致(教師的)士氣喪失,作弊之風大起(Nichols & Berliner, 2007)。

除了上述各項危機外,我們的國家也過度地以國際評量成績做為教育品質的指標,深怕被其他國家超越,也因此才會有”國家在危機中”報告的誕生;而在該報告中,有鑑於東亞各國教育體系在諸如PISA和TIMSS等國際評量的表現卓著,因此被美國當成了崇拜、仿效、看齊的對象(Tucker, 2011)。然而,那些東亞國家為了培育出具創意和創新的公民,已掙扎了數十年。諷刺的是,她們正效仿美國和西方諸國(以往的)教育策略,擺脫過去因致力於培育考場高手而使創意遭致犧牲的傳統()(Zhao, 2009a, 2012)。

創意、創業和全球競爭力是(新時代所應具備的)新技能,將能促成世界榮景的到來(Auerswald, 2012)。如果我們想要保有及增加機會,以培育出以前美國和西方已開發國家所擁有的具創意和創新能力的人才,那麼我們就必須停止已然造成巨大危害和資源浪費的錯誤改革(政策)。要讓我們的孩子為新的經濟模式做準備,那麼我們就必須將目前的教育轉換成另一種截然不同的模式。

然而,我們關心的不只是個人或少數幾個國家的經濟成功與否,也應該要關注人類的生存和文明的延續。全球化和科技的進步既可能幫助人們擺脫貧困,卻也可能導致更大的不公平(Friedman, 2007; Stiglitz, 2006);人們也將因為全球化和進步的科技而擁有更強大的破壞力,並將災難傳播到世界各地。環境的惡化與受創已不再侷限於某個地方。在這個擁有70億人口的世界,人們居住在經濟、社會和文化各不相同的地方,人們的價值觀和興趣也各異其趣,所以我們必須關注的是如何和他人融洽相處,以及我們應該如何養育我們的孩子,讓他們促進其未來世界的和平和永續發展。我們必須教育他們成為世界的公民,而不只是某個國家的公民。在全球化的年代,個體必須具備國際視野,並且真切關懷他人的福祉(Asia Society, 2008; Zhao, 2009b)。

總結來說,(美國乃至於西方諸國)所面臨的危機,就是由芬蘭教育家Pasi Sahlberg所提出的全球化教育改革運動(Global Education Reform Movement, GERM)。GERM包括了競爭、標準化考試、以考試為本位的績效責任制等幾個特徵,感染了世界各國的教育體系,使彼等國家非但不致力於創意、創業及全球競爭力的培育,反而使其課程、教師和評量陷入了混亂。由於目前的學校教育所培育出來的公民只能應付過去的年代,因此造成了全球性的人才不匹配現象(global phenomenon of talent mismatch),大量的年輕人失業,以及廣泛的人才短缺。結果就是,目前的世界比起未改革之前處於更大的危機之中。

事實上,世界所面臨的危機是有以下幾個指標可循的:首先,全世界都爆發了年輕人失業潮,大量的年輕人失業既是短期也是長期的經濟及社會危機;其次,有許多高學歷的年輕人同樣也找不到工作、上非全日班(underemployed),或從事著和其學歷不匹配的工作,但企業界卻面臨著人才短缺的窘境。而全世界的人才短缺則又是另一個經濟和社會危機。

以下提出幾項有關全球年輕人失業的數據:

1.經濟學人(The Economist)指出,全世界15歲到24歲的人口中,幾乎有3億人找不到工作。將近一半的年輕人從事著非正式的經濟活動,或其生產效率未符合應有的水準(The Economist, 2013)。

2.世界經濟論壇(World Economic Forum)呈現的資料顯示,每年全世界的就業市場湧進了4500萬的就業人口,其中,大部分是年輕人。而在2011年到2015年間,有3億個新工作必須趕上勞動力的增長速度(World Economic Forum, 2011a)。

3.世界銀行(World Bank)的數據顯示,在中東和北非低區,有54%的就業人口是處於失業及遊手好閒的狀態;而在15歲到25歲的人口中,每4個就有1個沒有工作(Gatti, et al., 2013)。

4.歐盟統計局(Eurostat)的資料發現,在2013年最後一季度,歐洲15歲至24歲人口的失業率超過了23%(Eurostat, 2013)。

5.英國國家廣播公司(British Broadcasting Corporation, BBC)在2013年的報導指出,南非35歲以下的人口中,有高達70%沒有工作(Mbele, 2013)。

6.在澳大利亞,2011年17歲至24歲的人口中,有超過27%的人從事兼職工作或沒有工作(McDonald, 2013)。

7.在南韓,2013年的年輕族群失業率高達22%(Guilford, 2013)。

8.根據國際勞工組織(International Labour Organization)2013年的資料指出,美國16歲至24歲人口的失業率為16%,相當於約600萬個年輕人輟學或找不到工作(Elliot, 2013)

接著提出幾項大學生找不到工作、上非全日班和薪資過低的數據:

1.根據美聯社(Associated Press)2012年所做的研究發現,近年來美國有一半的大學畢業生找不到工作或上非全日班(Associated Press, 2012)。

2.根據大學可負擔性及產出性中心(Center for College Affordability and Productivity)的資料顯示,在2012年有就業的美國大學(應屆)畢業生中,所從事的工作並不需要大學學歷的就將近半數(Vedder, Denhart, & Robe, 2013)。

3.根據”每日電訊報(The Telegraph)”2012年的報導”,英國有8.6%的大學生在畢業6個月後仍未找到工作,而有高達30%的大學(應屆)畢業生,所從事的工作不需要大學學歷(Paton, 2012)。

4.根據中國”財新網”2013年的報導指出,中國大學應屆畢業生人數將近700萬人,但截至4月份,北京地區的在校簽約比率不及三成(Li, 2013)。其次,大學畢業生的平均起薪已和農民工相近,因為許多工作?本就不需要大學學歷(Guo, 2010)。

5.在南韓,2011年大約有25%的大學畢業生找不到工作(Guilford, 2013)。

最後再提出幾項全球人才短缺的數據:

1.根據”2013年海斯全球技能指標(Hays Global Skills Index 2013)的數據顯示,在全世界30個主要經濟體中,有18個面臨人才短缺的現象(Hays, 2013)。

2.根據麥肯錫研究所(McKinsey Global Institute)的預估,到2020年,全球將會短缺8500萬名高階技術及中階技術工作者(Mourshed, Farrell, & Barton, 2012)。

3.根據一項針對全球3萬8000名雇主所做的調查發現,有35%的雇主面臨職務找不到人才的困境,而有54%的雇主則表示,人才短缺對其公司在應對客戶的能力上造成中等或高等程度的(負面)影響(Manpower Group, 2013)。

4.在美國,目前至少有300萬個職務找不到人(Krell, 2011);若要維持美國的經濟成長,就必須(額外)增加2500萬個具有基礎能力的工作者(World Economic Forum, 2011a)。

5.在日本,2010年有76%的雇主表示,很難找到適當的人才填補公司職務(Krell, 2011)。

6.根據歐盟(European Commission)的資料顯示,歐盟有超過200萬個職缺找不到人(European Commission, 2013);而根據世界經濟論壇(World Economic Forum)的資料則顯示,在西歐,若想在2030年繼續維持住該區的經濟成長,就必須額外增加4500萬個工作者(World Economic Forum, 2011a)。

7.根據美中商務理事會(The U.S.-China Business Council)的資料指出,人才短缺是中國面臨的10大國際商業問題中的其中一項(The U.S.-China Business Council, 2013)。大約只有10%左右的中國大學(應屆)畢業生有能力在跨國企業公司工作(D. Farrell & A. J. Grant, 2005)。

因此,世界正面臨兩個矛盾的危機,其一是大量的年輕人找不到工作,其二則是大量的人才短缺。如果這兩種狀況持續下去,將會非常危險。大量年輕人失業所導致的不只是個人貧窮及心理創傷,而且也將造成社會的動盪及不公。人才短缺將減緩經濟成長,進而造成更少的工作機會。人才短缺也會趨使高階技術工作者的薪資往上提升,從而導致高低階技術工作者的薪資差距更為擴大。

(*原作發表於Society 52(2), pp 129-135, April 2015。國家在危機中30週年紀念特輯(http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12115-015-9872-8)。原作者有感於”國家在危機中”對美國所造成的巨大影響,以及本文的重要性,乃仿效該報告的文筆寫成此文。)

【作者介紹:Yong Zhao】

本文作者Yong Zhao為國際知名教育學者、作家及演講者,專精於全球教育方法及應用,目前任職於美國奧瑞岡大學(University of Oregon),擔任教育測量、政策和領導學系教授,發表學術文章百餘篇,以及出版20餘本書,包括2014年出版的”誰害怕大惡龍:為何中國擁有世界上最好(最差)的教育體系(Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Dragon: Why China Has the Best (and Worst) Education System in the World)“、2012年出版的”世界級的學習者:教育創新與學生創業(World Class Learners:Educating Creative and Entrepreneurial Students)“,以及2009年出版的”迎頭趕上或引領世界:在全球化時代的美國教育(Catching Up or Leading the Way: American Education in the Age of Globalization)“。此外,他尚有經營部落格: http://zhaolearning.com.。

[/tab]
[tab title=”English”]

A World at Risk: An Imperative for a Paradigm Shift to Cultivate 21st Century Learners[1]

“Our Nation is at risk. Our once unchallenged preeminence in commerce, industry, science, and technological innovation is being overtaken by competitors throughout the world” (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983, p. 1). The bedrock of American prosperity, the massive middle class, has been shrinking. The economy that once created the American middle class has been going through a hollowing-out process (Wohlsen, 2012). Traditional middle-class jobs have been disappearing quickly, offshored to other countries or replaced by machines (Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2012) (Goldin & Katz, 2008; McAfee, 2012). The U.S. economy is growing–companies are making record profits and investing, and new businesses are created every day. That growth, however, is creating jobs at the very top and the very bottom (Aspen Institute, 2012), hence the fast growth of rewarding opportunities for the creative and entrepreneurial and the low-paying jobs in the service sector (Auerswald, 2012; Florida, 2012).

Our schools and colleges that have historically contributed to the prosperity of the United States and the well-being of its people (Goldin & Katz, 2008) have been under assault and profoundly changed (Berliner, 2006; Carter & Welner, 2013; Darling-Hammond, 2010; Ravitch, 2010, 2013; Tienken & Orlich, 2013; Zhao, 2009a, 2012). The educational foundations of our society that once made America the center of innovation and created the American middle class are presently being eroded by a rising tide of misguided reforms that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people. “What was unimaginable a generation ago has begun to occur” (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983, p.1)—American education, once the envy of the world, is losing its traditional virtues and becoming more like its admirers’.

If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the misguided policies that threaten democracy, turn American children into robotic test takers, narrow and homogenize our children’s education, encourage standardization instead of helping the needy children and stimulating innovation, value testing over teaching, and scapegoat teachers that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war. As it stands, we have allowed this to happen to ourselves. We have squandered the opportunities brought about by technology, ignored research evidence, and paid no attention to what the future needs. “We have, in effect, been committing an act of unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament” (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983, p.1).

America is not the only nation that has “been committing an act of unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament” in the world. Over the past few decades, many Western democratic and developed nations have engaged in such suicidal educational reforms. Led by the same mistaken assumptions that gave birth to A Nation at Risk, Australia, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and others have made or are about to make similar changes in their education systems. These changes, just like the changes the U.S. has made, are simply trying to do the wrong thing more right. They are putting the world at risk.

The Risk

“History is not kind to idlers” (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983, p.1). It is even crueler to reckless reformers who keep fiddling with the past to meet the needs of the future. The time is long past when most people worked on assembly lines and other routine jobs, which required only basic and standardized knowledge and skills. A growing portion of these jobs has been automated or offshored to places with abundant people who are unable to demand higher wages. We have entered a new economy. The new economy favors highly skilled, highly educated workers, and their prosperity creates greater demands for low-paying service workers–but not for the kind of medium-skilled, middle-class jobs that formed the backbone of the workforce in the past (Wohlson, 2012). The new economy needs creative and innovative entrepreneurs to create jobs and new opportunities (Florida, 2012; Wagner, 2012; World Economic Forum, 2012; Zhao, 2012). Thus the new middle class will have to be equipped with “skills for which there are only imperfect (domestic or international) substitutes” (Goldin & Katz, 2008, p. 352). It was once possible to predicate and prescribe the skills and knowledge one might need for success in a given society because societies were isolated from each other and the pace of change was slow. Moreover, the majority of the jobs were created by a few exceptionally creative and entrepreneurial individuals and required similar skills. “It is no longer” (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983, p.1).

“The world is indeed one global village” (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983, p.1). In this interconnected and interdependent village, one cannot achieve prosperity alone by simply exploiting and competing with others. Globalization is not a zero-sum game. One nation’s rise does not have to be another’s demise, as suggested by A Nation at Risk. In a world where people, ideas, goods, and resources move across national borders constantly and freely, the prosperity of any individual or nation depends on working with others, treating others as potential customers and partners instead of enemies or competitors. To achieve global prosperity, our education has to help children develop the knowledge and skills to live and work across cultural and national borders as global citizens.

The risk is not only the destruction of the traditional virtues of education in America and other Western developed countries, which tend to tolerate exceptionality, respect individual differences, and condone unconventional behaviors—the beginning of creativity and entrepreneurial spirit (Zhao, 2009a, 2012). It is not just the rigorous but blind pursuit of test scores as the only outcome of education at expense of creativity and other non-cognitive skills that have been proven to be equally, if not more, valuable than academic test scores for life’s success (Brunello & Schlotter, 2010; Levin, 2012); or the imposition of uniform curriculum standards on all children in all classrooms that narrows children educational experiences and reduces the professional autonomy of educators (Alexander, 2009; McMurrer, 2007, 2008; Tienken & Zhao, 2013); or holding educators accountable for raising student test scores beyond reason that results in the loss of morale and widespread cheating (Nichols & Berliner, 2007).

The risk is also the choice of educational systems to idolize, to emulate, to benchmark to. The fixation on international test scores as indicators of educational quality and the fear of being surpassed by others that give birth to A Nation at Risk has made educational systems in East Asia the model because of their superb performances on international tests such as the PISA and TIMSS (Tucker, 2011). But these educational systems have been struggling to produce creative and entrepreneurial citizens for decades. They have ironically looked up to America and other Western nations for strategies to move away from their traditional practices, which produce great test-takers at the cost of creativity (Zhao, 2009a, 2012).

Creativity, entrepreneurship, and global competence are the new basic skills that will bring the “coming prosperity” to the world (Auerswald, 2012). If only to keep and improve on the accidental opportunities for cultivating creative and entrepreneurial talents that once existed in America and other Western developed education systems, we must stop the misguided reforms that have already brought tremendous damages and wasted resources. To prepare our children for the new economy, we must begin the shift to a different educational paradigm.

The concern, however, goes well beyond economical success of individuals or a few nations. It includes the very survival of humanity and the continuation of civilization. Globalization and technological advancement have the potential to both lift people out of poverty and engender greater inequality (Friedman, 2007; Stiglitz, 2006). They have also given individuals the destructive power that once could only be held by a state and thus could send disasters to anyone anywhere. Environmental degradation and destruction are no longer confined to one place. With over seven billion people living different economic, social, and cultural settings, some of which do not necessarily share the same values or interests, we must be concerned about how to get along and what we can equip our children with to make the world they will occupy peaceful and sustainable. They have to be educated as citizens of the world beyond citizens of a nation. A global perspective and genuine concern about the well being of others are essential for citizens in the age of globalization (Asia Society, 2008; Zhao, 2009b).

The risk, to summarize, is that educational reforms around the globe, aptly shortened by the Finnish education author Pasi Sahlberg as the GERM, which stands for Global Education Reform Movement, have focused on fixing an educational paradigm that has little chance of preparing the talents and citizens we need in the 21st globalized century (Sahlberg, 2012). The GERM, characterized by competition, standardized testing, and test-based accountability, have infected educational systems around the world and sent them to fiddle with curriculum, teachers, and assessment instead of inventing a new paradigm that cultivates creativity, entrepreneurship, and global competence. The old paradigm aims at strengthening schools to prepare citizens for a by-gone era, resulting in the global phenomenon of talent mismatch: the co-existence of massive youth unemployment and widespread talent shortage. As a consequence, the world is more at risk than before the reforms.

Indicators of the Risk

Indicators of the risk the world faces are well documented. First, there is massive youth unemployment around the world. Large youth unemployment is both a long-term and short-term economic and social risk. Second, while a large number of youth are unemployed and individuals who are highly educated in the traditional sense are unemployed, underemployed, or working on jobs that do not require the level of education, companies are facing a talent shortage. The shortage of talent around the globe is another economic and social risk.

Massive Youth Unemployment

  • World wide, almost 300m 15- to 24-year-olds are not working around the world. Nearly half of the world’s young people are either outside the formal economy or contributing less productively than they could, according to The Economist (The Economist, 2013).
  • With 45 million new entrants in the global job market annually – most of them young – 300 million new jobs will be needed between now and 2015 to keep pace with the growth in the labour force (World Economic Forum, 2011a).
  • In the Middle East and North Africa, 54% of working age population is unemployed or inactive; 1 out every 4 youth aged 15-25 are jobless, according the World Bank (Gatti, et al., 2013).
  • In Europe, the youth (ages 15-24) unemployment rate was over 23% in the last quarter of 2013 (Eurostat, 2013).
  • “In South Africa, 70% of under 35 year olds are out of work,” according to a 2013 BBC report (Mbele, 2013).
  • In Australia, more than 27 per cent of Australians aged 17-24 were not in full-time study or work in 2011 (McDonald, 2013).
  • In South Korea, the youth unemployment rate was 22% in 2013 (Guilford, 2013).
  • In the United States, the unemployment rate of youth aged 16 to 24 was 16% (International Labour Organization, 2013), with almost six million youth out of school and work (Elliot, 2013).

Unemployed, Underemployed, and Underpaid College Graduates

  • In 2012, an Associated Press study found that half of recent college graduates were unemployed or underemployed in the United States (Associated Press, 2012). At the same time, nearly half of the college graduates were in jobs that did not require a college degree, according to a study by the Center for College Affordability and Productivity (Vedder, Denhart, & Robe, 2013).
  • In the U.K., while some 8.6% of graduates were unemployed after six month in 2012, about 30% of college graduates were in jobs that did not require a college degree, according to a 2012 report by theTelegraph (Paton, 2012).
  • In China, nearly seven million college students graduated in 2013 but less than 30% of the college graduates in Beijing area had an employment contract in April, just two months before they head out of school (Li, 2013). The average starting salary for college graduates are similar to that of migrant workers because many of the jobs do not require a college education (Guo, 2010).
  • In South Korea, around 25% of college graduates were unemployed in 2011(Guilford, 2013).

The Global Talent Shortage

  • Out of the 30 world’s major economies, 18 are experiencing talent shortages, according to the Hays Global Skills Index 2013 (Hays, 2013).
  • The McKinsey Global Institute estimates that by 2020 there will be a global shortfall of 85 million high- and middle-skilled workers (Mourshed, Farrell, & Barton, 2012).
  • Worldwide, 35% of over 38,000 employers surveyed report they are experiencing difficulty filling jobs due to lack of available talent. 54% of employers surveyed reported that talent shortages impact their client-facing abilities to a high or medium degree (Manpower Group, 2013).
  • In the U.S., at least 3 million U.S. positions currently remain unfilled (Krell, 2011). 25 million workers will be needed to add to the U.S. talent base to sustain its economic growth (World Economic Forum, 2011a).
  • In 2010, 76 percent of Japan’s employers said they had difficulty finding the right people to fill jobs (Krell, 2011).
  • There are over 2 million unfilled vacancies in the European Union (European Commission, 2013). 45 million workers will need to be added in Western Europe by 2030 to maintain its economic growth (World Economic Forum, 2011a).
  • In China, one the top 10 concerns of international businesses in China has been the shortage of talent (The U.S.-China Business Council, 2013). Only about 10% of Chinese college graduates are reported to have the skills to work in multinational businesses (D. Farrell & A. J. Grant, 2005).

The world thus is faced with two paradoxical crises: massive youth unemployment and equally massive talent shortage. Both are dangerous if allowed to continue. Massive youth unemployment leads to not only personal poverty and psychological trauma, but also social unrest and inequality. Talent shortage slows down economic growth and in turn generates fewer employment opportunities. Talent shortage can also drive up the incomes of highly talented workers, which in turn result in even bigger income gaps between the high-skill and low-skill workers.

Hope and Frustration

In the crisis of massive youth unemployment lies tremendous hope for the future. The millions of unemployed youth around the world can become the qualified talents to meet the rising demand of businesses or the creative entrepreneurs the world needs to harness the opportunities technology and globalization present (Salkowitz, 2010). In theory, any individual (except in extremely politically isolated places) has access to the global market of seven billion as well as global collaborators and financing (Zhao, 2012). The question is whether they are equipped with the right skills and knowledge. Education has thus been considered the most important action to address the youth unemployment crisis (Gatti, et al., 2013; World Economic Forum, 2011a, 2011b).

Likewise, the crisis of talent shortage is another opportunity. The severity of the problem has already made businesses, governments, and international organizations willing to take action. There is general consensus around the world that we must collectively invest in better equipping our children with the skills and knowledge for the new economy (Krell, 2011; World Economic Forum, 2011a). Expanding educational opportunities and improving educational quality have become a top priority for many nations, developed and developing. The resolution and determination to better education are clearly visible in the active, almost irrational, participation in and response to international tests results such as the PISA and TIMSS.

Education presents hope. It also presents frustration.

The frustration comes from the persistence and dominance of the old educational paradigm. Ample evidence suggests that the talent mismatch is not the result of insufficient education, but the result of the wrong education. For example, in South Korea, a nation that has been globally recognized for its high education quality indicated by test scores, “Korea’s best aren’t suited to the jobs on offer” (Guilford, 2013). China has also been recognized as one of the best education systems in the world, especially after it’s Shanghai took the number one position on the PISA in all three subjects twice in a row but only 10 percent of its college graduates are qualified (D. Farrell & A. Grant, 2005). About 45% of U.S. employers said the main reason for entry-level job vacancies is the “lack of skills” in a study by McKinsey (Mourshed, et al., 2012). The same study found that only 42% of employers worldwide believe new graduates are adequately prepared for work.

Clearly the traditional model of education is no longer adequate. Worse, it is harmful for preparing citizens for the 21st century. The new economy needs entrepreneurially spirited individuals, but traditional education prepares employment-minded job seekers. Research shows that the more successful an educational system is in the traditional sense as indicated by test scores the less likely it is to cultivate entrepreneurs. PISA scores, for example, have been found to be negatively correlated with nations’ entrepreneurial confidence and activities (Zhao, 2012).

Excellence in Education

There is no disagreement that the world needs excellence in education but what defines excellence matters. There are two educational paradigms: employee-oriented vs. entrepreneur-oriented (Zhao, 2012). While both aim to prepare children to live successfully, the former focuses on transmitting a body of knowledge and skills predetermined to be valuable and the latter emphasizes on the developing the potential of each individual child. The former presumes that a body of knowledge and skills can be decided based on predications of needs of the society and economy, while the latter assumes if a child’s potential is developed she will become valuable in her own way. Employee-oriented education values what childrenshould learn, while entrepreneur-oriented education values what children would learn. Employee-oriented education prepares children to fit existing jobs, while entrepreneur-oriented education prepares children to take the responsibility to create jobs.

Excellence in one paradigm does not mean excellence in the other. When a school or system becomes extremely good at preparing employees, they are not necessarily good at preparing entrepreneurs because different paradigms lead to different arrangement of educational institutions and systems. Given its primary goal to efficiently and effectively transmit predetermined knowledge, the employee-oriented education paradigm requires an apparatus with clearly defined learning outcomes for all students, well-trained teachers knowledgeable of the content to be transmitted and skilled at doing so, engaged students willing and able to learn the content, standardized measures to monitor the progress of each student as well as institutions frequently, and other resources well-aligned with the prescribed content. Uniformity, consistency, standardization, competition, data-driven practices, and an emphasis on outcomes are the features of the employee-oriented education paradigm.

In contrast, the entrepreneur-oriented paradigm requires an apparatus that maximizes individual differences. School following this paradigm have no standardized and common curriculum for all students, each child pursues his or her interest and passion, teachers respond to and support individual student’s pursuit, and students’ progress is assessed only in accordance with their own pursuit. Variation, diversity, tolerance (or indulgence), autonomy, and student-driven are some of the features of the entrepreneur-oriented education.

Today, the measure of excellence in education follows the old paradigm. Excellence is defined as effectiveness and efficiency in transmitting the prescribed content and homogenizing children, indicated by standardized test scores in a few subjects. Schools and nations that produce higher test scores are considered having better education. Following the same logic, schools, teachers, and educational systems are working hard to raise test scores, believing that they are pursuing excellence. Guided by this definition of excellence, educational reforms worldwide have focused on strengthening components and arrangements of the old educational paradigm as suggested by A Nation at Risk: fixing the curriculum, raising standards, lengthening school time, improving the teaching force, and holding teachers and school leaders accountable.

To prepare the talents we need for the 21st century, we need to redefine excellence in education. Instead of effectiveness in homogenizing students, an excellent education should support the development of diverse talents. Instead of suppressing creativity and individual differences, an excellent education should deliberately cultivate them. Instead of preparing compliant employees, an excellent education should intentionally encourage children to be entrepreneurial. Instead of overemphasizing global competitiveness, an excellent education should foster global perspectives and competence. Excellence in education should thus be measured by its effectiveness in providing personalized education that promotes diversity and creativity, on a globalized campus that engages children in global interactions, through product-oriented learning that inspires entrepreneurship and innovation (Zhao, 2012).

The Tools at Hand

We have the essential raw materials to realize the true education reforms we need. We have the right tools to complete the paradigm shift.

  • Modern research supports the existence of the universal diversity of human talents, interests, passion, and culture (Ehrlich, 2000; Ridley, 2003) (Pinker, 2003) (Gardner, 2006) (Rose & Fischer, 2011), but that diversity had to be suppressed in mass-production economies that required a more homogenous workforce. Globalization and technology advances have drastically expanded the spectrum of skills that are valuable. Traditionally undervalued skills have become increasingly more valuable (Florida, 2012) (Pink, 2006). In the age of hyperspecialization (Malone, Laubacher, & Johns, 2011), unique, small niche skills can be of great value.
  • Technology has advanced so much that it is a reality that one can learn anything, at anytime, with anyone, from anywhere (Bonk, 2011) (Christensen, Horn, & Johnson., 2010). Thus human learning does not have to be confined to the physically present teacher in geographically isolated places, making it possible to support the development a diversity of interests and talents, as well as different learning styles and patterns (Fischer & Silvern, 1985) (Fischer & Bidell, 2006) (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000) (Tomlinson, 2001).
  • Globalization has significantly increased human interactions and movement across cultural and political borders, making it more possible for children to engage in learning activities on a global scale (Zhao, 2009a, 2012).
  • Theories and practices that support the new educational paradigm have existed for centuries and advanced even more in recent years. Pioneers have developed successful strategies and tactics to make it a reality all over the world, albeit on a very small scale (Zhao, 2012).

These raw materials, combined with the commitment of the public, determination of government agencies and businesses, and the strong motivation of today’s youth, offers us the possibility of creating the next generation of excellent education. All we need to is the courage and wisdom to abandon the outdated model and begin working on the new one.

Recommendations

In light of the urgent need for improvement, both immediate and long term, I propose a set of recommendations that policy makers and educators can begin to act on now, that can be implemented over the next several years, and that promise educational excellence for the new age.

  • Stop prescribing and imposing on children a narrow set of content through common curriculum standards and testing.
  • Start personalizing education to support the development of unique, creative, and entrepreneurial talents.
  • Stop fixing solely the teaching force by selecting, training, and retaining better teacher candidates. It takes too long and we cannot wait.
  • Start empowering the children by liberating their potentials, capitalizing on their passion, and supporting their pursuits. Start giving the ownership of learning to the children.
  • Stop constraining children to learning opportunities present in their immediate physical environments by assigning them to classes and teachers.
  • Start engaging them in learning opportunities that exist in the global community, beyond their class and school walls.
  • Stop forcing children to learn what adults think they may need and testing them to what degree they have mastered the required content.
  • Start allowing children the opportunity to engage in creating authentic products and learn what they are interested in, just in time, not just in case.
  • Stop benchmarking to measures of excellence in the past, such as international test scores.
  • Start inventing the excellence of the future. You cannot fix the horse wagon to get the moon. We have to work on rocket science.

A Final Word

To implement these recommendations, the first thing we need is to abandon the mindset deeply entrenched in the obsolete employment-oriented educational paradigm, they very mindset that both gave birth to and has been perpetuated by A Nation at Risk. After thirty years of experiments that have brought revolutionary, destructive changes to American education, without any measureable improvement, it is time to be freed from its spirit.

 

【Author:Yong Zhao】

Yong Zhao speaks around the world on educational issues, particularly on issues related to globalization and education, creativity, global competitiveness, educational reforms, and educational technology.

[/tab]
[/tabs]

 

閱讀此文後,歡迎繼續閱讀:

世界在危機中:一個勢在必行的模式轉變,以培養出21世紀的學習者(下)

 

圖片來源:昇典 葉@flickr

本文轉載自小李的特教資訊站,未經許可不得轉載