Tagged: change

The Dream & The Machine

Is the political agenda for education incompatible with the requirements for learning? Is it a bit like Descartes’ Ghost & Machine, but with the roles reversed?  -The Dream of Learning is controlled by The Machine of Education instead of the other way around. 


Great artwork performed by pataleta.net was created during each session, lovely!

This post was initially intended as a serious reflection on an fantastic week in Buenos Aires and #FIED -Forum International de Innovación Educativa but things happened (i fell asleep at the plane forgot about this post and then life took over). But, perhaps better late than never?!

The machine

Ever so present at #FIED, never presented as a Keynote but blamed under any of these names: The System, The Paradigm, The Administration, The Factory, Them, The Traditionalist, The Resisters, The Old School, The Bureaucracy, The Others… The Machine

If you listened to any speaker at #FIED (including myself) there was this agreement: WE know something, WE speak the same lingo BUT it’s The Machine that make progress so hard, education outdated and learning boring and misdirected. The irony is that most of us are very much part of the system, you might even say that we are well above average in terms of possibilities to influence The Machine but we still need it, for some reason.

The Dream

#FIED was sprinkled with brilliant people and examples of how you can make education relevant, engaging and functional in our era. The Dream we all seem to share is to get back to nature in the sense that learning should be in tune with our human nature, our desires and our biology. The dream seductive, we all thrive on the stories of learning environments where children and educators thrive, explore, acquire knowledge and never stop learning. The dream we share seems to be that zone where we, body and soul commit ourselves to learning in endeavors that expand us as individuals and collectively. There is only one problem: most of these examples come from contexts outside of The Machine, they seem to be exceptions or free havens. Are we dealing with The Machine are we escaping from it?

God old René

We like to think that we control our lives, that our actions actually matters, that we’re not just being pushed by forces outside of us. As a human being I feel better when I assume that I have a free will (at least on a good day) and we should feel that as educators as well, but do we? Judging from how we talk about education in general, at at #FIED, I’m not so sure. It seems like we are in the balance, allt these good ideas and initiatives acting as scaffolding for a crumbling machine but but I wonder we are dealing with the machine itself. Are we just standing on the scaffolding, cleaning the windows of The Machine, offering better views and perspectives but not really affecting the machinery?

When René Descartes coined the idea of ”The Ghost and The Machine” never quite explained how the two connected. His dilemma was to explain how something immaterial (the ghost in us, our souls) could touch and ultimately control the physical world (our bodies and the rest…). His solution was that it all mysteriously happened in the pineal gland and I can’t help thinking: Are we in the same predicament? -We sometimes seem completely incapable of explaining how our political systems should “touch” and promote the best ideas about learning and education. It’s as if The Machine has its own logic governed på hierarchies, political buzz words and measurability whereas education and learning are governed by the principles of The Ghost: meaning, motivation, context, purpose, engagement, fun, lifeworthiness, challenge, future, community, interaction, knowledge, mastery… 

 -I think we must do better! For one: we should implement systems that actually promote and support learning instead of only measuring output. René got one thing right: It is the Dream that should control The Machine, not the other way around. -More on this in a coming post on a SmartIndex!

Over and out





Chicken curriculum

Great education is action-packed, for-real and reverberates around issues that matter to us. Why is it then that education and tuition sometimes gets a coward and afraid of life’s really important, real, funny and scary questions? IF education is purely about fulfilling criteria, following rules, reach pre-set aims and maximize test scores … What happens? -We follow a chicken curriculum and worse still, we get chicken learning.

Skärmavbild 2013-02-12 kl. 20.38.39

During christmas last year I had the privilege of getting to know To Kim Lien, director of the Center for Education and Development in Hanoi. My family was been invited to dinner the night before Christmas at home with Lien’s family. A Loverly invite and we demanded that we in return could bring some Swedish specialties to the table (not a very wise move as it turned out). It became a memorable evening, for many reasons. *

Besides cooking  Lien and I share a passion for education and learning and, to distract our hosts from my cooking, I started to talk about schools and teaching (safer territory). The conditions to run schools in our countries are in many ways very different, both in terms of the physical and material conditions, but perhaps even more so speaking ideologically and intellectually. In Vietnam, it’s even more obvious than in Sweden that education is an ideological tool: what is taught in schools is controlled by the state and freedom for the country’s teachers seems pretty limited to me. Lien told a story about this that etched into my memory. “It’s incredible, ALL Vietnamese children have to learn how to breed a chicken … I mean ALL, and the strange thing is that my children, and most children, NEVER will breed a chicken, that’s a 100% certainty! When we need a chicken we get one from the marker or the supermarket … Would it not be better for my children to learn how to handle chicken that you buy, learn respect for nature, understanding how modern animal food industry works …? “-Excerpts from my memory.

While Lien talked, I got a word in my head: “Chicken curriculum.” Could it be that we have coward curricula (because we for ideological ideologically reasons want the kids to believe certain things) or we make the curricula cowardly, or “Life Whimpy” as David Perkins calls it, by not having imagination and empathy enough to make teaching vivid and relevant to the children?

What’s it like? Do we have a Chicken Curriculum? I thought I’s better check, closed my eyes and pointed into the Lgr -11(out national curriculum for compulsory school) and my finger landed right on these immortal lines, the core content in years 4-6 in History. Text in picture says: ”How historical persons and events, such as Queen Christina, Karl XII and witch trials, have been recorded in different ways by different interpretations at different times”

Skärmavbild 2013-02-12 kl. 20.43.42

IF this will be a tuition that is relevant and engaging to the pupil depends the skill of the teacher, if he or she manages to build a bridge from the child’s world to the curriculum text that creates engagement, relevance and context. One thing is certain, if teaching is about Queen Christina, Karl XII and witch trials head on you will get very few the studentswith any deeper knowledge of these important characters and events. -It will be chicken quite simply, and just as irrelevant as poultry farming might be to many Vietnamese children.

_ _ _

* Tip to all Swedes (and non-Vietnamese): If you are invited to a cook-along with Vietnamese, say no, politely. Lie and blame the shortage of your nation’s groceries or jet lag. Vietnamese cooking is an art form 1000 years ahead of the Swedish’ and sharing a kitchen with a skilled Vietnamese chef is a bit like jumping into a ballet at the Opera…. We, the Vikings are lacking, to put it politely, finesse… The fact that your Vietnamese hosts afterwards might praise your dishes  is just another confirmation of the fact that some cultures have evolved a bit … further.

Added bonus: Pho, the king of soups!

On the nature of change

My father worked for SIDA, The Swedish International Development Agency, for the larger part of his professional life. I thought that it was a cool and noble job, he got to travel and we lived abroad with our family and it made sense to me as a kid that we as Swedes did what we could to assist people who were worse off than us. From time to time there was quite a lot of debate in Sweden connected to the idea of development and aid to developing countries and harsh criticism of specific projects. Ask almost any Swede of my age or older about Bai Bang and they will tell you about a disastrous project in Vietnam where Swedish tax money was spent on a paper mill that rather than producing paper ate cash. I remember the news scorning the project: it was about corruption and technical failures, on the idiotic idea of using bamboo for pulp (we all know that you should use pine or spruce) and shovels that were to large and heavy for the small Vietnamese (they had to be operated by two people). -The last image became the public hallmark of the project: Failure built in the inability of transferring knowhow combined with irresponsible spending of our tax money.

Photo: Anders Gunnartz

Some days ago  bumped into an exhibition of the project at Bai Bang, it has turned out to be a great success. The mill is highly productive and has grown to be a corner stone in the economy of the whole country. This came as a pleasant surprise to me and made me think about the nature of change. How many projects are like Bai Bang in their infancy and how many of them survive to become the adult success of Bai Bang?

The stakes are high when a project is ambitious or promising to be a real game changer. And projects of that kind will most certainly run into problems.

Do we imagine that change is straight line? It’s all to easy to condemn a project as a failure and stop it, in fact, it’s kind of self fulfilling. “This project is crap and therefore we shut it down och remodel it into…”. I more seldom se the approach “This is an ambitious project and it’s in its nature to run into unforeseen challenges. Now, we are going to make it work.”. If change is connected to an stance like that, “failure” will be seen as something else. I don’t believe that real change is  straight line, and I think we should be more worried about “I told you so-ers”, people who are pointing fingers at ambitious projects when they run into their inevitable problems. I told you so-ers can only repeat and they would never have built Bai bang. Change is not for chickens and real succes might be neighbor to failure.