robyn jay

We now live in a country where the right to a free, general education pretty much ends at age 18. Young people have known no different. They are excluded from improving their skills if money is tight, and are burdened with debt at the time of their lives when they need those savings most. Sure places like TAFE offer subsidies but its far from ideal. Education now equals money earning citizens not enriched lives.

Recent discussions by Mike Bogle and Simon McIntyre reflect a reaction to this contemporary position.

When I was 19 I undertook a free undergraduate higher education degree.  In my late 20s, with little money, I enjoyed so called ‘hobby’ courses at TAFE. If I paid fees, they were minimal. In my mid-30s I worked in the field of adult literacy and numeracy. The students who attended could choose whether to pursue a qualification (generally their Yr 10 equivalent) or simply to focus on their particular need. For people with a disability this was often money focused, for youth – getting their licence, and for older people-being able to read to their children and grand-children. The important thing was that they had a choice, and it was free – no question.

Under the Howard Government in Australia, the education of its citizens became aligned to skilling up workers. The days when a grandmother could gain free informal but professional literacy support disappeared. By 2006 NO provider in NSW was able to offer literacy assistance to adults that was not aligned to a qualification. From that time on grandmothers and people with intellectual disabilities were force fed through a qualification encompassing competencies they would never use, for a piece of paper they did not care about.

During this period we also saw Adult & Community Education (ACE) colleges move from centres of community enrichment and wellbeing, to a mix of so called ‘hobby’ courses and vocational education and training (VET) to a situation where, if non-accredited courses are run they come hand in hand with a pretty hefty fee to offset the lack of adequate Government support. Number crunching became the requirement, and creative mapping of personal enrichment courses to potential VET outcomes and future careers was what enabled centres to stay afloat but still meet community needs. And quite rightly so.  A creative drawing course can easily inspire an individual to take up a career in design etc. The benefits of engagement in learning for individuals and their families is well documented.

Post-compulsory non-accredited education in Australia is now only afforded to those with superfluous income, OR those with the skills and motivation to establish and manage their own personal learning environment (PLE). In terms of the latter, not many have those capabilities.
Set this against a changing world where working lives are complex and ever changing; where the need for generic skills of resilience, flexibility, knowing how to learn and locate information, team work, innovation far outweigh specific practical skills. In the VET world leaders are documenting the need for students to be supported in picking and choosing from multiple qualifications, with a resulting portfolio of competencies rather than a rigid qualification. The needs are changing but organisational structures are NOT.

Higher Education has the potential to truly focus on community education and enrichment but is totally hamstrung by archaic power structures, and an elitism that will be its undoing. It is of course at the mercy of Government funding and priorities place it’s staff on a treadmill of research and time demands that distract from innovative teaching, but it’s whole position is outdated and irrelevant.

In terms of informal opportunities at a University level  I think there are other options apart from trying to squeeze people into a mould.  They say courses are full but I have not yet seen a lecture theatre or tutorial room that does not have any empty seats. What would it take to offer a small number of places for people to sit in? Imagine the benefits of having mature community members engage in conversations with enrolled students. No assessments, no grades. For young people it’s a good opportunity to decide whether the course is indeed for them; for older community members it’s an opportunity for extending their skills and sharing their wisdom. People attend actual courses, rather than simply watching recorded video because they seek interaction; this would offer that.

So the issue that started all this was what to offer young people who miss out on their university place. I’m going to be quite radical here and suggest that they simply should get out in the world, travel and work, and have time to think about their true interests. Too many young people move straight from 13 years at school to another 4+ at university. They make bad choices based on parents and school content and accrue debt as a result.The worst result is for these individuals to accept other courses simply because they are all they could gain entry to. I saw this in Education and the result is a bunch of mediocre teachers. I’ve seen it in Science where students have gained entry with an entrance score of less than 50/100.

If you build it, they don’t always come…

The desire for ‘a degree’ is driven by a society where recruitment and progression is based on those bits of paper instead of real skills. Universities are a classic case in point; where a PhD in an obscure topic is deemed more important than actual capability and experience for jobs that do not require high level research. Higher level positions are almost unobtainable unless you’re a life long academic and yet the pay rates offered are abysmal. It’s no wonder they cannot get good staff when needed.

Universities need to get their act together if they wish to remain relevant in the middle to long term. They need to focus on quality teaching, innovation, openness, community connections and education in its truest sense. They need to recognise the skills and knowledge that people bring to a course as a result of life. And they need to be seen as a flexible and welcoming place for conversation and learning. We are now in a space where students will vote with their feet and pick and choose from the talented educators who typically are open and accessible. Perhaps what is need is a new model of educational organisation; one for the future.

cc licensed flickr photo by Seryo

I came across Eva Cox’s 2010 Sydney Festival session – Hope: crisis catharsis and renewal, reported on The Stump which is worth a read.

The session transcript concludes…

“So let us start in 2010 to unravel the knots and tangles that have damaged the links that make us social beings and prioritise ways of making society more civil. This activity requires our time and commitment because asking questions is easier than finding answers. Combining hope and thoughtfulness gives us the power to work out what we can do – and be, by making our lives more civil, more fun and more creative!”

Her suggestions resonate with me, particularly in light of my last post ….

• Be fair and kind to strangers as well as those we know
• Be generous and prepared to share
• Recognise and respect what we have in common as well as our differences
• Budget time not money so we can spend time on what we value
• Collaborate and co-operate as a first strategy to meet social ends, not competition
• Act with civility and respect, even when we disagree
• Retain goodwill and optimism about the good will of others, even when it seems tough
• Build ethical cultures by both doing the right thing and recognising the rights of others
• Recognise and respect autonomy as well as connectedness that work
• Value risk takers and boundary pushers who also reflect the above criteria
• Recognise the value of shared experiences, such as tonight, including with strangers.

[CC FlickR image: finofilka]

Yesterday, in the back room of the church at the Balmain Market I found a veritable treasure chest of Thai silk clothing and textiles. A few items were hung but most were tied in twine in carefully arranged piles on a trestle table.

The stall was run by a Thai woman and a younger helper who I am guessing was her daughter. The older woman appeared to be instructing the other as I perused their gorgeous wares. I was quietly and respectfully showed to a small makeshift changing room when I made my difficult selection.

My purchase was laid out on the table and the item meticulously folded. ‘It is all handmade’, the stall-owner said, and she stroked the fabric as she quietly explained to the other how to fold it. The shirt was then placed on a sheet of simple, hand made rice paper and the older woman stepped her apprentice through a fold that culminated in a tucked in corner that necessitated no adhesive.

In two hands the parcel was handed to me and I was graciously thanked for my purchase. We exchanged a smile and feeling as though I was carrying treasure I left the building contemplating what I had just witnessed. Seconds later the young woman ran up and gave me a small shoulder bag – ‘this is for you, for free’, she said.

The parcel sat for a day unwrapped.

My last post highlighted the current Edge project exploring how the internet is changing the way we think.

One of the contributors is Sherry Turkle, psychologist from MIT who studies the culture of the internet.

In her post she refers to Erik Erikson who argued that adolescents need ‘an experience of “moratorium,” a time and space for relatively consequence-free experimentation. They need to fall in and out of love with people and ideas’.  She herself argues that while ‘the Internet provides such spaces and is thus a rich ground for working through identity’, it has become clear that ‘the idea of the moratorium space does not easily mesh with a life that generates its own electronic shadow. Over time, many find a way to ignore or deny the shadow. For teenagers, the need for a moratorium space is so compelling that they will recreate it as fiction. And indeed, leaving an electronic trace can come to seem so natural that the shadow seems to disappear. We want to forget that we have become the instruments of our own surveillance.’

Very interesting.

Certainly I agree that ‘in democracy, …  everyone has something to hide, a zone of private action and reflection, a zone that needs to be protected.’ So how is this privacy ensured?

We are still in a space where employers are lauded for finding their employees out. Recruiters dig up all they can on prospective employees. Naive employees find themselves sacked. But when are we going to draw the line and allow individuals some rights.

A good first step is to make these practices transparent. If used in recruitment, individuals must be told. If used to monitor staff, they should be made aware of this potential and have the freedom to act accordingly.

[CC FlickR image: publik16]

The 2010 question for the Edge World Question Centre is “How is the Internet changing the way YOU think?”

With over 167 responses, it is clearly designed for a long day curled up by a cosy wood fire in the snow bound Northern Hemisphere!
I haven’t had a chance to read them all yet but am inspired to respond and hope you will add your personal response too…

I’m not sure that the way I ‘think’ is as significant as the way I live, respond, learn, engage and create. Kai Krause aptly describes this as a redefining of ‘ how we perceive the world and ourselves in it, new models of how we work and research, entertain ourselves, communicate with our family and friends, how we learn about the past and preserve our memories, what we expect of the future and how we plan for it, what we watch, read, listen to: all greatly influenced by technology in general and the Net in particular.’

I mustn’t be ‘normal’ for one my age in this regard. Quite frankly I am sick and tired of people using their age as an excuse for non-engagement. It’s not about age. Being at the tail end of the ‘boomers’ I spent the first half of my life with pen in hand and nose in a book; all my undergraduate degrees were hand written, so I have as much excuse for non-engagement as anyone (excluding those who are truly disadvantaged through poverty or lack of connectivity).

Of course there’s good and bad, but I couldn’t imagine a life unconnected. The internet overlays my life; work and relaxation.

I engage with the lives, ideas and creativity of people who live in places I’ll never see in real life.

I can independently create content and share it with the world

I can collaborate with wide-spread teams and communities.

I feel closer to people on the other side of the world than I do to the couple in the apartment next door.

I can converse with people with interests as obscure as mine

I can send a few words of kindness across the globe right when they are most needed

I see the images of great photographers the day they are taken, and share my own with like-minded people globally.

I share ideas and work with a global audience.

I am equipped and empowered.

I have knowledge and skills at my finger tips -  to grout a mosaic, play the guitar, heal a wound

I can trade and operate a business without jumping on a plane

I can ask for and receive help and access my support network [almost] anywhere anytime

What frightens me is that after all these years the education system still fails to engage. Still fails to support the development of skills to enable critical, effective, creative users. Of course young people learn from their peers, they are comfortable connecting within walled gardens and private chat. But in my experience very few are equipped to use the internet as a learner and eventually, professional.

In his contribution Howard Rheingold – says

“Those people who do not gain fundamental literacies of attention, crap detection, participation, collaboration, and network awareness are in danger of all the pitfalls critics point out — shallowness, credulity, distraction, alienation, addiction. I worry about the billions of people who are gaining access to the Net without the slightest clue about how to find knowledge and verify it for accuracy, how to advocate and participate rather than passively consume, how to discipline and deploy attention in an always-on milieu, how and why to use those privacy protections that remain available in an increasingly intrusive environment.”

and Evgeny Morozov adds…

“Today we are facing the emergence of the “cyber-lumpenprolitariat”, of people who are being sucked into the digital whirlwind of gossip sites, trashy video games, populist and xenophobic blogs, and endless poking on social networking sites. The intellectual elites, on the other hand, continue thriving in the new digital environment, exploiting superb online tools for scientific research and collaboration, streaming art house films via Netflix, swapping their favorite books via e-readers, reconnecting with musical treasures of the bygone eras via iTunes, and, above all, perusing materials in the giant online libraries like the one that Google could soon unveil. ”

The cause and solution sit squarely on the shoulders of an schooling system that not only ignores the issues, but actively blocks access to the spaces that require explicit engagement and critical discussion. As I have mooted many time, it is a breach of their duty of care.

[CC FlickR image: Lee Carson]

I’ve never been a fan of uniforms; even now I refuse to do ‘suits’ which are of course the ultimate. I can understand their use where a workplace must ensure safety, and the need for some form of identifier where customers need to make contact, and even some form of badge of pride – of belonging. But more often than not they are about submission, loss of personal identity, neutralisation and control.
What struck me on the weekend however is that it’s not ‘uniforms’ that repel me but ‘uniformity’. At school we had uniformity; when I began high school in 1972 our tunics were exactly 4” above the knee and we were told which knickers to wear. Issues surrounding the need for (eg safety) or desire (by the individuals) for a uniform can be overcome where some quirkiness is allowed.
I still reject them personally however and would never put myself in a position where I had to succumb. But I’ll be crying a silent cheer every time I see non-conformity and individuality.

Slideshare has posted their 5 secrets to staying on top of it all in 2010 ;they are all about trust, connections, communication, creativity, relationships and agility. What really struck me when I read the post was the total juxtaposition with the processes and position of most large organisations.

Here they are with my thoughts in italics:

1. Pay Attention to the Metrics
….. When starting up new project agree on what the metrics should be and what goals are appropriate.

Metrics are about customer satisfaction and efficiency, not unconnected tasks. Why aren’t we connecting with our customers and listening to their responses constantly? Fear?  Complacency?  It’d all be easy if it wasn’t for the customers eh….

2. Scale Good Habits
All in all your structure should encourage good habits. Your entire team should be motivated to respond quickly, post consistently and talk like a human.

Responses should be intelligent but agile. They are based on up-to-date knowledge  of options and opinion.

3. Have Rules, But Trust People
As your social media strategy matures, you’ll add in more rules and guidelines. However, you can’t have a rule for every situation. You need to trust your team. Lead by example, don’t manage with rulebook.

Yes.

4. Creativity & Personality Trump Big Budget
Social media is definitely one of those areas in life where more money doesn’t always win. Two of the most powerful ingredients in social media are creativity and personality. … You can’t be afraid to try something new or go against the grain.

Why does quality product still equate to big bucks? Some of the best solutions today are free and lightweight. They are flexible and adaptable and encourage creative use. Trust does not equate to glossy product; it does not even equate to the ability to use academese. It’s about relationships, listening to needs, responsiveness, and flexibility. The creativity and the solutions to issues lie out there in the community. Gone are the days of the expert centred anything.

5. Listen Listen Listen
Don’t focus so much on you and your message. Focus first on your customers. Hear what they are saying, see what they’re up to. Once you’ve been able to connect, and figure them out, then see how you can help.
The number one goal should be to meet the needs of the community yet it’s amazing how often that simply drops off the radar.

To do that you actually have to be in contact;  to meet them in their own context whether that be online or face to face. The more removed you make yourself the more your customers will see their attempts to communicate as a waste of time and energy.

[CC FlickR image: JosephGilbert.org]

The internet spells the death of English

oh truly!! … I can’t believe that argument still exists.

Thankfully Crystal argues against the position….. ‘There are people around who would treat what I said to be the voice of the devil, but one has to remember that spelling was only standardised in the 18th century. In Shakespeare’s time you could spell more or less as you liked.” ”All that will happen is that one set of conventions will replace another set of conventions,” he said.

While knowledge of traditional spelling is necessary to get by, writing is about meaning making – evaluating style and mode according to purpose and audience.

If we are moving away from some of the nonsensical spellings that are a nightmare to learn – GOOD! I spent years trying to assist adults struggling to overcome their lack of self-esteem as learners. Many came in telling me they ‘couldn’t spell’; in fact I could ‘read’ their message very well. There were minor errors but it did not impact on the task at hand. Learning some basic spelling rules helped some, a little but generally we reverted to small pocket sized indexed notebooks that students could use when ‘good’ spelling was ideal.

As for the argument against sms speak – abbreviated spelling is a useful tool in particular media and contexts. It HAS it’s place. You won’t get far in twitter using traditional spelling but good twitterers also make great writers of academic papers.

The best writers have an armoury of styles and can use each one appropriately to suit context, audience and purpose. Stick to one [traditional] style and you’ll not only look a right jerk but you’ll miss a lot of fun. What educators need to do is to embrace all styles in their program and provide opportunity to learn to use ALL well.

Using only formal English is a little like wearing a suit 24/7

[CC FlickR image: Paul Goyette]

Tom Kuntz (Idea of the day NYT blog) refers to an article by Anne Trubek in Miller-McCune magazine that suggests that handwriting is history.

According to Anne, ‘handwriting slowly became a form of self-expression when it ceased to be the primary mode of written communication. When a new writing technology develops, we tend to romanticize the older one. The supplanted technology is vaunted as more authentic because it is no longer ubiquitous or official. Thus for monks, print was capricious and script reliable. So too today: Conventional wisdom holds that computers are devoid of emotion and personality, and handwriting is the province of intimacy, originality and authenticity.’

Whatever we use to write, there will be a shortfall between conception and execution, between the ideas in our heads and the words we produce. We often insert nostalgia into this gap (Kuntz).

As a kid I treasured letters received from my grandmother – there was something magical about her gorgeous old fashioned script and the touch of the paper she had chosen to communicate her messages on.

I love hand writing. I also love to draw. For me there’s real pleasure in putting [a good] pen to [good] paper; a sensual, creative act. We were taught cursive at school but not until quite late and seemed to be given a certain amount of freedom to develop our own style. My friend Penny and I developed our own unique and quite similar style. I swear to this day she is probably the only person in the world who could easily forge my writing!

I remember my son Geordie on the other hand being frustrated in infants school when his thought processes were far in excess of his limited handriting skills. He rapidly became a touch typer – and a wonderful writer. Anne refers to Geordie’s frustration as a desire for ‘cognitive automaticity, the ability to think as fast as possible, freed as much as can be from the strictures of whichever technology we must use to record our thoughts.’ But of course handwriting was usually not just for us, for our records, but to communicate messages to others.

Thank heavens we no longer have to hand write university essays or slog over clunky typewriters. But kids DO still have to hand write in their HSC exams. Why? How fair and reliable is that assessment of a young adults knowledge, where most of those individuals are touch typers and far more adept on a keyboard particularly when there’s a time limit to get a message across? What exactly are they assessing?

So yes,  handwriting for communicating text is becoming obsolete. The mistake is confusing handwriting for message-making communication with handwriting as art form. Beautiful handwriting is an art; the choice of putting a tool (pen or other) onto a surface (paper or other) for expression might vary in media but it will remain.

[CC FlickR image: Tom Bunny]

I have to say that one of the good things that happened work-wise in 2009 was connecting with Mike Bogle. In an environment where few are on the same wave length, Mike’s enthusiasm was a breath of fresh air.

2009 was a hard year for him; I could sense that. His skills and passions were not well used, and he was pushed into roles that almost seemed a punishment for someone passionate about open education and new and emerging technologies. So Mike’s post today is not a surprise. It’s amazing how breaks give us time to stop and reflect.

My response?
People burn out. They burn out when potential and ideas are ignored, when ideals fail to become reality, when you see those you love being affected by it, when what you believe in and your soul are eroded. Sometimes you’ve just got to move on; there’s only so much fighting you can do. Been there, done that. But the risk of doing so is that you lose connection with your community, those that provide affirmation and succor.

Nancy White’s recent discussions around network vs community made me realise that I have indeed lost this myself. I have friends I value who share my interests and views, I operate within groups (I wouldn’t call them teams) and I’m part of a range of dispersed networks. But communities, I think, are about specific shared goals and sense of purpose, striving towards the resolution of an issue or completion of a project. They are also about shared interests and values, values that act as a driving force. Without community it feels a little looking in at a party through a window, you know you’re welcome to attend but you also know that you don’t belong. I’ll follow up a little on this at a later date.

So Mike, take the break you need, follow your heart, try something new but position yourself within a community to rejuvenate and affirm what you are most passionate about. Rekindle the fire.