School Education - underneath the iceberg

We talk about several problems to be solved in school education space. Let me list a few issues which are usually discussed by stakeholders, in popular articles in the media and different platforms.

1- Inculcating curiosity amongst students.

2- Connecting textual learning to real-life problems.

3- Burden free education - making learning fun

4- All round personality development of children.

5- Preparing leaders of tomorrow

While these problems provide a feel-good factor, these are just the tip of the iceberg. I shall prove this assertion in this article through a build-up of arguments from the world of business, spirituality, sports and many more. Bruce Piasecki notes, in this book "World Inc", that great organizations do not learn from their sector alone, but they learn from everywhere. So let us see what our counter-parts (problem solvers) are doing in other sectors.

I had a fantastic discussion with film-maker Trivikram Gajulapalli (Karam Dosa film) yesterday, touching upon "good vs bad", so I have some questions to pose here. Are "bad" guys way stronger than the "good" guys? Do "bad" guys collaborate a lot more easily? Are "good" guys separated by egos? Are "bad" guys united by their "mission"? Do we then learn from the mythological tales and understand how to make "Truth" win? Do we have a "good" win? Do we become more competitive? Can we really cross our comfort zone and do whatever it takes to make "good" win? Are do we just talk about it, while "bad" guys laugh at our efforts? Don't "bad" guys enjoy "armchair thinkers"?

In the context of school education space, are coaching centers the "bad" guys? Are they "killing" education? Would you consider something to be education if it doesn't impart all-round education? But would it be all-round education if you do not include Maths and Science? So is the war between schools and coaching centers about "good" vs "bad" or is it "Maths+Science" vs "others"? Do we have a problem with "coaching" or lack of wholism? Do we have a problem with someone making money or with "greed"? If you condemn everyone who is making money, then won't you be repeling the "good" guys from entering?

When we talk of being competitive, isn't conceptual clarity a part of it? Shall we understand the problems deeper, as "deeply" as the "bad" guys, if not more? Shall we then distinguish between "commercial/making money" and "greed"? Why is profit considered a "bad" word? Wouldn't "bad" guys relish the prospect of "profit" being a "bad" word, since their tribe can keep recruiting while the opposite tribe suffers "discrimination"? Why should a "good" guy have to answer so many questions while making money or getting publicity for the work, while a "bad" guy can stack up resources and get visibility to spread wings? Does change start with changing mindsets, so we provide emotional support to "good" guys, to start with? Shall we start empathizing with the "good" guys? Shall we focus on the "good" guys or shall we give 5mins more minutes of fame to the "bad" guys?

There are several myths to be busted in the education system. We confuse "application" (somebody else's idea) with "synthesis" (something new). We confuse "understanding" (somebody else's idea) with knowledge creation (own construction). Would our journey be okay if the destination itself is placed in the wrong direction? Should we be wary of the quasi-goals or doppelganger goals? "Application" looks so similar to synthesis! Shouldn't we get our basic terms right, while solving the problems? Is it just a word or is it a concept? Does it fundamentally change the way we look at things? Champions get their goal-post right, many people lose track due to lack of clarity. Pareto's law works here (80-20 rule)- 20% of your work will have 80% importance. Designing your goal is 20% of your work but has 80% importance - the heart of the problem-solving process- sharpen the axe before you chop! So language provides the conceptual apparatus and it starts from there!

Secondly, we look at exams like villains, I wrote an article called exonerating exams for those who would like to delve deep. Why blame the poor exam which is just reflecting the child's understanding? We ask ourselves not to judge a child who gets 60% marks but let us think deeply. What does 60% mean? Do exams ask tricky questions or do they have direct questions? If a child cannot answer direct questions, does it imply a lack of understanding? Should we then use the exam as a tool for diagnosis and then work on remediation? Do we ostracize the child or ignore the marks? Either way, it is an extreme position. The problem is not with the exam but with the way we interpret the scores. This is the age of data science, but we seem to struggle with the mindset to look at exams and scores. Tests can be "good" and extreme positions do not help- let us use energies to define and create "good" tests.

We talk of inculcating curiosity amongst students. But kids are already born with curiosity and it is killed systematically. Don't believe me? Walk into any school of your choice and interact with kids from grades 3-10, one by one and see the difference in questioning patterns. Third graders won't let you speak, while tenth graders won't speak! Why is this happening and how do we preserve it? Well, before that it is important to realize how much we underestimate the child. Kids have amazing lateral thinking, they make connections we do not see. I was explaining Coronavirus case to kids and about India having enough food in FCI godowns and a kid says "problem is not with the supply, it is with the pipe". He has a beautiful and fundamental articulation of the problem.

Now, why do we underestimate the child? Well, please control your ego while you read this. I will try to be as nice as I can, but I wish to tell the truth. We are flawed, we are dumb in a way. The systems around us have forced us to crush our independent thinking. We have lost many of the gifts we already had in our childhood. We do not like seeing someone do something better than us, in most situations. Do we have this innate jealousy? Anyone who claims not to be jealous is just taking the moral high ground. We can solve problems when we come out of denial. Do we really see the genius in a child or we see him or her as an imperfect being whom we are going to carve? Now is this happening at the level of your brain or your heart? Does your heart see the child as a genius? Let us come out of denial, can we train our instincts to see the genius?

The moment we can start seeing genius in the child, we will be able to relate to thought leaders across domains. Can we relate to Raghuram Rajan as much as we relate to Abdul Kalam? Most of the school education space people do not read enough economics or technology content. How are we preparing leaders of tomorrow if we ourselves don't relate these worldview evolving perspectives? Why are kids able to understand Raghuram Rajan when adults can't? You can view my sessions where I get kids to understand economics. Is it time to challenge our ego and start experiencing real learning?

I think the problem is very few of us have experienced "learning like a child". Now, are you saying "I am already doing it". This is the single biggest enemy of evolution in school education space. Denying change or scope for improvement by saying "I am already doing it". Have you experienced "d2(X)/dt(2) like a child? Have you experienced Samuelson Balasa theory like a child? Have you looked up ideas of Literary Criticism or Philosophy of Language? Have you studied Film Theory? There is so much depth in all disciplines, but do we go deep? When we have not experienced real-learning, we carry misconceptions about learning. We are trying to repair different parts of a worn-out car, but it is probably time to rebuild the car. The world's best education system is probably 2000 years old, let it be Socrates or the great Indian Philosophers- dialogue and discussion-based education, look at Mahabharata narration and the depth. Devdutt Patnaik says that what you see on television is TRP wala Ramayana, not the original, the original Purana are designed to make you think, not to entertain you. Kids love the original stories, I read Ramayana several times as a kid.

So now, what is the action plan? So we said that we need to experience real learning or learning like a child and thus free ourselves from ignorance and misconceptions around learning. This is probably a lifelong process, but how do we start? Well, can we start listening to thought leaders? In Devdutt Patnaik's language, do you listen to people who try to impress you (telling you something which you believe in) or those who make you think (make you challenge your observations)? I like reading or listening to stuff that breaks my myths, that to me is bliss. Can you experience this bliss and then be able to transfer it to your students?

I will conclude with four quotations and let's see how you connect them

"We do not learn from experience, we learn by reflecting on experience" - John Dewey

"People who have studied far enough to understand a little of how this world works realize that "as the truth is revealed it is fascinating, this fascination drives us to such an extent that we have been able to convince Darwins and so on to keep supporting us in this investigation which a race is conducting into its own surroundings" - Richard Feynman

"Without Philosophy, thoughts are as it were - cloudy and indistinct. The job of philosophy is to make them clear and give sharp boundaries" - Wittgenstein w

"Management by objectives works only when you know the objectives. 90% of the times you don't"- Peter Drucker