Re-engineering Education: A Framework for Reference
The Hon. Dr. Sippanondha Ketudat, Our Distinguished
Keynote Speaker,
The Honourable Secretary of Education, Dr. Surat Silpa-Anan,
Excellencies, Colleagues and Friends,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is my role this morning to briefly underline the main points so well elucidated by our keynote speaker and put them in a framework that I hope may be a useful reference in the many discussions before us in the week ahead.
The need for and the importance of re-engineering education has been adequately highlighted. In fact it is precisely because of the attractiveness of the topic that we have such a large gathering today. Reflecting on the excellent keynote speech, I would like to make a few points on: (a) why re-engineering is needed as a response to pressures on the system; (b) what the policy implications are; and (c) which critical balances should be maintained in the process.
*PRESSURES ON THE SYSTEM
In many cases, re-engineering is no longer a choice. The dramatic transformation of society requires that the educational system adapt and change, or face obsolescence. Let me single out for aspects of this change, already hinted at or addressed by our keynote speaker, that apply real pressure on the educational system:
• The growth of student populations has required at a minimum a quantum leap in capacity. There were 252 million students in primary schooling worldwide in 1960, there are 492 million today. In recent years the numbers of higher education have grown at an even more rapid rate: Korea, Thailand, and Indonesia among others now have three times the number of tertiary students than they had a mere twenty-five years ago.
• There is a real revolution in informatics and communication technology. Enough has been said about the spectacular breakthroughs in this area and the possibilities, already now being realized, for quicker, cheaper, more efficient, and fundamentally different ways in which information and knowledge can be transmitted. This should have profound effects on the way education and schooling should be re-conceptualized.
• Accompanying this phenomenon is the virtual explosion of available information to the average person. With a keyboard at one's fingertips, it is possible to tap into the great libraries and databases of the world, indeed to establish much more personal contact and collegial network in a way never imagined before. Education must thus redefine itself no longer as seeking additiona knowledge and information, but as learning to sort out, evaluate and choose which sources of information to use and integrate. The learner is no longer in a desert looking for an oasis of information; he or she is in an ocean of information looking how to use it selectively and not drown in it.
• The International Commission on Education in the Twenty-First Century headed by Jacques Delors has pointed out that new lifestyles and work patterns require shifts in the old educational paradigm where formal schooling was a preparation for life. The paradigm was useful in the past, when a life cycle was predictably one of study, then work, and then retirement. But that linear paradigm has given way to several consecutive and even simultaneous professional pursuits in one lifetime, plus the new knowledge often required that was not available in the school years, plus the increasing tendencies to interrupt productive work with either extended leisure or extended study. The educational system must change to one geared towards lifelong learning, offering education for any phase in one's life, more akin to an open supermarket rather than a closed assembly line.
*POLICY IMPLICATIONS FOR RESTRUCTURING
In response to the above-mentioned pressures, policies and structures of the system need to be re-engineered. In particular, three policy implications need to be heeded:
• New lifestyles require new educational structures. This flows directly from the last point in the above section. Formal pre-service education can no longer be assumed to be a complete and adequate preparation for a lifetime of work; facilities and structures must be devised and expanded to take advantage of newer ways of transmitting knowledge, and new sets of consumers of this knowledge, of all ages and at different times, need to be taken account of.
• Government resources will simply not be able to keep up with the cost of quantum leaps in enrollment numbers and fundamental changes in structures. Government, however, has a responsibility to put in place the policies and guidelines that shape an environment where not only private schools but new forms of public-private partnerships can flourish in a manner equitable to all society. Privatization with all its opportunities and pitfalls, is inexorably on the rise, but it is in a more fundamental sense the increasing responsibility of communities and parents in the educational effort will be the determinants of any school re-engineering.
• New structures will demand new partnerships and new networks. Quite apart from the increasing role and communities, parents, and the private sector, an education system re-engineering for the future will have expanded partnerships with industry and agriculture, various government service ministries, international academic linkages, and a host of specialized - often informal - networks. These must be welcomed with an open-minded attitude, but must be handled with management efficiency and clarity to avoid confusion and duplication.
*CRITICAL BALANCES TO BE MAINTAINED
In the course of reform, a multitude of management and policy decisions will inevitably be taken. Just as there is a natural tendency to resist change, there is also a danger to over-reacting and losing what is valid in the old to catch up with the new. Certain critical balances therefore need to be maintained, and I draw out from this morning's deliberations the following four:
• Growth vs. equity. As systems expand, especially as private participation and cost recovery measures are more and more utilized, attention must be given so that expansion does not mean only expansion for those in the mainstream or those who can afford it. Compensatory mechanisms must be created and activated to provide access to all and to avoid the marginalization of sub-groups.
• Internationalism vs. local relevance. As technology allows an avalanche of information to sweep across boundaries, it is important that education systems preparing for the global village do not allow this avalanche to bury the legitimate local learning needs that must be identified and served. A valid programme of study must include both the universal and the local, specific to the communities whose lives are meant to be improved.
• Technological modernity vs. cultural preservation. In a similar vein, this avalanche of information and modernity must not allowed to bury the gems of local tradition and culture that give each nation, each ethnic group, each community the hallmarks of their unique identities. When correctly developed a sense of local community and a sense of global interdependence should bolster each other, not contradict each other.
• Individual development vs. social cohesion. Finally, a reformed educational system that tries to develop self-esteem, creativity, and articulate communication must not do so at the expense of forgetting to foster a sense of community, the common good, and social harmony. The Delors Commission has added to the three traditional elements of "learning to know", "learning to do", and "learning to be" the important element of "learning to live together". This century has been marked by dynamic breakthroughs in science and knowledge, but is also marked by large scale conflicts that remind us how little we have mastered the fourth element.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your attention. I wish your discussions in the week ahead ever success, and I hope that the above key points in each of the three areas of this framework may serve as reference points for you.
