Was the current system of education designed for a different age?

One of the important questions Sir Ken Robinson answers in this must-watch video on Changing Education Paradigms.

Sir Ken Robinson suggests that children have been 'anaesthetised' to get through schooling, and instead we should be waking them up to discover what is inside of themselves. If this is the case then, the question is: at what stage do children learn what is inside themselves under the current education norms?

He also mentions that we need to go in the exact opposite direction of standardisation - I do agree, however struggle with how this plays out in practice. Is this why more and more people are turning towards homeschooling? Are schools currently stifling the critical - or divergent, as Sir Ken Robinson calls it - thinking abilities of children? It would be great to hear your thoughts.

Quick note: The video constantly refers to education, however I think that Sir Ken Robinson is talking about schooling. For more on the difference between schooling and education, take a look at this previous post. 

How do we achieve poor quality education?

No, the title isn't a typo. I thought I'd take a look at the flip side: rather than trying to propose ways we can achieve good quality education (something which has no doubt been covered better elsewhere), how about how we end up with poor quality education?

Language of Instruction: Learning in a language that isn't your mother-tongue has a hugely negative impact upon learning outcomes. I've highlighted the importance of focusing upon it in earlier posts. Various studies have been done that prove how bilingual or multilingual models can have a positive impact upon students' learning, and how such models can lessen the potential for conflict. Despite all of this, the language of instruction issue has yet to be mainstreamed in educational development. Of course, in countries where there are hundreds of languages (including dialects) it is perhaps not a straightforward area to reform. 

Standardisation: Seems an obvious one, but just because an educational model has worked in one country, it does not necessarily mean it will work elsewhere. A curriculum needs to be relevant to the context in which it is taught. Let us not forget the importance of context to a relevant and quality education.

Teachers: Poor pay. Lack of professional development. Large class sizes. Difficult conditions. Low status in comparison to other professions. Does this combination really sound conducive to a quality education?

Poor management: Even if teachers do remain positive and wish to be agents of change, this can often be thwarted by poor management and leadership. 

There you have it. It's not an exhaustive list, so now it's your turn: can you think of other areas which lead to poor quality, irrelevant education? Do you think there is one particular area which requires our immediate attention? Share your thoughts in the comments box below. 

Charity begins at home

England is being overtaken by other leading nations because progress on literacy has stalled, says chief schools inspector Sir Michael Wilshaw. 

[...] 

The latest Programme for International Student Assessment survey, in 2009, showed the UK had slipped from 17th to 25th place in a global assessment of reading standards measured using a sample of 15-year-olds' test results. 

Read the full news article here.
What do you think?
In light of these findings, is it time developed countries stopped projecting 'best practices' in the education sector? Given our own rates of literacy need improvement, can we really be providing advice for literacy programmes in very different contexts? Can there ever be one perfect model for schooling or literacy? Share your thoughts and experiences in the comments box below.