The Occupy movement is most significant not for what the protestors say, but rather that the movement is happening at all. It demonstrates significant unrest, and the greatest dissatisfaction with the capitalist system that we’ve witnessed since the fall of the Soviet Union. But where is it headed? That’s a much more worrisome question.

The fuel that powered the Vietnam war protests was the draft. There were many other issues – objections to the military-industrial complex, objections to American foreign policy, objections to the money misspent on the war, dislike and disagreement with McNamara and Johnson, even objections to war per se – but without the draft, the protests could not have been as sustained or as widespread as they were.

In the same way, the fuel that powers the Occupy movement is jobs – or rather, lack of jobs. In America, and most other developed countries, the official unemployment rate is high, but the true unemployment rate is obscenely so. In the U.S., for instance, the official rate is 9%. But if you include those who have stopped looking for work, and therefore are no longer counted in the official unemployment statistics, then add those who are underemployed, the true rate approaches 20%. And if you look at the rate for young men, particularly among minorities, it approaches 40%. There is immense frustration with the lack of opportunity, and the smug, self-righteous people who look at the protestors and sneer, “Get a job!” only reveal the vast depths of their ignorance.

It’s true there are many issues embraced by the Occupiers, but without the lack of jobs, the movement would never have developed into much of anything. Americans are not generally a jealous people. If people were prospering, the middle class was expanding, and young people were able to find jobs and start their careers, they wouldn’t really have cared what percentage of total wealth is held by the top 1% of income earners. What rankles is that the rich continue to get richer through a perceived manipulation of “the system”, while the vast majority of other people suffer economically. It leads to the belief that the game is fixed in favor of those who can afford to buy the politicians. Whether this is right or not may not matter – it’s the perception that’s important here. And that perception may be explosive.

But where is this movement going? What’s next?

The Future of Work

If the future holds more jobs, and greater prosperity for most workers, then the Occupy movement will collapse from lack of fuel, and be remembered as a strange fad that came and went, like pet rocks or hula hoops. That’s not the case, because the future of work is much bleaker than people, even most top economists realize.

There are two forces that are squeezing workers in all developed countries: foreign competition, and domestic automation. One is going to get much worse, and the other is going to get slightly better.

The one that will get slightly better, at least in manufacturing, is foreign competition. There have been headlines for decades about the offshoring of jobs. There was even a management cliché for it in the 1990s: “Emigrate, automate, or evaporate,” which meant move your factories offshore in order to take advantage of dramatically lower wages in developing countries; decrease the labor content of your products in order to reduce the advantage of cheap labor in developing countries, or go out of business. (As an aside, there’s actually a fourth option: innovate, but that’s another story.)

This happened because of the emergence of the global economy. A global marketplace implies a global labor pool. If workers in developing countries can do similar work, but at much lower wages, then the work will naturally gravitate to them, and away from workers in developed countries. This has been going on since the 1970s, and is a familiar tale. It makes headlines, and becomes the subject of learned papers by economists, and protests by industries and unions that want protection. And the offshoring of jobs will continue until there is a rough parity between those producing things offshore, using cheaper labor, and the cost of producing things at home, using more expensive labor.

One way this could happen is through wages falling in developed countries, and rising in developing countries. But wages tend to be sticky; not many people are willing to take a cut in pay. As a result, what has tended to happen instead is that workers here are let go, and their jobs disappear, even as the wages in places like China and India are, indeed, rising.

The mild good news here is that much of this adjustment has already happened. Indeed, there are a few reports of manufacturers moving production back to America as the cost of labor in China, for instance, has risen, and as governments, particularly in the southern American states, have reduced legal protections for workers, effectively lowering their cost. (Whether you view this as a good thing or not is a separate issue. Indeed, it’s a difficult issue: do we want good worker protection, but no jobs, or bad worker protection and some jobs?)

The other way for workers in developed countries to compete is through higher productivity, and many companies have survived and kept their production in America that way. Yet, even when they succeed, the number of jobs required goes down. Businesses survive, but only by shedding jobs, leaving a trail of unemployment in the wake.

This is the past and present. The future will be different.

Increased productivity comes most notably through increased automation, and we’ve all experienced that, as when we go to the gas pump, swipe our credit card, and pump our own gas, all without an attendant. But automation is about to become supercharged.

The rate of change in computing speed and cost-effectiveness is not only accelerating, but the rate of acceleration is increasing. Some technology forecasters believe that computers will increase in power by 1,000 times over the next 10 years. With this growth in computing power available at steadily cheaper prices, automation is going to accelerate dramatically, eating its way up the workplace food chain. Only this time, it’s not going to be primarily blue-collar jobs that disappear – that’s pretty well already happened – but white-collar jobs that are hard hit. Indeed, anyone who uses a contemporary computer can experience this for themselves.

With the Macintosh laptop that I’m using to write this blog, I could (if I had the talent) write a new piece of music, score it, perform it with dozens of (computerized) instruments, record it and release it for sale. I could take videos with my iPhone, download them to my laptop, edit them, add titles and special effects, add in the music that I had created, and then publish the end result on YouTube. In effect, with these two tools, a laptop computer and a smartphone, I can replace composers, performers, and an entire movie making team – and that’s using today’s technology. Very shortly, I could make an entire movie, using technology to create photo-realistic virtual actors and background scenes, dub the voices myself, then change the sound of my voice using technology, and produce an entire movie without anyone else. True, it would be a terrible movie as I know nothing about directing, editing, or acting, and not much about composing or playing musical instruments – but that’s not the point. The point is that the tools we use are becoming so powerful that high-end jobs that used to require skilled people can now be done by ordinary folk.

Likewise, computers will move into medicine, performing research using Genetic Programming, and assisting doctors to do complex diagnoses using smart computers like IBM’s Watson; performing clerical work in almost every conceivable industry, and displacing millions of white collars workers along the way; drive cars, trucks, and trains unassisted; and almost any other kind of routine work. Indeed, computer intelligences and everyday robots will move towards replacing workers in any and every kind of repetitive work, leaving only creative, innovative, entrepreneurial work – and leaving millions, or even tens of millions of people unemployed.

What Happens When Too Many People Are Unemployed?

If you look at the Arab Spring from earlier this year, it wasn’t so much a yearning for the freedom to read newspapers not approved by dictators, or the desire to vote that was the driving force that caused people to revolt, but unemployment, especially among young men – leading the inability to create a life, to feed your children, or even to be able to afford to get married and start a family – that drove the revolutions, and inspired young men to face bullets and tanks. If you look at the protests in Europe, it’s not just the anger that a lazy, luxurious way of life is being taken away from Greek citizens, but a very real fear that they won’t be able to live that drives citizens to the barricades.

Unemployment, the specter of want, and the inability to make a decent living, to have a decent life, is historically a very potent, very scary force in geopolitics, and it’s with us now. The Occupy movement is not just about fairness, but driven by the fear and anger that there is no opportunity unless you are one of the privileged class that has a job. As the number of jobs lost to automation rises, so too will the number of people who will respond to the goad of fear and anger about their future.

Worse, it’s not just about finding a job – it’s also about keeping one. Jobs appear and disappear faster than at any time in history, and someone who is a valued employee and a rising star one day can be redundant and valueless the next. A person in that position can try to retrain and find new work, but they find themselves among the multitudes of people desperately seeking work. Without the in-demand skill that got them a job in the first place, they are reduced to the same pavement-pounding, resuming-producing, faith-sapping odyssey that afflicts so many out of work people today.

I’ve seen this coming for some time. In 1993, I wrote a book called Facing the Future. In that book I wrote the following passage:

It’s an overall decline in the need for work that concerns me, brought about by the increasing capabilities and sophistication of computers.

I seem to be very much in the minority on this view, and I may be dead wrong. The conventional view is that as jobs disappear from manufacturing and clerical work, for instance, the steadily rising productivity of workers using increasingly sophisticated automation will create a new prosperity that will increase demand and create new jobs. This is certainly reasonable, because it is precisely what has happened throughout history. But where, I wonder, will the new jobs appear? The conventional view is that new services will spring up, and that higher living standards will allow people to spend money on things they could never afford before, and that much of this will be for personal and personalized services.

I can see logic in this. New services do appear. There were no aerobic instructors, for example, in my grandfather’s day. But how much personal service can we use? Moreover, generally speaking, service jobs pay less than manufacturing jobs. As for being able to buy things that we couldn’t afford before, since manufacturing will increasingly be automated the higher demand for manufactured goods won’t necessarily generate more jobs.

This is not a problem that will burst on the scene in the next five to ten years. Humans are still capable of offering a flexibility, initiative, and creativity that machines cannot duplicate. But at some point, whether it’s twenty years away or one hundred, I’m afraid that the time will come when there will be very few jobs that computers can’t do better, faster, cheaper, and more reliably than humans. As that day approaches, we will be confronted with several problems.

In the first place, we will need a new economic system. Much as it grieves me to say so, free market capitalism may be dying, for it only pays those who are part of the production process. If virtually no one is part of this process, all the fruits of production will belong to those who own the machines – a recipe for the peon-and-aristocracy patterns of Third World economies. But where will the machine-owners find their customers? People can’t be consumers unless they have money to spend. …[1]

In the intervening 18 years, I’ve seen nothing to change my mind. We are, indeed, heading towards a world of aristocrats and peons. Indeed, that is precisely what the Occupy forces are demonstrating against, only they use a slightly different terminology: the 1% and the 99%. Same thing.

So where is this leading us? If I’m right, then even if the economy and employment picks up, and mollifies the Occupy protestors and their spiritual kin, the concerns will return again and again as the long-term rates of unemployment, especially among the young, continue to rise. And that way lies revolution.

What Should We Do About This?

If we lived in Naples in 79 A.D., and saw steam pouring out of the top of Mount Vesuvius, we would try to warn the residents to flee. We are in an analogous situation. This volcano won’t erupt in the next month or next year – but as things are trending, we need to take action, and soon, or we risk precisely the kind of revolution we witnessed in the Arab Spring earlier this year.

It’s no good trying to stem the tide of automation. That smacks of the 19^th century luddites smashing mechanized looms that they felt were stealing their jobs. Moreover, it would be like trying to hold back the tide, and about as successful. It is possible that politicians, under voter pressure, will seek to ban automation and the productivity increases that automation produces in order to preserve jobs. (This is also called “featherbedding”.) All that means is that countries that do not ban automation will see their relative productivity increase, their cost structure decrease, so that the jobs will migrate from here to there rather than being lost to automation.

Instead, politicians, economists, and anyone else interested in our future prosperity and stability should be taking a serious look at how to create new, better jobs that people can do best. These will largely be entrepreneurial, I suspect, and will all be creative, and focus on innovation. This also implies a complete revamp of our education system, away from rote learning and memorization, and towards creativity and individually customized education, to enable each person to emphasize the things they are best at.

None of this will happen quickly or easily. It requires a very different view of “job creation” and a very different understanding of the future of work. The “magic of the markets” won’t solve this problem. Capitalism, left to itself, will emphasize greater productivity through automation, leading to greater profits for the owners of the machines – until profits collapse because there aren’t enough consumers to by the goods and services industry produces. Capitalism will lead to a dead end.

This is not the conventional view, and many will decry my message as “socialist”, although I’ve said nothing at all about redistributing wealth. Some will pillory me for being alarmist, but without attempting to refute my reasoning. And some will just hide their heads in the sand and say “it can’t happen here.”

To this last group, I would suggest that they tell that to Moammar Gadhafi and Hosni Mubarak. They were sure it couldn’t happen there, either.

Libraries are cutting edge. Schools are not. Librarians move with the changes in technology. Teachers do not. And we need to ask ourselves why that is, because we spend a lot more on our schools than on our libraries.

Now let me make the obvious amendments: Not every library and librarian rides the cutting edge of technology, and not every school is stuck in the 19^th century. But if you had to make a generalization about each of these two pillars of our culture, that would be the one to make, because it’s largely true. And this is ironic, because these two institutions should, theoretically, complement and support each other as sources of knowledge, understanding, even wisdom in our society.

Why is this so? Why have they moved in such divergent fashions when they have so much in common? Well, first of all, libraries are affected by something very like market forces. In a world where a computer may cost a few hundred dollars, and where I or almost anyone else can perform the research that we need online, without ever venturing into a reference library, and where kids and younger adults live and play in cyberspace as easily as they breathe, then what is the role of a library? When people can buy and download books into an iPad or smartphone, and carry an entire library’s worth of books in a laptop in a backpack or briefcase, what is the role of a library? When cyberspace provides places for people with like interest to congregate, discuss, and network, no matter where they live, what is the role of a library? When you can consult experts, either live or through their video, audio, and published works, from wherever you are, what is the role of a library? When traditional print media are under siege by cybermedia, and you can read any newspaper or magazine from anywhere you want, what is the role of a library?

Nobody forces you to go to a library; you go because you want something and they have it, whether for pleasure or for serious intent. As a result, libraries have to operate at the cutting edge of technology, because otherwise they will loose their relevance, and patrons will stop coming through their doors. And librarians have long since not only realized this, but embraced it, seeing in technology new, and more powerful tools that can help them to help library users.

There is no such force acting on schools. Students are required by law to go to public school (or find an acceptable and sometimes expensive or labour-intensive equivalent), so schools have an effective monopoly – which they abuse by forcing students to endure years of agonizing boredom. It is well-intentioned boredom, and possibly useful-at-times boredom, but boredom notwithstanding.

Next, for the most part, except in major cities, libraries are lightly administrated and not terribly politicized. Most community libraries have a volunteer board that steers and assists them. There is usually a head librarian who acts as an executive, but there are not layers of administration heaped on top of the basic operations. There is no “ministry of libraries”, and about the most political aspect of libraries is their funding, and whether it’s too much or not enough.

Public schools, on the other hand, are top-heavy in administrators. They have principals and vice-principals, each of whom must adhere to ever-thickening books of rules about what they can and cannot do, plus the many things they absolutely must do. Teachers have forms to fill out to convince the education bureaucrats that they are complying with the prescribed teaching plans and teaching the prescribed material. Each district has a board that administers the buildings, the staffs, the budgets, and the pedagogy. And every state or province has a secretariat or ministry, usually a very big one, to make sure that everyone else is doing just the right things at just the right moments. (And an obvious comment: clearly the sheer size of our education system, and the importance of its task require that there be administration; but private schools seem to function perfectly well with a much, much lighter load.) All of this mass of people making sure that other people are doing just the right things, and only just the right things means that change is very difficult. It is a dead weight on the progressiveness of schools.

Next, libraries don’t usually attract a lot of political attention. Those who don’t like them typically just don’t go there. They don’t argue that what’s being done in libraries is undermining our rights or our government, or spreading unhealthy lifestyles or propaganda. Schools, unfortunately, have become highly politicized, and everybody disagrees about what should be done, and how, which tends to exacerbate the paralysis.

And whereas people who don’t like libraries probably never liked them, and probably never went to them, everyone had to go to school. And everyone who went to school as a kid thinks they know what’s going on in our schools, and that it’s really pretty simple stuff that anyone could do, if they weren’t occupied doing more important things. Couple this with the widely held misperception that teachers have a cushy number, knocking off work at 3, taking extended holidays at Christmas and in the Spring, and enjoying Summers off, and it’s clear to anyone that teachers don’t work very much or very hard. Nobody complains about “librarian’s hours,” because people mostly don’t care, even when libraries are publicly funded. Of course, that this perception of teachers and teaching is mostly wrong doesn’t get much attention.

Then there’s the union issue. Librarians in big cities tend to be unionized, but with smaller community centers, this isn’t usually the case. And while there is clearly a valid and legitimate reason for teachers’ unions, they have, in the main, tended to block and fight changes in the way schools operate. They must feel threatened by such changes, although I’m not sure why. But the result is that they act like lead boots, further adding to the difficulties that prevent schools from changing.

The end result of all this is that we have one of the critically important foundations of our society and economy – our school systems – mostly stuck in the 19^th century, whereas our libraries are racing forward into the second decade of the 21^st century, and stretching towards the third.

It’s not good enough, and it needs to change. But who has the courage, the will, and the authority to change it? That may turn out to be the critical question for the 21^st century.

© Copyright, IF Research, September 2011.

The following article was first published in Teach magazine.

A recent government publication highlighted all the marvelous things that individual teachers and school boards were doing with technology in my region. It was both uplifting, and disquieting. It was uplifting because I could see that there were entrepreneurial, creative people working in education to drag the education system into the 21st century. It was disquieting because these innovations were disjointed, unrelated to each other, and were not doing much to change the average outcomes for the vast majority of students. Indeed, the process of highlighting the projects merely underscored what could be done – but what, largely, wasn’t being done.

There has, recently, been a steadily rising chorus of voices, especially outside of the pedagogical community, commenting on how much better we could be doing with today’s education. These range from Sir Ken Robinson, a U.K. consultant, author, and iconoclast, to Why Don’t Students Like School?, a book psychologist Daniel T. Willingham, to a series in The Toronto Star by science journalist Alanna Mitchell that surveys what’s happening in education around the world. My favourite quote from The Star series is from the first article. In it, French neuroscientist Bruno della Chiesa was cited as having asked the French education minister about an international movement to link research into how the brain functions (and therefore, how people, especially children, learn best) with the field of education. The minister’s reply? “The brain? What does the brain have to do with education?”

Our education system, as I’ve said before, is based on the 19th century mass production model. This was natural. Universal education came about because the Industrial Revolution was creating factories that needed workers who were literate. Therefore, business pushed governments into creating and funding universal education to produce such workers, and it was done pretty much in the style of the factories that future workers were being trained to fill: You take 25 students (more or less) and put them in the 1st grade workstation and process them through the 1st grade curriculum. Then you move them through the 2nd grade workstation, process them through the 2nd grade curriculum, and so on. Moreover, you have them sit still and listen for six hours a day, five days a week, 180 days a year. The process is, itself, completely contrary to the natural inclination of children, with the result that we bore them to tears before they get much past grade 2 or 3.

This is changing, but very slowly, and changing primarily in superficial ways. Moreover, we are not, as a rule, using the things we know now about how the mind works, how different people learn with different strategies, how different people need different emotional and psychological needs to support optimal learning, and much more. We are, fundamentally, following an outdated model of the most effective ways to teach children.

Yet, our understanding of humans is growing with remarkable speed. We can look at brains as they function, tell whether someone is engaged or bored, identify strategies that are likely to produce superior results, and even begin to understand the relationships between genetics and environment that shape personalities, intellects, and brain function. But what we know now will pale in comparison to what we know by the time today’s grade 1 students finish their formal schooling. Moreover, not using this research would make about as much sense as medical researchers unlocking the secrets of, say, cancer, but society refusing to make use of such findings. Clearly, we want to take advantage the things we learn about how the human brain functions – and how learners can be helped to learn better, and develop better intellectual gifts.

So my question is: What needs to happen for us to adopt superior methods of education students? And who can help us as we seek to take advantage of our rapidly gathering understanding of brains, and how they learn? The answer, if you think about it, is that there are lots of things that can be done, and lots of people to do them. Let’s start at the top.

• Teachers – Teachers are the front line in education. You are the ones that have to make fine theories work in real world classrooms. Therefore, you must lead this revolution, much as doctors would have to lead a revolution in cancer treatment, not researchers. But to do this well, you need to know about the work that’s being done. Accordingly, we need two things. First, you must seek out such knowledge, particularly case studies of real students in real classrooms, and push to have it presented at conferences and PD days. And second, we, as a society, must make sure you have both the time and the resources to study new developments before asking you to implement it.

• Principals and administrators – You need to be the fomenters of change, pushing ministries and school boards to source and present such information, and making sure teachers have straightforward, effective access to it. You are the facilitators of this process, and, with the teachers, must become the champions of the things that can realistically work in the classroom. This is a tough balancing act between fine theory and real practice, but there’s no one in a better position to do it than you.

• School boards and ministries of education – It’s your job to sift through the research, find the approaches that look most promising, and make it available to schools. This means appointing people to seek out the wide varieties of research that are emerging, consult with researchers to find out which ones have been tried in real world environments, and which show the most promise. Perhaps most important, it’s vitally important that approaches be realistic, and have been tried in ordinary schools, not showcase schools with massive resources. And even new approaches that have worked elsewhere need to be introduced slowly, on a small scale, and proven before they are rolled out, willy-nilly.

• Teachers’ Colleges – The world is changing, and your job is to prepare those who want to be teachers with the latest research, an understanding of what works best in pedagogy, and how to apply it in a real world classroom. What’s even more important, you are going to have to keep changing your curriculum as new research appears. Many teachers’ colleges are doing this now, but it’s crucial that they stay abreast of what’s happening.

• Secretaries and Ministers of Education – Your job is two-fold. First, you need to take the political flak that always accompanies change, to defuse it, and to harness it into constructive dialog so that schools don’t become war zones between opposing views on high-minded pedagogical theories. And second, you need to push the system to change. Every social system resists change; stasis is easier, and people – all people – are inherently lazy. Therefore, for the good of your jurisdiction, and to secure its future, you have to make sure that change happens. Push your bureaucracy. Support their initiatives. And make everyone in the system accountable for converting new ideas into practical classroom realities. Oh, and one more thing; don’t interfere when people are doing their jobs right, no matter how politically attractive it may be to do so.

• Parents – You are not the experts on this, but you represent the users of the education system. It’s up to you to push for better education for your kids, and to work with teachers to make it happen. This means being supportive when new things are tried, but also unwilling to accept 19th century answers in a 21st century world. And here’s a clue: if you’re kids are bored, and hate school, then there’s something radically wrong with their school. Find out what the alternatives are, and start a conversation about how schools can improve.

• Voters – Change takes time, but has to start somewhere. Don’t just block change with knee-jerk reactions of “Schools were tougher in my day.” In our day, we didn’t understand 10% of how the brain works, or how students learn, that we do now. You’re paying a hefty tax bill to educate students. Make sure the education system is giving you value for money.

Our education system needs to be changed, but cautiously, and in the right directions. This is going to take sustained, careful effort, and what some might think is hopeless cooperation between the different participants in the education system. I believe we have no choice; the old models won’t work with today’s hipper, sharper, Internet-saavy kids. If we don’t change the system, today’s students will increasingly tune out the system as irrelevant, and we will lose an enormous opportunity that will benefit all of us.

© Copyright, IF Research, September 2010.

This article was originally published in Teach magazine.

For most of the 18 years I’ve written this column, I’ve focused on how education will change. This time, I’m going to focus on why it must change, and it relates to the purposes of education.

There are two major schools of thought about the purpose of education, and for some strange reason, most people believe they are mutually exclusive. One school believes that education should primarily be devoted to the enlightenment of the individual, to equip them with the mental tools to enable them to appreciate the fine and important things of life, and to enable them to contribute to their society and the world. The other school believes that education should provide the individual with the skills they need to  get a good job and a vocation, so that they can support themselves, contribute to the economy, and enjoy the material things of life. Both are right, and they are actually mutually supportive, not mutually exclusive – but that’s a topic for another day.

For both purposes, education must change. Let’s look first at the enlightenment of the individual. The world around us is being driven largely by commercial interests. This has become such a normal part of our lives that we hardly even notice the daily bombardment of advertising, and the pervasive, subtle pressures to own something, or behave in a particular way. And there is nothing especially wrong with society because these pressures exist – this pressure has largely been responsible for the richness and luxury of our daily lives. Yet, there is more to life than just commercial offerings, and most commercial offerings are shallow, and lack deeper purpose. Moreover, commerce and society generally tends to emphasize novelty, and while, again, there’s nothing wrong with new things per se, there is much more to life than just the novel.

On their own, few people would delve deeper than today’s satisfactions – which is where education enters the picture. Education provides context, history, art, depth of understanding, and perspective that most people would not otherwise be exposed to. This is part of the traditional role of education as it fulfills part of the purpose of culture, which is the transmission of our society’s values.

But the world is changing, and at ever accelerating rates. And the shiny baubles that novelty and commerce provide are increasingly being designed to be “sticky” or addictive. If education is to capture the attention of children, and persuade them of the value of what we know, what we have, where we’ve come from, and who we are, then it must compete with the increasingly effective seductions of commercial offerings. Assuming that just because we can hold students captive for six hours a day, 180 days a year, for 12 years is enough to allow us to brainwash them into appreciating the riches or our society is, in my view, a short-sighted and foolish view. Instead, I believe that education must compete for attention, not just for enforced time, and the only way we can do that is to seduce students into a state of fascination with what the wider world has to offer. As I say when I’m invited to speak to groups of students, we adults have perpetrated a cruel hoax on you: we’ve convinced you that learning is an intolerably boring process that you have no choice but to endure, when the reality is that learning is the most fun you can have with your clothes on.

We need to change that. Today’s students are, in my view, smarter, hipper, more skeptical, and less likely to believe propaganda than any other generation in history. They know that no matter what the school system tells them, the odds of them needing, wanting, or using most of the crap we teach them is vanishingly small once they leave their formal education. And yet, there are things that they will need to know that we’re not teaching them, and there are things they would love to know if we could present them in a way that doesn’t bore than pants off them. And as far as I can see, the only way we can seduce students into loving education is if we approach that education by appealing to those things that the individual students themselves are passionate about. We have to stop teaching the curriculum, and start teaching the individual – each individual, every single individual, and teach them as individuals, with unique interests and abilities. We have to stop teaching Mr. Smith’s grade 11 English class, Ms. Phansalkar’s grade 9 geometry class, or most of the groupings that assume that 25 kids are all the same simply because that makes education simple for us (and excruciatingly boring for them). And I don’t see any way that our current education system can achieve the level of interest or seduction necessary to compete with the enthralling, but shallow, offerings of commerce and society.

Now let me turn to the vocational aspects of education. And if anything, the need for change is even more compelling here.

We are all aware that countries like China and India, plus fast gaining countries like Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, and Malaysia, are providing enormous competition for low-level and low-skilled jobs. What is not as well known is that these same countries are aiming for the best jobs that require the highest levels of education. They will not be satisfied with low-skilled jobs that don’t pay well and offer little opportunity. This means that our students will be competing with the best in the world in almost any field. Worse, they are starting at a big disadvantage: our school days are shorter, our school years are shorter, and our society no longer has the devotion to higher education that parents in developing countries have.

Some commentators and politicians contend that the way to deal with this issue is to lengthen school years and school days, pile on the homework, and really get “back to basics.” I think this is precisely the wrong answer, because it means making our education system even more boring than it already is. Moreover, we are headed into a world where creativity and innovative thinking will be more valuable than rote learning of any depth. Indeed, what’s the point of memorizing facts if you can command them with a wave of your search engine? Understanding and context, on the other hand, are critically important. Accordingly, if our kids are to compete with smart kids from around the world, our children will be better equipped if we focus on helping them identify their peculiar talents and abilities, and then develop them.

But there’s another threat that is, perhaps, even more worrying than rising competition from smart kids abroad, and that is automation. Most people are familiar with Moore’s Law, coined (and repeatedly reframed) by Gordon Moore, one of the founders of Intel. In economic terms, Moore’s Law states that computers will double in speed, and halve in price, every 18 months. Yet, it turns out that Moore’s Law is wrong because it’s too conservative. Moore’s Law posits an exponential growth rate – which means a constant rate of change (i.e., doubling every 18 months). But computers are evolving faster than that, and not only is the rate of change accelerating, but the rate of acceleration is increasing. As a result, a rough estimate indicates that computers will become about 1,000 times faster and more cost-effective over the next 10 years. And, as we develop new, more effective tools and techniques to harness this power, it means that automation will become dramatically more powerful in the next decade.

Automation has been increasing in power for millennia, since the invention of fire and the wheel. It really started to accelerate with the advent of the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century. Now it is moving at a rate that may be beyond our comprehension.

In the past, automation has led to a steadily rising standard of living, as well as new, better paying jobs that offer more opportunity. And so it still does. However, the major difference now is that automation is changing things so fast that the skills we develop at the beginning of our careers may not be enough to allow us to make a living for more than a few years – and eventually a few months – before they become obsolete. We are being thrown out of work at ever-faster rates, and if we are to hope to continue to work, we will need to constantly upgrade our abilities.

To some extent, the effects of both of these developments – foreign competition and domestic automation – are already evident. Whereas when I and my peers left our formal educations, we had a choice of jobs available to us, today students finish a university education, and spend years looking for anything more than menial labour. Worse, the next 10 years are going to make this seem like a happy outcome. Within the next 10 years, we will face an employment crisis that will shake the foundations of our society, our political system, and our economy. And the only answer is education, and education for adults as well as young people.

But it can’t be the same old education. It has to be education that emphasizes our human talents and abilities, our creativity and our ability to improvise and innovate. Skills training in most fields, with a few exceptions, will become obsolete at faster and faster rates. We will, instead, need to fall back on those things that are uniquely human, like art, teamwork, leadership, empathy, understanding, creativity, ingenuity, and all of the deeper aspects of human life and society. Computers, robots, and cheaper competition from abroad will take everything else.

And for those who say that the way to combat these things is by protecting domestic jobs, and halting the use of automation, let me say that like King Canute, you might as well try to stop the tide from coming in. Such efforts are not only doomed to fail, they will also make it even harder for us to succeed by diverting our attention and efforts away from the real task for tomorrow’s education: helping us to blossom into self-actualization, to become the best people we can be.

Do we have the wit to see the problems that are racing towards us? And do we have the will do to something about them? Those are the questions that will determine why we need to change education.

© Copyright, IF Research, September 2010.

‘America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.’
– Abraham Lincoln

Unless America and Americans force a drastic change in the country’s direction, the American dream is dead, and America’s place as the leader of the world is over. I find this intensely distressing and worrisome, and have hopes that the situation may yet be retrieved, but the time available is short. Americans have repeatedly overcome fearsome odds throughout their history to survive and thrive, but if there were ever a time when they needed true grit, self-sacrifice, and a willingness to cooperate with other Americans of different backgrounds, politics, and beliefs, it is now.

To put it bluntly, America is hurtling towards bankruptcy. This is not due only to the Obama administration, or the administration of George W. Bush, but to American presidents dating all the way back to FDR, and the Congresses that accompanied them. There are two major reasons for this coming disaster, one short-term, and the other longer-term.

A massive deficit at the worst possible time in history

The short-term cause is the massive federal deficit. George W. Bush inherited the biggest budget surplus in history and turned it into the biggest deficit in history, and at exactly the worst possible time because of the aging of the oversized population of baby boomers. The boomers selfishly expect their governments to give them more than they have contributed, and get downright nasty when told they can’t have what they want. Bush also inherited a trend towards greater deregulation from Bill Clinton, and accelerated that trend, believing, wrongly, that the financial industry, among others, could be trusted to regulate itself. This is like expecting a greedy kid to regulate himself in a candy store. The events of 2007 & 2008 proved this policy to be both stupid and irresponsible. The resulting financial catastrophe could have led to a complete collapse of the global financial system, and only the massive intervention by virtually all central banks, coupled with unprecedented fiscal stimulus, prevented a complete collapse that would have resulted in a new, world-wide, Great Depression.

The Obama administration inherited this unholy mess, and is not responsible for it, but has not dealt with it well either, leaving too much of a leadership role to a Democratic Congress that too often substituted ideology and partisan politics for sound economics. Obama hasn’t been helped by the Republicans in Congress either, who seem to think that the president is their enemy, and anything they can do to harm him is good, regardless of the consequences for the country.

Yet, my point here is not just the deficits themselves; they are unfortunate but necessary in the short term to stave off a much worse economic crisis. My concern is that the stimulus spending has been directed more towards lobbyist-inspired pork than creating a solid underpinning for recovery. This is a self-indulgent luxury America can no longer afford. It is, alas, far too early to restrain spending, no matter what Tea Party enthusiasts may say. There will come a time for this, but it is not yet.

The scale of borrowing threatens both American and global stability

However they occurred, these deficits will require massive borrowing by the federal government: the Obama administration estimates the U.S. government will need to borrow $10 trillion over the next 10 years. Most commentators say that assumes higher levels of economic growth than are likely, and higher tax increases and deeper spending cuts than Congress will accept, and so are unrealistically low. I’ve seen estimates that place the borrowing requirements (which are remarkably difficult to pin down) as high as $9 trillion over the next 5 years. For the moment, let’s assume that the administration’s figure is correct, and place it in perspective.

China is America’s biggest external lender, and holds almost $2 trillion in foreign reserves. Let’s assume, for the sake of simplicity, that all of China’s holdings are in U.S. dollars, and all of those are in U.S. treasury bonds and bills. This isn’t true, but let’s make that assumption anyway. China has already expressed concern over the amount that America has borrowed, and is borrowing, and is diversifying away from U.S. securities; so how willing will they be to buy that much and more in U.S. debt over the next decade? And who else in the world will have enough in investable funds to buy U.S. debt? Financing of this magnitude has never been done before, and there may simply not be enough investment money to do it. And even if there is, there’s very little certainty that lenders will continue to funnel money to an increasingly debt-heavy American government. The federal government already has proportionately more debt than at any time in its history outside of times of war, and Moody’s rating agency has publicly expressed its belief that America in danger of losing it’s AAA credit rating. (This, on its own, may have severe consequences, which I’ll come back to in a later blog.)

If America cannot borrow the money it needs, then it becomes insolvent. The checks it writes will bounce, which could lead to a financial panic even greater than that of 2008, and one that no central bank or group of central banks will be able to stem, leading to an economic nuclear winter. (I’ve dealt with this prospect in an earlier blog, “WILD CARD WARNING”, published June 3rd, 2009.)

The rapidly approaching Social Security disaster

But the longer-term reason is even more dangerous. Both the U.S. Federal Reserve, America’s central banker, and the Government Accounting Office (GAO), America’s financial watchdog, have publicly stated that the unfunded liabilities of the U.S. government for Social Security and all forms of medical insurance, including Medicare, Medicaid, and Veteran’s Administration coverage, amount to approximately $100 trillion and are unsupportable. To see this, America’s total economic output (GDP) is about $14 trillion per year, so this $100 trillion figure amounts to roughly 7 times the nation’s entire annual income – a horrendous and unmanageable amount. Yet, when George W. Bush attempted a modest (if somewhat misguided) reform of Social Security, all he got was nasty complaints from selfish boomers, violent rhetoric from Congress, and reams of bad press. And these ticking time bombs have much shorter fuses than most people realize.

If you look at the Social Security Online Actuarial Publications website, you will see an extraordinary statement in the second paragraph:

“The financial condition of the Social Security and Medicare programs remains challenging. Projected long run program costs are not sustainable under current program parameters. Social Security’s annual surpluses of tax income over expenditures are expected to fall sharply this year and to stay about constant in 2010 because of the economic recession, and to rise only briefly before declining and turning to cash flow deficits beginning in 2016 that grow as the baby boom generation retires. The deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets until reserves are exhausted in 2037, at which point tax income would be sufficient to pay about three fourths of scheduled benefits through 2083.”

As bad as this sounds, it’s actually much worse. The ‘trust fund assets’ that the Social Security Administration is talking about redeeming are bonds and T-bills issued by the federal government. When 2016 rolls around, and Social Security starts ‘redeeming’ these ‘trust funds,’ it will be making demands on the government of the United States. In turn, the federal government can only redeem these securities in one of three ways:

• Raising taxes,


• Cutting spending, or


• Borrowing even more in the public markets.

Given the federal government’s current perilous financial position, any of these three choices will be painful at best, and potentially disastrous at worst.

As an aside, we could, and should, ask the obvious question: What happened to all the surpluses in the Social Security system in the decades that led to the build up of the so-called ‘trust assets’? Answer: Congress spent them and handed the Social Security Administration IOUs in return.

And Medicare is even worse

In the same paragraph, the Social Security Administration goes on to comment on the status of Medicare:

“Medicare’s financial status is much worse. As was true in 2008, Medicare’s Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund is expected to pay out more in hospital benefits and other expenditures this year than it receives in taxes and other dedicated revenues. The difference will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets. Growing annual deficits are projected to exhaust HI reserves in 2017, after which the percentage of scheduled benefits payable from tax income would decline from 81 percent in 2017 to about 50 percent in 2035 and 30 percent in 2080. In addition, the Medicare Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund that pays for physician services and the prescription drug benefit will continue to require general revenue financing and charges on beneficiaries that grow substantially faster than the economy and beneficiary incomes over time.”

Translating this into English, Medicare is bankrupt, but keeps operating by soaking up current tax revenues to fund it, increasing the effective size of the deficit that needs to be financed. It also means that the benefits people are expecting will have to be cut drastically – undoubtedly accompanied by much squawking, finger-pointing, and political posturing as president and Congress-critters all try to deflect the huge amount of blame.

Ironically, the new health care bill just signed into law may actually ease the situation slightly, because now government-funded insurance will fund the young and healthy as well as the old, poor, and sickly. That’s how insurance is intended to operate: by spreading the risks. But this change will be well short of what is necessary to avert disaster, and was so botched in the compromises necessary to get it passed that the benefits will be far less than they should be.

Now let’s be clear: the problems with Social Security and Medicare are not the failure of the Obama administration, nor of the Bush administration before it, but of all administrations and Congresses since the 1960s, and even before that. It was always politically easier to ignore the growing problems, and leave them to the next generation of politicians. Now the problems are arriving, and there will be hell to pay. To my mind, the last politician that had the courage to attempt to deal with these issues was New York’s Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who raised the age when boomers could collect Social Security. He is, unfortunately, now dead, and no one else has had the guts to step forward and tackle these problems.

Are these problems too big to solve?

So are these problems solvable? Maybe, but only with immediate, Herculean efforts, unprecedented cooperation between Republicans and Democrats, and a willingness to sacrifice and accept less by the American people. I would think this makes solutions unlikely.

Indeed, I would say that America’s financial problems can only be solved if it solves two other, unrelated problems, one political, and the other societal.

Republicans and Democrats conspire together against democracy

The first problem is the polarization of the American political system because of gerrymandering. (See related blog post.) Gerrymandering is a term we all learned in high school social studies, but which most of us have forgotten. But Congress has not forgotten it. Gerrymandering is the re-drawing of the boundaries of electoral districts to create as many safe seats as possible – that is, where the same party will almost invariably be elected. Republicans and Democrats have connived together to do just this, and the Supreme Court has given them a limited seal of approval. The result is that in normal times, the vast majority of incumbent members of the House of Representatives cannot be defeated in a general election. The Economist newsmagazine once commented that America’s record of re-electing incumbents to the House would do credit to the dictatorship of North Korea.

This means that a Republican in a safe seat cannot be defeated by a Democrat, so his political spectrum goes from the center to the extreme right wing. And a Democrat in a safe seat cannot be defeated by a Republican, so her political spectrum goes from the center to the extreme left wing. This has two unsavory results: First, it means that the majority of voters in the center are not represented at all. And second, it pushes the two parties further and further apart, so that they cannot agree on anything, and gridlock results. That’s where we are today.

What is necessary is for the drawing of electoral district boundaries to be taken away from politicians eager to protect their own seats, and given to non-partisan committees that draw boundaries based on geography and similar needs rather than voting patterns. This has been done successfully in a number of jurisdictions, such as Washington state, and defeated by political machines elsewhere, as in California. But without this kind of non-partisan protection of the American people, the country as a whole is being stage-managed for the benefit and security of the politicians and the political party machines, and not in the best interests of the country. If the Tea Party movement wants a real and important target, this should be it.

The dumbing of America

The second fundamental issue is America’s education system, which has many problems. These include those teachers’ unions that block progress to protect their prerogatives and power (but not necessarily the interests of their members); helicopter parents that verbally and even physically assault and intimidate teachers; students who are more dedicated to fun than learning; violence and drugs, which turn schools into armed camps, forcing students to worry more about their own safety than what they learn; and a culture that now glorifies winning at any cost, including cheating, and elevates sports and entertainment success over academics. Most school systems are such a mess that it’s hard to know where to start to improve them, but the result is that America is producing generations of citizens who neither know nor care about their own history; who believe that America will always be right, and will always be #1 without thought, effort, or sacrifice; and who are uninterested in the common welfare of anyone other than themselves, and have no concept of civic duty. Unfortunately, the odds of a widespread improvement in American education are, if anything, even less likely than a balanced budget, and even if such a miracle were to occur, it would take years to change America’s direction. Yet, even so, if America wants to continue to prosper, it must both improve its education systems, and its citizens must rediscover their dedication to education excellence. Without this, in the long run, nothing else will matter.

Does America still have what it takes?

The financial problems America faces are severe, potentially the worst in its history. To solve them will require higher taxes and cuts to the military to be sponsored by Republicans, and spending cuts and reductions in entitlements to be sponsored by Democrats. It will take the postponement of eligibility for Social Security and Medicare benefits for boomers as well as a reduction in benefits provided, plus the end of ‘gimme-gimme’ pork-barrel politics. It calls, in short, for sacrifice. The alternative is disaster, and the end of America.

America’s problems threaten the stability of the world’s financial system, and the global economy. They also threaten America’s leadership of the world, which has, in the main, been remarkable for its enlightenment and goodness. There are other countries waiting in the wings, notably America’s chief banker, China, who are eager to replace America as the dominant force in the world. If Americans do not immediately begin to grapple with its problems, then both the idea that is America, and the country that is the fact of America will crash with such force and violence that it may lead to the end of America as a coherent society, as well as precipitating a second global depression. The stakes are high. The time is short. And the critical question is: Does America still have the will to be the best?

© Copyright, Richard Worzel, March 2010.

But there are two major drawbacks of in-person lecturing: it imposes a de facto geographic monopoly on education, and a one-size-fits-all mentality on teachers and students alike. Let’s look at the geographic monopoly first, and then segue into differentiated instruction for each student.

If Socrates were available to lecture (or dialog) on philosophy at a public school, but not in your area, you might have to settle for Joe Schmoe just because he happened to teach at your school. Indeed, with a few exceptions, virtually all teaching and lecturing is determined by a geographic monopoly: you’re stuck with the teachers who happen to be available. Until very recently, there have only been two ways to change that: lure the best teacher to your area, or go elsewhere to be with the teacher you want.

Having students taught by whoever is available locally may be a good thing, or it may be a bad thing, but mostly it’s a mixture. Like many people, I had a few dud teachers, a large number of good teachers, a goodly number of excellent teachers, and one life-changing teacher in my public school education. But does it have to be that way any more? Do students need to settle for the teachers available in their local schools?

15th Century technology

Of course, teachers don’t do teach based only on their own knowledge any more: they use teaching materials to supplement their talents. The classic example is the textbook, which is written by experts, and contains examples, problems, exercises, illustrations, and charts that would be well beyond most teachers’ abilities to prepare on behalf of their students in the prep time available. In this way, we are already using technology (albeit based on movable type, a 15th century technology) to buttress the capabilities of local teachers. And this has worked extremely well: the education delivered by teachers today averages out to be the best in history. I say that it “averages out” as the best in history because there have been select individuals, such as the children of royalty or the aristocracy, who have been tutored intensively by brilliant teachers that may have obtained better results. Today’s result is different: we deliver consistently high quality education to virtually everybody. It’s just that not everybody profits from it fully or equally.

But this brings me to my central point: Why should we stop with the technology of the 15th century to supplement and support the abilities of teachers? And why shouldn’t every student have available the intensive, one-on-one experience with the best possible teachers to enable their learning? We now have the ability to do just that, and the cost is declining to the point where it is competitive with traditional lecturing.

In an earlier column I wrote that the best way to teach a given subject to a specific student depended on who was doing the teaching, who was doing the learning, and the material being taught. Let’s work with that concept and do what Einstein called a gedanken (thought) experiment about what we could do if we so chose.

A thought experiment in education

We know that every individual represents a unique mix of emotional and intellectual intelligence. As well, different people learn best with different learning strategies, notably visual, auditory, or kinesthetic. In our experiment, therefore, let’s assume we can customize an approach for every student that optimizes their ability to understand and absorb a given subject matter. I’m a visual learner, for example, and have to see something before I can really absorb it. Listening doesn’t work anywhere near as well for me, which explains why I always took copious notes in any class I attended: it allowed me to see what the lecturer was saying. And I enjoy a high level of abstraction that starts with the familiar and concrete, but then draws inferences that takes me beyond the everyday into wider generalizations and hypotheses. There’s something about glimpsing distant vistas of knowledge that grabs and motivates me (which also explains why the work I do as a futurist so fascinates me). So, if I were the student, we would clearly focus on visual instruction, and lead the subject matter into abstraction, generalization, and inference.

Next, we also know, whether we acknowledge it or not, that different teachers reach different students with greater or lesser success. My daughter, for example, is a real down-to-earth person, very different from me (which made it very difficult for me to help her with her homework). She had a teacher in primary school who was known as an excellent teacher, but, like me, loved intellectual abstractions. My daughter and her teacher also had very different emotional strategies for socialization as she tends towards the intimate and personal, and he prefers to be aloof and detached. The result was that the two of them struggled to communicate, and at times had difficulty even being polite to each other. Each one felt the other was being deliberately obtuse or obstructive whereas it was clearly a case of the wrong teacher with the wrong student.

Great teachers usually find a way to reach even those students that are very different from them, yet even great teachers occasionally get students they can’t reach. Accordingly, we would want to match the student with the teacher, so that social styles, learning strategies, and the other intangible things that happen in the head and heart match up, making it easier for teachers to teach, and students to learn. Imagine, for example, having a classroom of students who just got it when you were teaching, or imagine having only teachers that really spoke to you in all of your studies. That’s the experience we would aim for with all students and all teachers in our thought experiment.

Teaching strategies should change according to the material

Next, teaching strategies should change according to the material being taught. To a certain extent, we already do this. We use photographs, illustrations, charts, aural demonstrations (e.g., singing & language pronunciation), class trips, hands-on experiments, physical examples, recordings, videos, and so forth, to convey different ideas and subjects. Some things, like woodworking, dance, drama, or tennis, can best be learned kinesthetically, by actually doing them, and that’s how we teach them. So using different teaching methods and media are the areas where we have ventured farthest in today’s education – but we can now go much farther. Today’s electronic media can offer means of conveying knowledge and, more importantly, understanding far more broadly and more potently than printed texts or class trips ever could. They are capable of being dynamic, immersive, multi-sensory, and hyper-extensible. All you need do is look dispassionately at what’s happening in computer and online gaming to see the potential for Game Based Learning in education. You don’t have to like or approve of Grand Theft Auto to see the potential for this medium.

Which brings me to actualization: How could we change what we do have into what we could have? That’s where I’ll start next time.