We must look past divides to meet challenges of the future

I have never ceased to be amazed at the number of people who, having read a proposal, seem to draw the entirely opposite conclusion to the one set out.I am grateful, therefore, to those who have read the skills paper published last week and recognised that the remit, given by Keir Starmer to the group I chaired, was specifically on skills. We widened our approach to take account of the major impact the early years and formal schooling has on the choices young people make, and on their future life chances.

Let me quote directly from the document:

“There should be no conflict between a knowledge-rich curriculum, and a broad and innovative framework which develops the analytical, creative, and therefore entrepreneurial mindset of the employees of the future.”

I see no dichotomy between drawing down on this accumulated knowledge, and developing the oracy, teamwork and critical thinking that modern businesses are crying out for. This works alongside teaching a love of learning for its own sake and personal wellbeing.

This brings me to concerns about references to the school curriculum. We sought to reflect that what children learn, how they learn, and how they apply that learning is not static or caught in a time-warp. The development of the curriculum should embrace as many experts as possible – and this includes teachers – rather than being driven by the whims of any government minister. Reform should recognise overload, as well as investment in professional development.

Take my own experience. I passed O-level physics. I knew nothing about physics, but I had a brilliant memory and the nature of the one-off exam suited me down to the ground. This is simply not the case for many youngsters. The idea that rethinking assessment will somehow disadvantage the already disadvantaged is, to say the least, highly questionable.

Twenty-five years ago I took on those who, having obtained their jobs by achieving qualifications and demonstrating their capabilities, did not see that it was their responsibility to nurture youngsters to get a foothold on the employment ladder.

One example was a school where only 6 per cent of pupils achieved what, in those days, were five A* to C grades at GCSE, but they were extraordinarily good at encouraging singing and marching on the town hall. Of course, developing expression, a love of music, learning where power lies and how to have your voice heard are all important.

But here is an undeniable truth. Unless those young people were able to fully develop their capacity to continue learning, much else of what they absorbed would prove to be elusory.

In The Learning Age, which I published in 1999, I spelled out my vision of what education, in its broadest sense, was all about. I have not resiled from that. But this paper was about learning and skills. The crucial nature of what happens in our school days is a building block and a piece of the jigsaw that I could not ignore in a document that addresses the world of work and progression in work.

If I had not addressed this as a foundation for future learning and skills, I would rightly have been criticised. So let us have a debate about how we transform our education system so that we equip young people to take on the challenges of the world of work, but also to be well-rounded and socially engaged citizens who can thoughtfully debate the great challenges of tomorrow.

Those who believe that we’ve reached the zenith of our body of knowledge, our capacity to be creative and do things in new ways are simply part of the past and will remain there. For the rest of us, the world of tomorrow can be a daunting and a wonderfully creative challenge. The question for all of us is: “Are your eyes turned to the past, or are they lifted to a vision of the future?”