OEB 2015 - Plenary Debate

(0:56 people's noises)

(check who) 1.17 We've got one hour
and a quarter.

(confused voices then 1:31) How do we know
when these things are going to be turned on?

(confused voices, then1:58) What? OK?
Right.

(Chairperson 2:03) Ladies and Genltemen,
can I ask everyone

to take their seats, please?

We're about to begin,
so if you're visiting the bar,

can you charge your glasses and return
to your seats, and then we'll begin.

We've got an hour and a quarter
for this debate.

OK, can I -- Welcome everybody to
the Online Educa OEB debate.

I'm not sure what number this is
in the series of debates that we've had,

I think it may be getting up to our 10th.

What I can tell you is that in the time
that we've been having these debates

and that I've been chairing them,
my eyesight has now gone so bad

that I can't possibly read any notes
that I have without using glasses, so

I think we must be on at least our 10th.

What I can also tell you is that
Online Educa itself, OEB,

this year is celebrating
its 21st anniversary.

So I think that perhaps deserves
a round of applause.

So happy birthday to Online Educa --
(Applause) -- this fantastic conference.

And 21 years ago was a very difficult --
very different world indeed,

when one thinks about the scale and scope
of change that there --

that has taken place in the last 21 years.

One statistic I was reading recently was
that in the UK, in 1994, 21 years ago,

there were only 67 mobile phones
per 1000 people.

But only ten years later, in 2004,

there were more mobiles in the UK
than people.

And that pattern of spread
of mobile communications alone

has spread across the world and
in Africa, for instance,

those of you who have been to
Elearning Africa will have learned about

the spread of mobile communications
across the African continent.

So in terms of the scale
of technological change,

and the spread of that change
across the world,

the change in that short period of time,
in these past 21 years alone,

has been enormous, and we heard about

the scale of it in the opening
plenary session this morning.

We live in a world that is globalized,
interconnected, hyperlinked

and that scale of change we're
experiencing, have experienced

in the last 21 years, is going to
gather pace and continue.

And all that is going to create a huge
challenge for education and training,

which is going to be at the heart

of dealing with both the positive and
negative aspects of that change.

And that's why the motion that we're
dealing with today, in this debate,

is so important, and why the whole subject
of giving young people the skills

that they need to cope with
the challenges of this new world

that we all are going to --
that we are creating, is so important.

We've got four speakers,
four panel speakers

to open the debate this evening

and I'm going to ask each of them
to speak for 10 minutes,

and then I'm going to --

-- two of them will speak for the motion,
obviously,and two against --

then I will throw open the debate
to all of you,

but if you want to intervene
whilst they are speaking, because

we're having a parliamentary-style
debate,

then you can try to intervene on them

and if they want to take
your intervention,

then they can do so, but it will be
entirely up to you.

And if they don't, then you can draw
whatever conclusions you want from that.

But I want to ensure that
we keep the flow going,

so I'm not going to let you bully them
but I'm going to allow you,

if you want to make a particular point,

or if you want to make
a short intervention, to do so.

Then after they've spoken, we'll
throw open the debate to the floor

and you can make your contribution,

but do please realize that time
is of the essence,

so please try to keep it short and
to the point, succinct.

This is the kind of debate equivalent
of texting.

So, no long rambling contributions,
because I will cut you off

if you try to do that.

So, very short contributions, please.

And then I'll ask each of our --
I'll ask one speaker from each side

to sum up, and then we will take a vote,
and we'll do that by a show of hands.

And I've also made it clear
to all the speakers that they may

say things that they don't necessarily
want to be held to in the future,

so I hope that you will understand that.

But this is an opportunity for us
to explore some of the issues,

but don't take it all too seriously,

and don't come and accuse people of saying
things that you would --

that they might not necessarily always
want to be held to.

With that in mind, I'm going to ask
our first speaker, who is Jo Swinson.

Jo Swinson, who is the former Minister
for business, innovation and skills

in the UK's coalition government of
2010 to 2015,

to speak first for the motion.

And Jo, since leaving Parliament,
has begun a new career

and is involved in an award within
a data intelligence company

called Clear Returns

and she is an expert on the challenges
and opportunities of the digital age.

So, over to you, Jo.

(Jo Swinson) Thank you very much indeed,
Harold.

And I'm absolutely delighted to be here
in Berlin at OEB.

A bit of a first, actually, the first
technology-related conference

that I've been to where there is a queue
in the ladies' loos!

I have to say I was particularly pleased
by that, not only as a feminist,

but also as a Brit who appreciates
the art of queuing.

So it was good on two fronts.

So, this house believes that
21st century skills aren't being taught,

and they should be, is the motion
that I want to convince you

to support this evening.

We absolutely need to be equipping
our young people,

and indeed, people at every stage
of their lives,

with the skills that they need
for the 21st century.

And our education systems,
and our wider society,

have an important role to play in this.

But I will put it to you, this evening,
that when it comes to technical skills,

when it comes to social skills,
and vitally,

when it comes to capacity
to embrace change,

we are not yet rising to that challenge
sufficiently.

There are very specific skills,
there are gaps in science and technology

that are not being properly filled. 9:32

These shortages are causing
significant problems

for businesses, for employers.

Half of engineering companies say that
they have delayed taking forward

new products or services, because
they have vacancies

that are so hard to fill, because
the skills are not there to recruit.

Digital start-ups are often in real need
of software developers

that they cannot find sufficiently.

And companies of all sizes, grappling with
cybersecurity challenges

struggle to have the skills that they need
to take on those important issues.

As Harold mentioned, I'm now a director
of a company called Clear Returns.

It's been going for about three years,
based in Glasgow, and uses data analytics

to help retailers understand the problems
they have with product returns

and therefore successfully cutting
the costs for retailers,

and resulting in better
customer satisfaction.

But in our technology team of 17 people,
there are 12 different nationalities

and not one of those people went through
the school education system in the UK,

because the skills are not taught
up to scratch.

Now, there have been some improvements
and as to 2014,

computer science has been introduced into
the curriculum in the UK,

but that is not the end of the matter,

because 11% of computer science graduates
are unemployed.

In fact, that's one of the highest
unemployment rates

for any subject discipline,

at a time when we have a huge shortage
of these very skills.

Something is going very wrong
when that is the case.

And this is not just about
teaching people to code.

Fashionable ....... (check) undoubtedly
is at the moment (check)

and it is necessary that we do have
people who can code.

But it's not some kind of silver bullet
on its own.

Actually, it's the building blocks
that we need to be putting in place,

the things that lie before you get
to the point of coding,

the logic, the basic maths,
enhancing those skills,

so that people can put
those building blocks together

and create an argument or a
train of thought or a mathematical proof,

or indeed, a piece of code that will
instruct a machine to do something.

Yet our maths skills
are also going backwards.

A King's College, London, study found that
compared to the 1970's

young people today are significantly less
well equipped in the field of mathematics.

And it's also worth pointing out
that we are missing out,

when it comes to teaching these skills
on almost half of the population.

Only one in five A-level physics students
is a girl.

When it comes to computer science,
that figure drops to 1 in 10.

Now, it's wonderful to be at
a technology conference

where there is a queue
in the ladies' loos,

but even at this conference, if you
have a look at the speakers' brochure,

only 8 of the 35 main speakers are women,
so where are the women?

We are missing out
on that important talent

who will not then get in the fields
that we need for the 21st century

to enable all of our economies
to flourish.

We're also not doing well enough
at the social skills

which have always been imported --
important,

and I would argue, are even more so
in the context of the 21st century.

Employers have long complained that
they get coming into the work place

are not yet ready for work.

I have to say there is that thing
I've observed,

when new graduates starting out
in the work place

seem to be allergic to
using the telephone

for the purpose it was originally
designed for.

I've lost count of the number of times
when, speaking to a member of staff

about the particular project
that they are trying to make happen,

and it seems so stuck, and I say:

"What happened when you asked
that person about it?"

"Oh, I sent them an email and
they didn't get back to me."

You know, for all the wonders that
technology can undoubtedly do

in helping us in our working life, when
you want to get people to do something,

an email is very easy to ignore, and it is
much harder to just put to one side

a face-to-face person or contact,
or on the telephone.

And relationships are absolutely critical
to 21st century work places and skills:

getting things done, collaborating in
teams, motivating others.

Yet when we assess children
and young people in the education system,

it is genuinely done
on a pure individual basis,

not looking at how they are actually
operating within a drip setting (check).

And when it comes to skills
in terms of relationships,

something like personal, social
and health education, which I would argue,

is absolutely essential to help young
people learn to navigate relationships,

and important issues like consent
when it comes to sex,

it's not even compulsory
in the UK curriculum.

In a world where ultimation is increasing,

where jobs that we've already seen through
the Industrial Revolution,

that manual jobs have been replaced
by machines,

that with the next stage of technological
advancement, many, many more,

in things like accountancy and
professional services,

are also going to be replaced
by algorithms,

the human social relationship skills
are going to be in even more demand

and therefore deserve much more attention.

And my final point is that we have not
done enough to prepare people

for the world of change.

A little while ago, I spoke at a School
Award ceremony to 12-year olds

And I was to explain to them
how the world had changed

since I was there age.

And one of the examples I used was
the process of taking a photograph.

And I described how, when I was 12,
you would have a thing called a camera

that was all that it did, it was just
for taking photographs,

you would have to get a piece of film,
physically,

to load it into the camera machine,
you'd had to do that pretty carefully,

because you didn't want to expose the film
and it was quite a fiddly process.

You wouldn't know whether the photos
you were taking were any good.

You would have to take at least 24,
or sometimes 36,

depending on which particular
piece of film you put into your camera,

before you would then take it along
to a pharmacist's or a chemist's shop,

pay some money and then go and do
something else for a few days,

at which point you could come back

and be presented with your little
envelope of photographs,

and see if any of them had turned out OK.

And I was counting on these 12-year olds
looked at me

like I might well be lying to them:
this is how it worked,

because of course these days, you know,
within a matter of seconds,

you can take dozens of selfies
in your phone,

apply however many Instagram filters
you like,

and share it with the entire world,
just without leaving the school.

The pace of change is accelerating hugely.

Here in 2015, for us to consider
what even are 21st century skills,

is like going back to 1915 and trying
to imagine the space race, nuclear power,

the internet, or the kind of social change
going from a situation

where women didn't even have the vote,

to electing a woman as Prime Minister
in the UK,

or the change with gay rights,

or the ending of racial segregation
in the United States.

We can't even conceive of all that
the 21st century is going to bring.

And so, more than anything, with
this huge pace of increasing knowledge,

more than anything, what we need to do
is equip people

to cope with and thrive
on change and uncertainty.

Instead, we have bunches of kids being
processed through the education system

that doesn't look that different
to several decades ago.

So we really do have a problem here,
in terms of the skills

that we are teaching and more importantly,
not teaching well enough.

Whether it's technical skills,
whether it's those social skills

or whether it's the vitally important
ability to be resilient,

to recover from change and setbacks,

and to apply yourself in a new way
to a new set of challenges and horizons.

These are the things
we must be focusing on,

and we aren't yet rising
to that challenge.

I support the motion. 18:06

(Applause)

(Moderator) OK, thank you very much
for that, Jo.

Our next speaker, who is going to speak
against the motion, is Allan Päll,

who is the Secretary General of
the European Youth Forum,

which is the representative body
for youth organisations in Europe

and he is an advocate for youth's rights.

He lead student unions in Estonia and
at the European level, and has advocated

for students' voices to be included
in educational policy. Allan:

(Allan Päll) All right,
thank you very much, chair.

I would like to very much support many
of the claims made by our opposition.

However, when it comes to the question
and when it comes to this specific motion,

this house does not believe that
21st century skills aren't being taught,

because, well, let me put it very bluntly
and very simply:

the whole notion of what are 21st century
skills is often just a bunch of nonsense,

if I would sum it up very briefly.

But let me go into it a bit more.

There are many definitions of
what these skills could be

and I fully agree that they do include
everything mentioned by the opposition.

However, there are many other ways
of looking at it.

So if we are to say whether these are
being taught or not,

even if we have a problem of the very
definition of what these skills are,

how can we say that they are
not being taught so determinedly?

Some of the elements that can be
mentioned as 21st century skills

are simple things, as critical thinking,
problem-solving, reasoning, analysis,

research skills, creativity, curiosity,
perseverance, self-direction

oral and written communication,
leadership,

information and communication technology,
social justice, literacy,

civic, ethical behavior, global awareness:
the list goes on and on and on.

So, indeed, many of those things, perhaps,
are not being taught enough,

or specifically enough,
in our educational systems.

But that doesn't mean that
this is not happening.

Let me ask you one simple question:

If you believe that we don't acquire
many of these skills

in our educational environment,
be it in a formal setting

or a socializing moment
in your school or at university,

would we actually witness the pace
of change in society that we are seeing.

Almost all of us have gone through
the educational system.

So, we must get a lot of those skills
also through that.

I do agree, though,
that there is something to be said about

the question of how specific are we
when we look at those skills.

Because that is true that most curricula --

education is very much compartmentalized
into very specific subject areas

and we're seeing an increasing trend
of those subject areas becoming

more and more specific.

And thus indeed, there is perhaps
not enough emphasis on looking at,

or thinking really about are we acquiring
all those sets of skills

that are important for our socialization,
etc., our technical skills as well,

as mentioned by the opposition.

One of the things that I would like
to highlight is that

the schools and universities, and
vocational education and training

is not only about the formal
learning outcomes

that we are beginning to measure
more and more.

It is also about the social environment
at that very school or university

that determines a lot of
what education gives us.

In terms of specific skills
that were mentioned by opposition

and the lack of those skills, there are
many variables perhaps to look at.

Yes indeed, we are missing out
on engineers,

we are missing out on also
staff in medical sciences, in care.

We would need indeed many more people

to have those qualifications,
perhaps, indeed.

But there is also a question of
what is education for

and what are the requirements
on the labor market.

And those two things,
although they interact,

they move at different paces.

So sometimes, we start to put blame
very easily on the education system for

not delivering specific skills when, for
example, the structure of our education

-- sorry, the structure of our economy
has changed.

And I think here, it's an important
remark that we need to look at

different experiences
of different countries.

And you see countries where
unemployment levels,

even throughout the financial
economic crises,

were record low, such as in Germany
and Austria.

But if you look at youth
unemployment figures,

youth unemployment also among
highly educated young people,

in different areas, like Spain or Greece,
all around the Mediterranean,

they've been staggeringly high.

And it's not because
the education systems failed,

it's because the macro-economic systems
failed them there,

in terms of not having enough job creation
for all those skills.

And of course, there is something
to be said that when we train people

and when we train minds
to think critically,

to come up with new and innovative ideas,
we also change the world through that.

So, we need to understand
that interaction.

but certainly, when we look at
21st century skills, well,

if we are to define them with this broad
set of lists that I noted,

we certainly are gaining those skills,
but perhaps, not specifically

and not enough: that, we could agree.

When it comes to preparedness for change,

when are we ever prepared
for the change to come, one might wonder.

Indeed, things, technologically,
are changing very fast.

And maybe our educational systems
are not embracing that technology

at the same pace.

But that doesn't mean that
if we would embrace

the use of that technology very quickly,
that it would enhance immediately

the skills that we can describe as
21st century skills,

such as, for example, critical thinking.

There are many advocates that say that

we need to replace
subject matter teaching completely

with horizontal level approaches.

That doesn't work.

If we don't know the facts, how do we know
that we are on the right path

with our decisions, how can we know
what really happened in the past,

and not, how can we verify what is true?

So when we look at the skills, we need
to look at the evidences

in terms of teaching preparedness
and pedagogy.

And yes, we agree: there is a lot
to be done there

in terms of measuring those essential
skills of socialization and communication,

building relationships, and it is true
that around, it's estimated,

around 50% of jobs in the service sector

are about to disappear in the next
20 years and transform, hopefully,

into something completely new.

Finally, indeed, those skills,
we can all agree,

we'll need those skills.

But there is an important element
of young people,

and this is a study that we have done
in the European Youth Forum,

that they gain a lot of those skills also
outside, in non formal education settings.

And the key here is to see if we can bring
those experiences

that young people gain from youth
organizations, activism,

into the formal education setting,
and thus make it much more open

to recognizing those prior experiences
as well, to overcome this shortage.

Thank you very much.

(Applause)

(Moderator) Thank you very much, Allan.

Our next speaker who is going to speak
for the motion is Pedro De Bruyckere

who is an educational scientist and
he has worked in Ghent in Belgium

since 2001.

He co-wrote two books which debunk
popular myths on generation Y

and generation Z,

and the latest one was entitled
"I was 10 in 2015". Pedro:

(Pedro De Bruyckere) OK. Good evening.

I'm a teacher, I'm a teacher trainer,
so I'm not used to standing still.

So if you don't mind, I will move.

Allan, thank you very much for
making my point.

I have to explain: I have to agree,
I've written a book about it.

There's no such thing
as 21st century skills.

And that's why they need to be taught.

I have to explain this.

You know, if we go back in time, to see
the origins of the 21st century skills,

you'll end up with the liberal arts,
the Septem Artes Liberales.

Rhetoric, what we are doing right here,
that's for me ancient history,

but still needed today.

But the question is,
is this still being taught in school?

Because, like ....... Alberts (check) says,
moreover we get a focus on the Three R's

-- Reading, 'Riting, 'Rithmetics --

while most of the young people are
looking to Snapchats.

But because of the focus,
because we want to test stuff,

the more important things
are being forgotten!

Rhetoric, philosophy, for me, crucial.

To be honest, then, you don't have to look
at Ancient Times,

than you have to look at Medieval Times,

because then philosophy was added
to the Liberal Arts.

So we need to train our children
because it's great to say:

"Look at us: we've done it."

Yes, but we are not talking about us,
because in 20 years' time, they will --

we will be old, boring and
other people need to sit there

and beyond stage, using rhetoric.

So we need to prepare them.

I'm not sure if we're doing a great job.

For instance, if we talk about technology,

technology is often like a sex ad
in education.

You know, you talk about
all the dangerous stuff

and you never talk about the fun stuff.

You know, it's very simple:

"Don't do this, don't do that,
certainly don't try that! Go ahead!"

And another -- for instance, McKinsey,
the McKinsey report, 2014 McKinsey report,

said just (check)
-- and I agree again with you both --

there is a mismatch.

There is a mismatch between
what children study in school

and which topics they choose,
and what we need in the economy.

But at the same time, the employers said:

"You know, don't train them
to a specific job

"but train them in strategic
and communication skills."

OK, they have been around for ages
but they are still important.

But what do we do, for instance,
in many schools?

I've been in schools in Holland,
in Germany, in --

you know, we teach them how to write
a job application.

We teach them how to perform
a talk for a job.

Do we teach them to write
a LinkedIn profile?

No, what we say is "Never post
a drunk photo on Facebook,

"because people will search you."

What we don't say is:

"You know what? Post something good
about yourself on Facebook,

"that isn't a selfie."

But we think well, they will do this.

Actually, for instance research by
Jan van Dek (check):

that's one of the stuff
that our kids don't know.

And if we don't teach them, who will?

So that's my point: we need to teach them
basic skills like Jo said:

communication skills, strategic skills.

And if you want to call them
21st century skills because, by accident,

we're living in the 21st century,
so be it.

(Applause)
Thank you.

(Applause)

(Moderator) OK,
thank you very much, Pedro.

Our final speaker who is going to speak
against the motion is Miles Berry,

who is the principal lecturer
in computing education

at the University of Roehampton in the UK:
Miles.

(Miles Berry) Pleasure to be here,
really is.

Philip and Gudrun, where are you guys?

OK, on the Twitter thing you say:

"We need to talk about what the purpose
of education is, what is education for?"

And that's where I want to start.

I want to move back from the motion,
to think about what education is for.

And to do that, we need some understanding
of what education is.

I've been in education
for over 40 years now.

But even so, I checked.

It's the culture or development
of personal knowledge, or understanding,

growth or character,
moral and social qualities, etc.,

as contrasting with
the imparting of a skill.

(blurred: check)

OK, there's definitely a place
for imparting skills,

but that's training, not education,
and there is a difference.

My Roehampton students study education,
but they are trained to teach.

England's new computing curriculum
educates people about the principles,

the principles of computer science:
(inaudible: check), I tell you.

(laughter) ... technology, I think
the technology ran on me tonight,

it's all right I'll give it...

(off) (unintelligible)

(Berry) 21st century skill
-- on knowledge -- (laughter)

Knowledge that these things are the wrong
shape for my head: never mind.

OK, so: England's new computing curriculum
that Jo has alluded to

educates people about the principles
of computer science,

whereas we used to train them
to use Office software.

Or think about sex.

Look, not like that: we rightly include
sex education on the curriculum in schools

but we typically don't include training.
(Laughter) Important skills.

Do without microphones.
(Laughter) ... very well.

In England, our Education Act says
what education is for.

Firstly, it's to promote the spiritual,
moral, cultural, mental and physical

development of pupils and of society.

And it's to prepare pupils
for the opportunities, responsibilities

and experiences of later life.

What else could education possibly be for?

In that, you just got to love laws
that require you to do

what you'd want to do anyhow.

There does remain a question about
how best to prepare people

for these opportunities, responsibilities
and experiences.

I think the nob of the motion this evening
is about whether this should be done

through some sort of training
in 21st century skills

or by passing on the knowledge,
understanding and wisdom

of our generation to the next and I'd say,
the latter.

I've no problem with skills per se
in teaching.

Behavioral management is a skill,
coding is a skill,

so is searching for things on Google,
or even Bing.

OK. I've some problem, though, with the
notion that there are 21st century skills

and I'd agree with you on that.

But both of you have done a fine job
of demolishing that notion already.

I've also some problem with the skills --
with the notion that skills can transfer.

Skills are about accomplishing something.

There's a context to the skills,

and I think we diminish specific skills
by attempting to generalize them.

It isn't critical thinking,
it's thinking critically about something.

It's not creativity,
it's creating something.

And it's not communication,

it's communicating something
through some media.

The 'something' here matters.

It's really not possible to teach skills
in the abstract fashion, without context.

And the context is king.

Whatever the specific domain,

knowledge of that domain is necessary
for expert skills.

My main problem, though, is that
we've only a little time in school.

We've other things to teach and
our students have other things to learn:

things like knowledge

and understanding

and wisdom.

Without these, skills are unlikely to be
of much practical benefit.

Stephen Downes is here.

Well, nodding in his direction, I'd say,
learning is about connecting things:

neurons, ideas, people.

The computer scientists get this,

Google's page rank algorithm relies
not so much on the content of the page,

as the links between the pages.

The thing is then, the new stuff has to be
connected to something.

Otherwise, it's just isolated factoids.

We can't make sense of it,
we can't use new knowledge

unless it's integrated into our existing
mental maps, our schema.

Put simply: it takes knowledge
to gain knowledge.

This apples to each of us as individuals,
but it's also how civilization grows.

Human achievement is a cumulative thing.

New knowledge doesn't normally contradict
what's gone before.

It builds on it.

If Newton saw further than others had,

it was because he stood
on the shoulders of giants.

What hope would there be
for the next generations

if they had to discover everything afresh
for themselves?

The consequence of our building
on what's gone before

is that the pace of cultural, scientific
and technological change

accelerates exponentially.

But even allowing for this acceleration
is knowledge, understanding and wisdom

which have done the test of time.

Less so, skills.

Expect new inventions and discoveries
over the next 85 years

and new practical skills to go with them.

But don't expect the foundational
shared knowledge of our civilization

to become irrelevant.

Indeed, it's on this very foundation
that the new knowledge will be built.

It's not 21st century skills
that young people need.

It's 21st century knowledge, understanding
and wisdom.

Time, I think, for a quick case study.

The most successful education systems
and the top universities

seem to organize their curriculum
around well knowledge-based subjects.

England's new National Curriculum is
quite explicitly a knowledge-based one.

It sets out to provide pupils with
an introduction to the essential knowledge

they need to be educated as citizens,

and to introduce them to the best
which has been thought and said.

One of the most radical things we've done
in that curriculum,

which many see as rather reactionary,

is to have replaced the old ICT
with a new subject: computing.

This includes an introduction
to the principles of computer science

for all, from age 5 up.

It has been my privilege
to be part of the team

designing and implementing
the new subject.

Under the old curriculum we offered
a good grounding in tech skills,

finding this online,
making a presentation,

typing up stories, articles and reports.

Sometimes, even making a spreadsheet,
often about having a party.

Do people really use spreadsheets
to plan parties?

Are these fun parties? Are these
-- OK (laughs)

It was fine: pupils moved on to work
or the next phase of education

with some competence and confidence

and broadly speaking, were
digitally literate.

Our ...... (check) students
at Roehampton's

suggested that broad portfolio skills,

two thirds regarded them as .... as
competent, proficient or experts.

That said, it was all too often
a bit -- well, dull.

There's a limit, or at least
there should be a limit

to the number of times you can
find something out on the internet

and make a presentation about it.

Generally, it did precious little
to provide any real knowledge

or understanding of computation,
information theory or digital technology.

In the same audit, less than 15%
of my new students

rated their understanding of
digital technology

as competent, proficient or expert.

So we started again.

We built on the idea of computing
as having three elements:

computer science, information technology
and digital literacy,

the foundations, applications and
implications of the discipline.

We took a leaf out of
William Morris's book:

"Have nothing in your house that
you do not know to be useful

"or believe to be beautiful."

And built a curriculum of things
that would be useful,

but also things that were interesting.

We took a view that the best way
to prepare pupils for a future

in which digital technology looks
quite likely to remain important

was through providing a firm
computer science foundation,

things like logic, algorithms,
abstraction, networks, programming.

Yes, coding would be important, but not
as a vocational skill for the IT industry,

but as the lab work for computing,
the medium through which

the ideas of computer science are created
and expressed.

Computer became part of our curriculum
15 months ago.

It's early days, but early indications
are very positive.

Teachers' professional development
has been a challenge.

But this hasn't been a challenge about
pedagogical or technical skills.

Teachers know how to teach
and know how to use technology.

It's just that they didn't know
much computer science.

They are, by and large, willing to learn,

and many are quite enjoying
the fast challenge.

I don't want to leave you
with the idea that I think

knowledge is the only thing
that matters in education.

Of course it isn't: character matters.

I'm talking here about traits
and attitudes,

things such as curiosity and creativity
and courage of our 4-year old daughter.

She's a curious character.

She still has this sense of
wandering the world about her,

that sense of Wow when she sees
or hears something new,

and still a willingness to explore,
experiment and play.

She's at a great little primary school
and I shouldn't worry.

But I do worry that her schooling
might get in the way of her curiosity

when it ought to be nurturing this.

As Plowden had it back in '67,

one of the main educational tasks
of the primary school

is to build on and strengthen children's
intrinsic interest in learning

and lead them to learn for themselves.

(Moderator, off) 21st century skill?

(Berry) But knowledge matters here.

It's as Sophie learns more that I hope
she'll want to learn even more.

With literacy motivation, and good WiFi,
she can teach herself almost anything,

and does.

Creativity matters.

We learn not just though listening,
reading and exploring,

but also through making.

I don't think there's some generic
creativity skill, here.

But I'd like my daughter to be creative
in her music and her computing

and her maths, and so on.

She's been making things for a while now,
but as her knowledge grows,

I'm looking forward to her exploring
and drawing on that in her creative work.

Finally, courage.

She's a fearless explorer, with tons
of self-confidence.

(Off whisper, inaudible)
(Berry) OK.

I want her school to encourage that.

More importantly, I want her
to have the courage to tell the truth,

to stand up for those who can't stand up
for themselves

and to do the right thing,
even if it's not the popular thing.

So, what should we be doing
to best prepare young people

for the opportunities, responsibilities
and experiences of later life?

Passing on knowledge.

Nurturing character.

Sounds a bit old-fashioned, but honestly,

what better preparation
for the rest of the 21st century?

Thank you.
(Applause).

(Moderator) Thank you very much,
Miles.

Right, it's now over to you and I think
we've got about 25 minutes

for questions and contributions.

If you ask a question, I'm going to ask
our panel speakers

not to answer it directly
but to deal with it in their summing up,

just so that we can ensure that we have
a decent flow.

And if you make a contribution, please,
try to keep it fairly brief, well, brief,

so that other people
have a chance as well.

And you've been very well-behaved so far.

Please don't feel that you need to be
quite so well-behaved now,

but now is your opportunity.

If you want to speak,
please just raise your hand.

Bear in mind that if you're at the back,
it is slightly difficult to see you.

And can you, if I call you,

please can you just wait
till the microphone turns up.

Who'd like to go first?

Would anybody like to ask a question
or comment?

Yes, at the back on the left, there.

(Participant 1) My question is short,
particularly for Allan, I think.

Why are critical thinking skills
important in the 21st century?

(Moderator, off) OK. So that's one
for Allan to deal with in his summing up.

Anybody else, any--
Yes, over on the right there, Yannis (check)

(Participant 2) Thank you very much.

I think both sides of the motion
are saying it's not working.

So who's to blame, who or what is to blame
or who or what must we change?

(Moderator, off) Thank you for that.

Right, I'm looking for some contributions
now, somebody who's --

Yes, lady there, on the,
just by the aisle, there.

(Participant 3) Whoops! OK.

Hi, I just have a comment to all of you.

I don't see a huge difference
between your positions,

because you always seem to say,
it's important to have these,

whatever you call them.

Skills is a kind of a talent that you have
when you are born, or whatever.

You mentioned those things are important,
so what is actually the difference?

We just need to promote an environment

to let people develop
those types of skills or talents.

(Moderator) Yes, also on the aisle there.

(Participant 4) Thank you. I want to --

(Moderator) Would you mind just introduce
yourself briefly;

actually, if people would just say
who they are and where they're from,

that would be helpful as well.
(Participant 4) OK.

I'm Denise Gaspard- Richard,
I'm from the University

of the West Indies and Caribbean--
(Moderator) Thank you.

(Participant 4) ..... Campus.

The board said to me, seemed to be saying
somewhat of the same thing.

As you were speaking, I kept thinking
about some employers' surveys

that we have done over a period of time
in the Caribbean,

where the ..... (check),

soft skills are not really being taught
at the University.

So when a student comes out
in today work environment,

they can't carry out a decent conversation
and therefore they can't call up

someone who is not getting
the kind of service that they need,

they don't know how to communicate
in .............. (check) OK?

So when I listened to Jo, I heard
some of that coming out

and I'm wondering if, probably,
we have simply substituted

social skills, or soft skills to call it
21st century skills.

So we have more or less seen
the same things

as we were seeing before we came up
with this terminology. Thank you.

(Moderator) Thank you for that.
Anybody else?

Yes, in the front row, there.
Just down here, please.

Is there a mike here in the front row
on my right? That's it.

(Participant 5) Thank you.
My name is Anne DeLorean (check)

from the European Schoolnet in Brussels.

A comment: I think maybe we are missing
the adaptive nature of human beings,

because society has progressed
through the ages because --

just because we are adaptive.

We have not always had to be taught
everything we do,

but we have to discover it a little bit.

I think, as educators, what we need to do
is provide the -- at the area or the ethos

where this discovery can happen,

not necessarily that we have to provide
the lessons to do it

but provide the means of discovery.

(Moderator) Thank you. Let's have
another one on the front, here.

Lady on the front row
on the left hand side here.

(Participant 6) My name is Nikki Spalding,
from Higher Education Academy in the UK.

I was wondering what do you think
is driving the rhetoric

behind 21st century skills the most?

Is it happy individuals and learners?
Happy employers? Happy society?

Or happy Government Treasury?

(Moderator) Thank you for that.

Yes, towards the back there,
on the right hand side.

(Participant 7) Lydia .... (check)

You have concentrated on education
of young people.

And what about education of people
at your age?

Who and how (laugher) should you educate
these 21st century skills or knowledge?

(Moderator) Very good question indeed.
So, we'll come back to that one.

Yes, we have a number on this side, in the
-- where has the microphone gone?

Yes, just at the front
of this little block there, thank you.

(Participant 8) My name is Mike Rauser (check),
from McKinsey and Company in Germany.

And my question is directed to Mr Barry.

Where you've stressed
teaching specific skills,

please correct me if I'm wrong, about
teaching specific skills in schools.

How do you account for situations where

a skill that may not even
have been invented yet

-- I'm thinking about say,
from an 1980 view point,

15 years in the future, that
nobody knew what the internet was.

Nobody knew it was to be in there
15 years later.

OK, very limited.

(Off) I think the internet
was invented in 1969.

(P8) (overlap with moderator)
OK, I understand that in general--

(Moderator) Can we -- If you could just
try to make it a contribution

and then they can respond
in their final remarks.

(P8) Sure enough
(Moderator) OK (overlap)

(P8) -- that we don't know about
15 years into the future,

or skills that are here now, that may
no longer be there 15 years into the future.

Let's hope that's a little clearer.

(Moderator) OK, thank you.

Can I have some more contributions,
rather than questions?

Anybody like to give their opinion?
Yes, on the --

I think about the third row here.

(Participant 9) So actually it's phrased
as a question,

but think of it as a contribution.
(Moderator) Yes (laughter).

A rhetorical contribution.

(P9) So all of you have been arguing
for or against 21st century skills

very convincingly.

But you were always talking about
what they are,

and not about what they aren't.

So maybe, if the question is phrased
a bit differently,

you would need to make
a more difficult point, so:

what do you think are skills that are
no longer relevant,

or knowledge that is no longer relevant
now in the 21st century,

and that was indeed very important
200 years ago?

(Moderator) What would your answer
to your own question be?

(P9) I would have to think about it.
(Moderator) Right. (Laughter)

Right, at the -- right at the back,
we've got two hands up there.

At the back, somebody with a dark-colored
jacket on -- that's it.

(Participant 10) Mike Brown,

from the National Institute
of Digital Learning in Ireland,

A question, but equally a contribution.

What do you think,
what does the panel think,

22nd century skills will be?

Particularly, particularly
if we fail to achieve

the post-2015
Sustainable Development Goals?

(Moderator) Right. Next to --
at the back, there.

(Participant 11) I think
we've lost the plot.

30 years ago, many students started
overtaking the teachers in knowledge.

Our school server was looked after
by students, pupils, rather than teachers,

because they couldn't do it.

And that happens all the while.

Medical patients are getting
more knowledge than the doctors,

because they search the internet
before they go to the doctor's

about their own disease.

So I think we have got no chance,
we can't teach anymore.

(Moderator) OK, thank you for that.
Somebody standing up there --

Yes. (inaudible) on to them.
Hello, Clark (check)?

(Participant 12) Yes. Hi, my name is
...... (check) from Sweden

and I work with a software company
developing ideation software.

My contribution is that I wonder
if we should not dig even deeper

and see if this is a structural problem,
because I'd like to say that these skills

are being taught.

We see today that people are in two
different types of networks:

they are in centralized or distributed
networks at work or at school,

but distributed in their spare time.

And we see also that
these different types of networks

cultivate different types of values.

So it could be an organizational problem,

but also a value problem,
if we dig even deeper.

For example,
from advertising to conversation

from ownership to sharing,
from profit to growth --

sorry, from profit to sustainability,
and so on.

So my contribution is basically, maybe
the problem is even deeper,

maybe it has to do about
how we are organized,

and the values that those organizations
cultivate.55:17