Today I’d like to share a few thoughts that I’ve been thinking about for a while and initially put in our newsletter as a first draft to get some feedback on them. Lived co-creation 4.0, so to speak.
The topic is the ever-popular term “digital education,” which is currently experiencing inflation in light of the digital transformation, but ultimately preserves more old than adds new in the mainstream. In other words, anything but 4.0. But let’s start at the beginning.
In the discussion surrounding “Work 4.0,” it has become clear that “education” is the central linchpin that must accompany people on their way into the digital society. Now, at the latest, the slogan about “lifelong learning” is getting serious.
Yes, it is even said that education is THE topic of the 21st century – and it can no longer remain the way we (!) are currently positioned in the education system.
Now, everyone can always quickly agree that the education system is in a mess, so there is always broad agreement, meanwhile:
What consequences does one draw from this realization?
In the course of the discussions surrounding digital transformations, we can identify various stakeholders who would like to position themselves in this market.
- On the one hand, there is the new education industry, a very capital-intensive complex that is currently setting itself up broadly in the context of digital education systems; in Germany, we can cite Bertelsmann, SAP, Microsoft, Facebook and, more recently, Holtzbrinck as exemplary players here.
- On the other hand, there is the entry of large consulting firms into education consulting: Roland Berger, Capgemini, Price Waterhouse, etc. are making massive inroads and advising various institutions (including ministries) on the transformation of the education system with (half-baked) education policy concepts.
- All together, they then like to meet at relevant events, preferably in Berlin, around “digital education”, where the mainstream shakes hands and which, organized by the usual lobby organizations such as Bitkom, Hochschulforum Digitalisierung or Initiative D21, enjoy broad approval.
- In addition to this scene, we can recognize diverse civil society initiatives that ride the educational wave partly with heart, partly with calculation, and that advocate for “social” participation and justice. Some of it is good, some of it is half-baked, but okay: at least many people find these jobs useful. And thus practice “knowledge transfer” in their own way.
- This tendency to impart knowledge then also unites all these groups with the last grouping I would like to mention here: these are the representatives of the old education system, who feel influenced by various pressures and naturally resist these external appropriations.
What unites all these 5 groups beyond that:
Some of them are making massive public appearances, and they are demanding sometimes more, sometimes less “digital education” – and preferably IN the old educational structures.
Yes, the fundamental constitution of the previous education system is not even rudimentarily questioned. It should only digitize a little – the details can then be discussed with increasingly hardened fronts.
At the same time, the “rants” on the supposed unreformability of the car, trade, banking, etc. pp. are being shared like wildfire in the social networks – without considering that THE education system is currently also undergoing just such a radical process of change.
Find MUST, because the massive difference “the education” to other industries is:
It is largely publicly financed – and the market can only exert a small amount of financial pressure on the industry.
Now there is nothing at all wrong with the state taking over the basic provision in “THE education”. But in view of the dynamics of the current spiral of change and the foreseeable problems in the face of disruptive developments, we have to ask ourselves whether we should not fundamentally question the structures of the old education system if we want to offer people prospects for the future in the medium term.
After all, how can a rigid, top-down education system with all its regulations react to dynamic developments? With all the necessary accreditations, certifications, quality management requirements, and so on. Today, that simply doesn’t work anymore.
TAKE ACTION
Basically, we should think of “education” today as a system based on 2 pillars:
- The lifelong, agile pillar that lets you actively participate in society.
- The basic, more static pillar that shapes people with a character image so they can competently navigate the lifelong pillar.
Point 2 would be roughly what we currently describe as training; point 1 would be continuing education, just thought of in a very different way.
In our report for the Stifterverband on what we expect from universities today from a civil society perspective, you can already read out our approach:
- The training is to be trimmed down to a compact phase of character building and, if necessary, a “Studium Generale” for those interested. And this should no longer be done in a top-down frontal manner – whether on or offline. (We would have to analyze separately to what extent an adapted form of dual vocational training could be compatible here).
- For lifelong further education, there would need to be so-or-so diverse infrastructures that one can access at any time when personally needed, without an overtaxed job center employee or boss having a veto right here. In order to achieve this individual “right to continuing education”, as the BMAS surprisingly progressive calls it in its White Paper In order to bring this to fruition, people need time, money, and a wide range of offers and new spaces where they can develop new approaches directly in practice, irrespective of their respective framework conditions.
In general, the longer I think about our upcoming MOOC and the emerging “community of practice” on regional education 4.0, the more I’m struck:
The new, contemporary continuing education venues will be makerspaces, possibly with docked co-working space. Perhaps they will even grow into central educational anchors for training and continuing education. Because this is where the new innovations that move our society forward are created – and they are crowd-based due to the interaction of heterogeneous actors.
Out of TechShop alone, the fantastic makerspace chain in the U.S. (we visited them in San Francisco in October), more jobs have been created by startups in recent years than all the creative university offerings in the U.S. [Update 11/15/2017: TechShop unfortunately had to close its stores].
By acquiring what they need on the side in the Makerspaces to take care of the further development of their business idea, people work their way towards market launch step by step.
This is actually living lifelong learning in a contemporary infrastructure. No babble, no muse, but learning practice to make the world a better place.
Let’s say the thesis is correct that makerspaces are the educational venues of the future: How could this development best be shaped?
I think that the maximum number of creative, neutral places could be created, with few restrictions on the part of old institutions such as large companies or universities, which are also increasingly active in this field – but which also want to bring their old rules of the game into the new world and (of course) profit from this development themselves.
That’s okay, too, but please don’t forget the creativity of the many others in politics, the collective intelligence, the potential that lies dormant in all people, if they could do what they want.
In this respect, let us as a civil society stay on the ball: The world is diverse and colorful – and there is currently an opportunity to change something for the better, for the new, for the sustainable. So feel free to join in!
You can learn more about this topic in our MOOC in April 2017. By the way, we call it Beacon 4.0 – and it’s largely about new developments, new professions and new spaces.
In this sense: TAKE ACTION!