“In school, there is never an assessment of how much work and effort you put into something. In the end, it’s all about what comes out of it. Making an effort, even though or even because you are not so good at something, is not appreciated. That is what is so demotivating. After all, you are proud of your work, even if you know that it is not yet perfect. This does not mean that you cannot deal with criticism, but it means that you need recognition for the first steps and support to improve. However, the grades are not given as in-between feedback, but often as a final judgement. “

This quote comes from one of the 14 year old students with whom I have been having conversations about well-being at various schools over the last 2 weeks. From the faces of the others, it was clear that they fully agreed with what was said.

A sad and worrying summary after so many years of discussions about feedback and grading at all levels of the school system. It is all the more disturbing because it shows just as clearly that the mistake is a systemic one and not related to a particular school or teacher.

Beyond buzzwords

The root of the problem lies – and I don’t want to bore anyone with facts that are already known and undisputable – of course in the orientation of the educational system, which answers the demands of the social and economic system. It is therefore not enough to keep on approaching teachers and school administrators with demands for change, who can improve many things, but are limited in their scope of action to the extent that they have to meet the (apparent) needs of the entire system.

What is noticeable in the discussions of recent months is that the demands for change are becoming louder and louder from all sides. However, buzzwords such as agility, digitization and improvement of teacher training are covering up and marginalizing the discussion that is actually necessary.

I do not want to question the importance of these discussions. Especially we here at Guide and Lead have been working with agile approaches for many years and support and even lead digitization initiatives. Nevertheless, digitization and agility (even if they are supported by the corresponding mindset in the best case) remain nothing more than tools that are now often ” fitted” into the existing (and completely outdated) system and are unfortunately often enough deprived of their transformative properties.

What does not fit is made to fit

Unfortunately, this is not only true for the people in this system but also for the methods and tools.

The basic problem, however, seems to go much deeper and to cause real anxiety.

Quite often I hear in the consulting situation that “we now prefer to stay with the very practical implementations, with the here and now and the challenges that affect us now”. I would always like to agree with that and I often do, for example when solving very tangible questions and problems.

But the education system is not a system that is geared to the here and now. On the contrary. It is (or should be) designed to prepare young people to deal with challenges that are far from the here and now and whose dimensions are not foreseeable.

And no, I am not going to fall into the trap of those who always focus on competences and skills and declare the content to be irrelevant.

A systemic counteroffer

I am more interested in asking what we would like to achieve with our education system, what we want to accomplish and for which society? This is a question that simply cannot be avoided and is so frightening because it is so existential.

From many sides I hear mainly what is wrong, but what is missing is the answer to the question of what is right. We cannot go on without having discussed this question at least in respect to its direction. Also because otherwise we run the risk of this question being answered by others, who then let the education system become just a pawn in the overall system again.

Time for the big questions

After all, we have the chance on the silver platter right now, this special time, which throws us back to our foundations and makes precisely these questions appear crystal clear:

1. In times of climate change, waves of refugeeism, pandemic and social unrest, what kind of economic system is the system in which we want to continue living?

A system in which we can ensure prosperity for all (also and especially in the global South) without continuing to exploit and harm people and the environment.

One in which we can ensure prosperity for all (also and especially in the global South) without continuing to exploit and harm people and the environment. It is this economic system that is systemically so highly relevant as a recipient system of the educational system. How can we seriously discuss educational transformations without having at least discussed this?

2. What kind of social system enables us all to live a humane, conscious and fulfilling life?

What are the fundamental values on which we can agree (also globally) and which will take us forward? Do we as a society want and can we afford that a few (companies / media / noisy) interpret our ethical values and norms unhindered for themselves and with the implementation that follows, which deprives us all (and often enough without our knowledge or consent) of our rights (such as privacy, co-determination, information etc.)?

We have to think about what kind of society we are developing and on what ethical basis, so that we can prepare our next generations, empower and strengthen them, so that they, as self-leaders, will later have something worth taking on.

3. And in which direction do we want to develop at all, what is the goal, where do we want to go and what is it worth for us to get there?

Of course, we might not name a specific goal, but we can name a direction and the framework conditions we want to get involved in. The fact that we have been missing this in the past is demonstrated by the challenges we are now facing and which we want to and probably will have to face. But in order to do so, it must be clear what we want and not just what we don’t want.

4. And who is meant by “we”? Who do we want to include and who not and if not why?

In a globalized world, it seems absurd to conduct such discussions at the national level. When you think about the algorithms of international AI controlled products, it becomes very clear that it is time to involve everyone and to reach basic agreements to make sure that not everything said is just transformed into hot air.

Invitation to a collective answer

Of course, not everything can be changed immediately and every change takes and needs the effort of many. But this should not stop us from finally starting and if possible not only in our own small circles, but deliberately in big rounds.

And of course, schools and companies first have to see how they cope with the daily challenges and certainly, all kinds of tools can be helpful, but I still think that more energy has to be spent on discussing the basic principles and creating alternatives.

Guide and Lead has been discussing such issues and trying out counter-proposals on a small scale and on a larger scale for some time now. But now we would like to invite you to join us in more in-depth discussions to ensure that in the end not only does every child feel seen and appreciated in their efforts, but that we all become more aware of the big questions that we have so successfully ducked away from.

Let us hear your ideas, your opinions and get in touch with us if you want to explore this topic more intensively – here on the blog, on all media platforms.

The Counteroffer is a collective and collaborative initiative in which thought leaders from the fields of education, research, business, art, science, medicine, technology, and philosophy have come together to deliberately seek new solutions and ideas outside of existing systems.