Linear education systems have always assumed that you study as a student and learn (input) as much as you can , for as long as you can afford the cost and time. Then depending on how successful you were within competition; this learning should provide you the means for your whole “life”. Batch education was designed to have a determinable output. A kind of neat and logical throughout formula, that divided the ‘learning years from the earning years’. This no longer happens for the majority.

In Management NLT identifies the error of using “output” as the sole evaluation for reward and performance . ( see "Input v/s Output" )

Younger students are ranked mainly by marks (Output) through their primary and most of secondary education. Only those who can get into specialized educational institutions experience evaluation systems that start to include Input. This should infact be reversed. The younger the student the lesser the need should be to use tests and marks as an output based barometer of performance. The focus must be on first developing the mind to think, to discuss, to assimilate, to deduce and question. (discretion) It at all - it is the older students that need the discipline and instruction - based learning to manage the pressure of economic routine and competitive forces. Young minds require to learn how to interface and think independently. It is likely that the initial discipline actually restricts the process of mind opening.

The priority of early education thus must be to prevent the buildup of fears and complexes - rather than for society to bear the bigger economic costs where social systems have to confront them later.

Between the ages of 4 to 10 there is no apparent need to grade and classify children according to their marks, or set a timetable for learning the 4 times table or being able to do long division at the age of eight! While teaching must focus on helping a child to understand the process of learning; the need above all is to enable a child to interface with others without competitive fear, complex and with minimal conflict.

While this does not mean that tests and marks should be eliminated, they must be the indicator and the challenge for the Teacher and the institution to analyze “WHAT” is needed to make “input” easier for the mind.

The failure to get “good” marks should not be the output norm to pressurize the parent or the Child.

This process internalizes output evaluation for teachers and schools - and reduces burden on child and parent.

There are unfortunately very few schools where the younger children are kept away from the competitive grading (Output) in the early years. The Krishnamurthy Foundation set up the by the philosopher and visionary K. Krishnamurthy has promoted schools in India that attempt to follow this principle.

Amazingly, the pressure to focus on “output” comes from us as Parents. We feel insecure that our child may not be prepared for the cruel competitive world if he or she is protected from competition at the early age. Though this is not true, it requires experts and the “educationists” to teach us this fact. The paradox is that the few schools that minimise competition are called “experimental”.

As a parent the only method of evaluation of this experiment is to actually see the result.. The children in such schools are usually abnormally happy, content and almost devoid of fears. Our Future Management and our society will desperately need such “skills”.

It is a paradox that “natural” behaviour of a child is the result of what we call an experiment, whereas “normal” human output and values are now regarded as unusual traits.

It is not intended to criticize our schools as they follow “our” linear system. We as parents in society must announce our acceptance of change when we are ready to change.

We must be convinced by Non Linear Thinking that the future need for our children is to be able to “work and live amidst competition,free of complex and conflict". In the non linear era they need to live without the necessity to WIN or be the winner in order to succeed. Today the language itself seems to be in conflict with our thinking. ( Non Linear )

If the aspiration and motivation method for a 100 students - propels them to work hard to attempt to come in the top 5 or 10 then we require to think about the balance 90 who will not be in that top 10 ? Today the system insures that it makes 90 out of 100 feel inadequate! So education evaluation systems are designed to give the feeling of failure to the MAJORITY. - a serious PARADOX.

I have had opportunity to witness interesting sessions with high school graduates who were not at the top of the class, but did constitute 90% of the class. The subject discussed was the disadvantages of not being in the ‘top 10%’ and the very real usage of optimism to progress. All mediocre students recall the disappointment and constant pressure from teacher and parents while repeatedly receiving the same “lecture” that they had the potential to excel and come first. Economics linked reward was almost always the motivating offer.

But in numbers there were always more of the mediocre (who did not excel ) than those who were at the top of the class. The system confused them because it made the mediocre who were in majority feel as if they the minority. A child’s first exposure to 'Paradox Evaluation'!

However after tracking the early careers and school histories of those that “excelled” in acadaemia some interesting behaviour patterns emerged. They were paradoxical.

• Their “excellence” in any one sport or academic subject almost prevented them from making great effort and input in any other.
• Their specific “excellence” prevented them from participating in “general” events, where winning was not possible.
• Their “excellence” deprived them from engaging in what the mediocre majority called fun and having a good time.

There is no attempt here to moralize on right and wrong. Non Linear Thinking merely follows the thought process starting from the recurring paradox. It is clear that in our education institutions the “MAJORITY” would always be defined and convinced that they are below standards ! - because “excellence” is the goal that has been set for all!

Non Linear Thinking can therefore evolve and forecast the great benefits of mediocrity for the majority in the Non Linear era!

The future infact should belong to the mediocre! They will have:

• The ability to participate in any event, issue or occasion without pressure of past performance.
• The ability to listen to anyone without feeling obligatory that they must already know. ( A great pressure point for those who excel . Their ability to listen and hear is soon lost)
• The willingness and freedom to try anything new as there are no norms or expectations to live up to.
• An open mind that can learn, unlearn and relearn easier than those who had excelled because they do not carry the burden of old knowledge.

The need therefore is for the “complex” of being below standard (bestowed on them by the teachers and system) to be removed from their psyche. If that is done then a “mediocre” student could have a similar potential in the Non Linear future – as the one who had excelled in the past. A mediocre student would have an unbiased mind and open attitude.We must remove the complex of inadequacy and apparent failure.

But for most of us as parents the race starts again every morning and our kids must join in. The never ending quest to come out on top continues to destroy our children and future societies.

PARADOX : While most of the teachers and parents exposed to this thought process have “officially objected” to the suggestion that education need not be focussed for “excellence”; they all agree that it must be suitable for the MAJORITY! Any disagreement despite understanding should thus be understandable as a very real paradox, requiring urgent correction.

Lesser Education, More Awareness!

Education must shift its age old objective from “need to know” to the practical “purpose of knowing”. Linear logic based systems still assume that as in the past there would be sufficient opportunity and demand for all those who are educated. "Just knowing” is sufficient to provide the employment.

No such Linear result is visible in the future!

Even the average college graduate is unable to find a job, despite years of learning because of the cliché -educated - but inexperienced. The frustration is obvious and has resulted in the incalculable economic loss to society.

Though educated -students have no skills or learning on how to use their education; it is an accepted “paradox” that someone else would again be required to teach them and then control their input.

The indicators of change were apparent in the 70’s and 80’s where the critical paradoxes stated to emerge. ( Relative saturation using constant inputs).

Training institutes and Training programmes offering a mere 4 to 24 weeks of practical learning courses had actually started to create MORE JOBS than the 100 - 200 weeks of structured University education. Yet there remains a bureaucratic need and a social quest for an education that provides a needed but very basic knowledge - base. The time and cost however is no longer justifiable.

The paradox thus continues.

University graduates find jobs only AFTER being trained for a few months.

Today, On - the - Job suitability for the majority is attributed and more dependant on training than the years of education. If future growth and success is increasingly controlled by experience on the job; then this implies that basic education has started to play a reducing role in Management since the 80’s. ( Narrow education opportunities like MBA can perhaps be excluded, as they are created by our restrictive systems).

Professional management needs have thus remained unfulfilled and systems have had no choice but to marginalise basic and standard systems of education. Management has thus had to create their own learning systems with large investments in infrastructure that are being constantly created for speciality training and real life management teaching.

Though, the need for training is endorsed by educationists as an obvious need -it has conveniently been positioned as a “post University” requirement. This again excludes the “majority” who have to first exhaust their funds on basic education. The benefits are thus again restricted to the few who can afford specific education and training. This again is the domain of “large corporates”.

Practical learning, future studies, case studies are usually restricted to Ivy League, Post Graduate education facilities.

^top

Paradox: Why is practical, real-life learning and information a “privy of elitist education" ?

A child has to go through structured - chronological learning for atleast 10 - 12 years with very little real life teachings. Practical “input” in early education is exclusively left to the home experience as it is assumed to be a parental responsibility.

Institutions of education seem unable to integrate values as a part of the basic education.(where it was intergrated the origin was missionary. Unfortunately democratic systems now discourage this despite its success).

Educationists had expected that the inputs that teach human values to bring stability are the responsibility of Family, social culture or religion. The institution was only expected to stuff the brain with knowledge.

In a Non Linear era the responsibility to create human value must now be enlarged to become integral to learning. The natural development of human values is no longer available as a teaching within reducing family size and urbanization. Human values cannot be retained if their application relevance has been lost. There is little tangible link that is perceived in modern society between human values, career and economic benefit.