There is a great deal wrong with the educational system. On the one hand an enormous amount of time and effort is wasted conveying and assessing knowledge that is out of date when it is taught, does not relate to people’s problems, and is forgotten by the time it is needed. On the other hand little is done to nurture qualities like the confidence and initiative to introduce change and, perhaps more importantly, to nurture the diverse talents people possess (and that are needed by society) in such a way that people can capitalise upon them in their future lives.

The result is that some two thirds of the resources spent on education are wasted so far as the development of human resources is concerned.

There are many reasons for this. There is little formal understanding of how to nurture qualities like self confidence and the ability to understand and influence organisations. There is even less understanding of how to recognise such talents so that people can capitalise on them in their future lives. But still more important is the fact that, despite the fact that they have no predictive validity to subsequent occupational performance, the credentials to which so many people devote so much time to teaching toward and acquiring control access to higher status occupations or, still more importantly, legitimise assigning many to lives of degradation and humiliation at the hands of the “welfare” services.

But even these things do not get to the heart of the problem. The educational system, perhaps more than any other, has fallen prey to the implicit command and control theory of management that, we have already seen, lies at the heart of so many of our problems. There has been virtually no attempt to establish the educational system as a mini “learning society”.

This is more than unfortunate for many reasons, not least that of which is that, among the things pupils learn in schools, is the art of disparaging the “less able”, the appropriateness of command and control management, and the importance of ingratiating themselves with their superiors to advance themselves at the expense of others.

More important, however, is the fact that the factors we have mentioned do not operate independently but form a self reinforcing and self perpetuating system which negates any attempt to introduce beneficial change on a step-wise basis. Simultaneous, pervasive, experimentation associated with comprehensive evaluation and individual choice is required. The management that is required is management dedicated to creating a pervasive climate of innovation, evaluation, learning, and evolution. Although this is precisely the opposite of what current beliefs about bureaucracy and democracy lead most people to call for it is exactly what we are here to promote.

We cannot, however, leave the topic without returning to the role of “knowledge” about which there is so much confusion. There is no doubt that most of the advances over the past 500 years have been dependent on advances in formal knowledge. Perhaps the most classic example is the way in which the, at the time, discredited scientist Newton contributed understandings which led to a host of previously unimaginable developments … such as sailing boats that could sail into the wind. But two errors commonly follow from this. One is that everyone should memorise Newton’s laws of motion. The other is to overlook the vast number of other people with unique stores of specialist knowledge who did such things as design sailing boats.

A number of key observations follow from this example. One is that it is vital to support fundamental “academic” research done by mavericks. Current funding policies are inimical to both this and the diffused scientist initiated research that Rothschild (among others) had noted are key to the future. Centralised committees cannot specify what is to be done or how it is to be done. Second, a key function of management, in this case our societal managers, is to sift such information for good ideas and ensure that they are acted upon in an innovative way in the long term public interest. (“In an innovative way” implies experimentation, comprehensive evaluation, and modification, not rejection. “The long term public interest” requires much more documentation of the probable long term consequences of alternative actions.) Thirdly, there is no case, for, for example, “teaching everyone about information technology”. What is needed is means whereby those who are interested in doing specific things … which may or may not add up to social advance … can make contact with those who are at the cutting edge of advancing knowledge in their area. And, Fourthly, that, although many of the advances on which the “development” of our society have in the past been depended on advances in the physical and biological sciences, the key understandings we need if we are to create a future in which homo sapiens will have a part, lie in the social area … in the evolution of ways of thinking about, mapping and harnessing the social forces which, for example, deflect the educational system from its goals. Yes, this will probably be dependent in part on someone like Newton (if we make provision to fund people who just might generate such theories). But mostly they will evolve from arranging to learn from a pervasive climate of experimentation, comprehensive evaluation by many people having divergent perspectives (especially those not conforming to the received wisdom of authorities), and public debate of the results.