It wasn’t an easy exercise!  Yesterday I managed to attend the graduation of my son (Tim) at Bond University in Queensland.  For me, it meant leaving the College in Hong Kong on Friday afternoon, flying overnight to via Singapore to arrive in Brisbane early Saturday morning, attending the ceremony later that morning, followed by dinner with the new graduate and his friends that night, and then flying out of Brisbane early this morning (Sunday) to return to the College by this evening.

Obviously I saw attending this graduation ceremony as being very important.  This was especially so as I had really wanted to attend my daughter’s graduation ceremony last year when she obtained her Masters degree, but circumstances at the College conspired cruelly against it at the last minute, and I knew how disappointed she had been by my absence.  Furthermore, I had to miss our annual fundraising dinner at the College last night (thanks John for delivering the welcome speech on my behalf!).  So what made attending the ceremony so important for me?

Of course, part of the story lies in being a proud father of four wonderful children :-)  But there is more than that - graduation ceremonies represent an important rite of passage in life - important because we view education as a key to the future.

Many people (especially in Asia, but certainly also elsewhere) perceive the importance of education in purely academic terms.  As anyone involved with United World Colleges would testify, academics ARE important, but they are only one part of what an authentic, coherent education is aiming to achieve.  An education that claims to prepare young people in a relevant way for the future world must form the whole person - academics, sports, arts, ethics, music, service towards others, internationalism, creativity, problem solving, and so on.  To do any less than this would be to condemn students to a mediocre future in a rapidly changing and unpredictable world.

If this is so, why do so many people seem to place value on academics above all else?  To some extent, the attitude stems from tradition, reflecting post-Depression and post-World War II thinking which in turn can be traced back to the need for narrow specialisation that arose in the Industrial Revolution.  It is certainly contrary to the demand for flexible, adaptable, creative, mutli-talented problem solvers that enlightened employers these days demand.

On the other hand, and perhaps as an over-reaction to the academics-are-everything viewpoint, it is still possible to hear echoes of the trendy 1960s and 1970s assertions that schools are too focussed on academic learning!  To me, this has always sounded as absurd as claiming that hospitals are too focussed on improving patients’ health!  There are certainly examples of schools and even education systems where the balance of schooling is distorted and where there is an over-emphasis or under-emphasis on academic learning.  However, I do not believe that any UWC could be accused of this, especially when it is remembered that students at most UWCs complete something like 500% to 600% of the CAS (Creativity, Action, Service) hours required by the IB!

And yet, in a very real way, for young people who are concerned to make a difference and improve our world, academic success in secondary school probably IS the most important key to unlock the opportunity of a great university education, which in turn is necessary for anyone aspiring to gain a position of influence to bring about authentic change.  For our students from many parts of the world, academic success will mean the difference between gaining a scholarship to attend a good university to obtain a qualification that will provide a foundation for bringing meaningful change on one hand, or being stuck within an enduring cycle of poverty in their home country on the other.

This is not to say that I think for a moment that academic results should be the measure of success of a school’s effectiveness, as occurs in some countries through the use of ‘league tables’.  In fact, this reductionist approach is the very opposite of the balanced, holistic view of education I am trying to espouse here.  League tables ignore the true value-added of the educational process, and set up an unwholesome and inaccurate ranking of school worth.  Education is not a competition - it is a process of enlightenment.

If balanced educational formation is the ideal - forming all facets of a young person while not diminishing the value the academic or any other part - it is interesting to speculate on what types of school are most likely to achieve such goals most effectively.

I was reading this week that there is now a great amount of hard evidence to suggest that the most effective schools are those with an educational vision which is reflected in clear intentions and expectations, structured within a well-coordinated curriculum.  The focus must be on the individual learning needs of each student, which are known and responded to by every teacher.

The research also indicates that the teacher is the most significant factor in improving the learning outcomes of students.  Furthermore, the most effective schools display a strong sense of community, their environments are safe, orderly and imaginative, and their teachers work collaboratively and learn from each other.

If we add the ‘future’ dimensions of developing creativity and internationalism by bringing together talented and highly motivated young people from all parts of the world into a residential environment so that true understanding can be nurtured, within a strong framework to discuss various cultural and ethical perspectives openly, then it sounds VERY much like our United World College!