When I began school exactly half a century ago, we were starting from a much more equal position than today's schoolchildren. A child's knowledge was mostly a simple function of their age. Humanity's level of knowledge seemed such that in 12 school years one could give everyone an overview of the best of world literature, the cultural development of Estonians from the national awakening to flourishing socialism, the natural sciences through the centuries up to modern astronomy and genetics.

There was time to learn all 14 grammatical cases and to write at a level certainly higher than what journalism's utilitarian texts now offer. There was no "wide" and "narrow" math, no state exams except for literature. Yes, imagine — teachers were allowed to decide themselves what grade to give a child on an exam, and even those awarding medals trusted that result.

Meanwhile, humanity has created an enormous amount of new knowledge in the sciences. The idea of what constitutes a graspable amount of good literature that everyone should read has changed drastically. Access to knowledge is nearly absolute for anyone who knows how to use the internet. A classroom of children will never again have such uniform knowledge as half a century ago.

School, however, has not changed much. Children sit in classrooms sorted by age, lessons follow a predetermined program, and knowledge checks focus on proving that the program has been completed. Teachers' attitudes toward students have certainly changed. In my time, the teacher was always right — at least in my school — whereas today teachers feel they have no room for asserting themselves.

School struggles with a rapidly changing world because the human growth cycle remains the same. Social skills still mature through interaction with other people, but the surrounding environment offers few opportunities to validate school‑acquired knowledge — or rather, it shows that outside the prescribed path lie far better ways to cope than those found by diligently following it.

This is neither good nor bad — it simply creates different tensions in the school system, and it is inevitable. Among humanity's vast knowledge, it is increasingly difficult to choose what is absolutely necessary for everyone.

Children's greater autonomy makes classroom management different. Communication skills are more important than knowledge. Curiosity allows one to acquire a unique worldview instead of formal education and turn it into a profession. Some of these professions rely on scientific understanding, but even a fantasy world without any truth can turn out to be lucrative.

At the same time, there is a body of essential knowledge humanity must not lose — otherwise we would no longer know how to treat people, build houses, or create text that is clearly understood across languages.

School must still fulfill the same ultimate goal: to send out young adults who can function acceptably as members of society, achieve their goals without harming others, value others' contributions, and know how to take them into account. These young people must also be equipped with enough classical knowledge to study medicine, engineering, IT, or become creative artists.

So what should we do? Probably accept where humanity is headed and adapt. What does that mean? I suspect it means accepting the imperfection of education.

There are few things we can be certain will benefit the children starting school this week in their future working lives.

But something does remain. And that is the ability to function in human society. I do not use the word "values," because it immediately makes people want to enter a culture war. But something must remain: we must be able to live alongside each other. Even more — we must be able to defend ourselves together, grow the economy, care for the elderly, treat the sick, and distribute society's benefits in a way that results in the greatest number of satisfied people.

Life no longer requires acquiring these basic societal skills in order to grow up. Previously, a young person eventually had to ride the bus alone, buy milk and bread from the store, or agree with a neighbor on how to complete shared tasks.

Society now allows people to avoid human interaction both in stores and when using services. Our natural, life‑acquired ability to be one member of society declines — the ability to understand others' feelings, read body language, or talk through difficult situations. Half a century ago, it was common that there weren't enough balls or bicycles for everyone, and children had to learn to share. And if you didn't want to play alone, you had to make room for both your own and others' interests in the group.

Call these values or emotional intelligence — I call it the art of being human. And this is a person's true competitive advantage over any smart machine, no matter how well the latter pretends to be human.

Compassion. Sensing that something is wrong with someone even if they insist everything is fine. Understanding that a hug helps against sadness even if it doesn't remove the cause. Knowing that you must not hurt others. Knowing that evil must be confronted with lawful force — but not before all other options are exhausted. Understanding that those other options lie in cooperation between people with shared interests, such as neighboring nations who value free choice. Recognizing the necessity of rules and being able to follow them even when short‑term self‑interest suggests otherwise.

Call these things general competencies or values or whatever you prefer — but keep culture wars out of this discussion.

In a good school, our children learn how to be human — empathy, searching for shared interests, understanding and acknowledging different opinions, and also recognizing the boundaries where it is time to stop arguing and accept differing worldviews.

These skills can emerge only in a school environment that values meaningful discussion, and such an environment must be consciously shaped. If it were up to me, I would leave more room for independent decision‑making to every school leader and teacher. I would not impose so much oversight and control — I would let schools prepare children for life as they see best, and let universities measure knowledge at admission according to the needs of each field.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!