Thank you very much.
Tänan teid väga.
I moved to America 12 years ago with my wife Terry and our two kids. Actually, truthfully, we moved to Los Angeles --
Kolisin Ameerikasse 12 aastat tagasi koos abikaasa Terry ja meie kahe lapsega. Tegelikkuses, ausaltöelda, me kolisime Los Angeles'e --
(Laughter)
(Naermine)
thinking we were moving to America, but anyway --
arvates, et kolime Ameerikasse, kuid igatahes --
(Laughter)
(Naermine)
It's a short plane ride from Los Angeles to America.
Los Angelesest Ameerikasse on vaid lühike lennureis.
(Laughter)
(Naermine)
I got here 12 years ago, and when I got here, I was told various things, like, "Americans don't get irony."
Ma tulin siia 12 aastat tagasi, ja kui ma siia tulin, mulle räägiti mitmeid asju Nagu, "ameeriklased ei mõista irooniat."
(Laughter)
(Naermine)
Have you come across this idea? It's not true. I've traveled the whole length and breadth of this country. I have found no evidence that Americans don't get irony. It's one of those cultural myths, like, "The British are reserved."
Kas oled enne sellist mõtteviisi kohanud? See ei ole tõsi. Ma reisisin selle maa risti ja põiki läbi. Kuid pole leidnud tõendeid , et ameeriklased ei mõistaks irooniat. See on üks kultuurilistest müütidest, nagu, "Britid on reserveeritud."
(Laughter)
(Naermine)
I don't know why people think this. We've invaded every country we've encountered.
Ma ei tea, miks inimesed nii arvavad. Me oleme vallutanud kõik maad, mida kohanud oleme.
(Laughter)
(Naermine)
But it's not true Americans don't get irony, but I just want you to know that that's what people are saying about you behind your back. You know, so when you leave living rooms in Europe, people say, thankfully, nobody was ironic in your presence.
Kuid pole tõsi, et ameeriklased ei mõista irooniat, kuid ma tahan, et sa teaksid, et seda räägivad inimesed teie selja taga. Tead, kui sa lahkud Euroopa elutubadest, inimesed ütlevad, hea, et keegi ei olnud irooniline.
(Laughter)
(Naermine)
But I knew that Americans get irony when I came across that legislation, "No Child Left Behind."
Kuid ma teadsin, et ameeriklased mõistavad irooniat kui nägin esimest korda seadusandlust "Ükski laps ei jäeta maha."
(Laughter)
(Naermine)
Because whoever thought of that title gets irony.
Sest kes iganes mõtles välja pealkirja, saab irooniale pihta.
(Laughter)
(Naermine)
Don't they?
Või mitte?
(Applause)
(Aplaus)
Because it's leaving millions of children behind. Now I can see that's not a very attractive name for legislation: "Millions of Children Left Behind." I can see that. What's the plan? We propose to leave millions of children behind, and here's how it's going to work.
Kuna see jätab miljonid lapsed maha. Nüüd ma saan aru, et see ei ole väga atraktiivne nimi seadusandlusele: "Miljonid lapsed jäetud maha." Ma näen seda. Mis plaan on? Me palume jätta miljonid lapsed maha, ja siin on mõte, kuidas see töötaks.
And it's working beautifully.
Ja see töötab hästi.
(Laughter)
(Naermine)
In some parts of the country, 60 percent of kids drop out of high school. In the Native American communities, it's 80 percent of kids. If we halved that number, one estimate is it would create a net gain to the U.S. economy over 10 years, of nearly a trillion dollars. From an economic point of view, this is good math, isn't it, that we should do this? It actually costs an enormous amount to mop up the damage from the dropout crisis.
Mõnes paigas sellel maal, 60 protsenti lapsi kukub keskkoolist välja. Indiaanlaste kogukondades on selleks 80 protsenti lastest. Kui jagaksime numbri kahega, siis üks arvamus on, et see looks Ühendriikide majandusse eelarvelise kasumi kümne aastaga, pea et triljon dollarit. Majanduslikust vaatevinklist on see päris hea matemaatika või mis, et peaksime seda tegema? Tegelikult maksab päris palju järelkoristuse tegemine peale väljalangejate kriisi.
But the dropout crisis is just the tip of an iceberg. What it doesn't count are all the kids who are in school but being disengaged from it, who don't enjoy it, who don't get any real benefit from it.
Kuid väljalangejate kriis on vaid jäämäe tipp. Tegelikkuses ei arvesta see aga koolis käivaid lapsi , kes ei ole kaasatud, kes ei naudi seda või kes ei saa sellest tegelikult kasu.
And the reason is not that we're not spending enough money. America spends more money on education than most other countries. Class sizes are smaller than in many countries. And there are hundreds of initiatives every year to try and improve education. The trouble is, it's all going in the wrong direction. There are three principles on which human life flourishes, and they are contradicted by the culture of education under which most teachers have to labor and most students have to endure.
Ja põhjus pole piisavas hulgas raha kulutamises. Ameerika kulutab haridusele rohkem kui paljud teised riigid. Klasside suurused on palju väiksemad kui paljudes teistes riikides. Ja igal aastal on sadu omaalgatusi, et parandada haridust Probleem on aga selles, et see kõik liigub vales suunas. On kolm põhimõtet, millel inimelu edeneb, Kuid need on vastuolus hariduskultuuriga, mille all enamik õpetajad peavad töötama ja enamik õppijaid peavad vastu pidama.
The first is this, that human beings are naturally different and diverse. Can I ask you, how many of you have got children of your own? Okay. Or grandchildren. How about two children or more? Right. And the rest of you have seen such children.
Esimeseks asjaks, inimestena oleme me loomulikult erinevad. Kas võin sinult küsida kui paljudel siin on endal lapsed? Hästi. Või lapselapsed. Aga kaks või rohkem last? Nii. Ja teised teist on selliseid lapsi näinud.
(Laughter)
(Naermine)
Small people wandering about.
Väikesed inimesed ringi ekslemas.
(Laughter)
(Naermine)
I will make you a bet, and I am confident that I will win the bet. If you've got two children or more, I bet you they are completely different from each other. Aren't they?
Ma vean sinuga kihla ning olen kindel, et ma võidan selle kihlveo. Kui sul on kaks või rohkem last, vean kihla, et nad erinevad täielikult üksteisest. Või mitte?
(Applause)
(Aplaus)
You would never confuse them, would you? Like, "Which one are you? Remind me."
Sa ei ajaks neid kunagi segamine või mis? Näiteks, "Kumb sa oled? Meenuta mulle."
(Laughter)
(Naermine)
"Your mother and I need some color-coding system so we don't get confused."
"Minul ja sinu emal on vaja värvikoodi süsteemi, et me ei ajaks teid sassi."
Education under "No Child Left Behind" is based on not diversity but conformity. What schools are encouraged to do is to find out what kids can do across a very narrow spectrum of achievement. One of the effects of "No Child Left Behind" has been to narrow the focus onto the so-called STEM disciplines. They're very important. I'm not here to argue against science and math. On the contrary, they're necessary but they're not sufficient. A real education has to give equal weight to the arts, the humanities, to physical education. An awful lot of kids, sorry, thank you --
Haridus "Ükski laps ei jäeta maha" all ei ole mitte rajatud mitmekesisusele vaid samasusele Koolid on innustatud leidma, mida lapsed suudavad teha väga väikese saavutuste spektrumil. Üks tulemustest "Ükski laps ei jäeta maha" on olnud selleks, et kitsendada fookust niinimetatud STEM õppeainetele. Need on väga olulised. Ma ei ole siin, et vaielda teaduse või matemaatikaga. Vastupidi, need on vajalikud, kuid need ei ole piisavad. Päris haridus peab andama võrdse panuse humanitaarteadustes ja kehalises kasvatuses. Kahjuks väga palju lapsi, mul on kahju, ma tänan --
(Applause)
(Aplaus)
One estimate in America currently is that something like 10 percent of kids, getting on that way, are being diagnosed with various conditions under the broad title of attention deficit disorder. ADHD. I'm not saying there's no such thing. I just don't believe it's an epidemic like this. If you sit kids down, hour after hour, doing low-grade clerical work, don't be surprised if they start to fidget, you know?
Ameerika üks hetke oletus on et umbes 10 protsenti lapsi, kes sel teel käivad, diagnoositakse mitmete eri diagnoosidega, suure hüperaktiivsuse sildi all. ADHD. Ma ütlen, sellist asja ei ole olemas. Ma lihtsalt ei usu, et see on selline epideemia. Kui sa istud laste kõrval, tund tunni järel, tehes madala-taseme kirjavigade tööd, ära imesta kui nad hakkavad nihelema, eks?
(Laughter)
(Naermine)
(Applause)
(Aplaus)
Children are not, for the most part, suffering from a psychological condition. They're suffering from childhood.
Enamustel juhtudel lapsed ei kannata psüholoogilise häire all. Nad kannatavad lapsepõlve all.
(Laughter)
(Naermine)
And I know this because I spent my early life as a child. I went through the whole thing. Kids prosper best with a broad curriculum that celebrates their various talents, not just a small range of them. And by the way, the arts aren't just important because they improve math scores. They're important because they speak to parts of children's being which are otherwise untouched.
Ja ma tean seda, sest ma olen ise ka kunagi laps olnud. Ma käisin läbi kogu teekonna. Lapsed on kõige edukamad laias õppekavas, mis tähtsustab nende eri andeid, mitte lihtsalt kitsas valik. Muide humanitaarteatused ei ole ainult tähtsad, kuna aitavad kaasa matemaatika tulemustele. Need on tähtsad, sest räägivad laste erinevate omaduste kohta, mis muidu jäävad puutumata.
The second, thank you --
Teiseks, ma tänan--
(Applause)
(Aplaus)
The second principle that drives human life flourishing is curiosity. If you can light the spark of curiosity in a child, they will learn without any further assistance, very often. Children are natural learners. It's a real achievement to put that particular ability out, or to stifle it. Curiosity is the engine of achievement. Now the reason I say this is because one of the effects of the current culture here, if I can say so, has been to de-professionalize teachers. There is no system in the world or any school in the country that is better than its teachers. Teachers are the lifeblood of the success of schools. But teaching is a creative profession. Teaching, properly conceived, is not a delivery system. You know, you're not there just to pass on received information. Great teachers do that, but what great teachers also do is mentor, stimulate, provoke, engage. You see, in the end, education is about learning. If there's no learning going on, there's no education going on. And people can spend an awful lot of time discussing education without ever discussing learning. The whole point of education is to get people to learn.
Teine põhimõte, mis paneb inimese elu õitsema on uudishimu. Kui sa suudad lapses tekitada huvi sädemekese, õpivad nad tihti ilma igasuguse kaasa aitamiseta. Lapsed on loomulikud õppijad. On väga suur saavutus see eriline võime välja tuua või see lämmatada. Uudishimu mootoriks on saavutus. Põhjus, miks ma seda ütlen on praeguse kultuuri üks siinne mõju, kui ma tohin nii öelda, õpetajate de-professionaliseerimine. Maailmas ei ole ühtegi süsteemi või ühtegi kooli siin riigis, mis on parem kui sealsed õpetajad. Õpetajad on koolide elujõu edu. Kuid õpetamine on loov amet. Õpetamine, täpsemalt mõistes ei ole edastussüsteem. Ma tean, et sa ei ole siin ainult selleks, et informatsiooni ammutada. Väga head õpetajad teevad seda, kuid suurepärased õpetaja samuti juhivad, kannustavad, õhutavad, kaasavad. Kas näed, lõpuks, haridus on õppimises. Kui ei ole toimumas õppimist, siis ei saa ka keegi haridust. Ja inimesed kulutavad kohutavalt palju aega arutamaks haridust, ilma õppimisest rääkimata. Kogu hariduse eesmärk on inimesed panna õppima.
An old friend of mine -- actually very old, he's dead.
Üks minu vana sõber -- tegelikult väga vana, ta on surnud.
(Laughter)
(Naermine)
That's as old as it gets, I'm afraid.
Ma arvan, et see on nii vana kui olla saab.
(Laughter)
(Naermine)
But a wonderful guy he was, wonderful philosopher. He used to talk about the difference between the task and achievement senses of verbs. You can be engaged in the activity of something, but not really be achieving it, like dieting.
Kuid ta oli üks imeline mees, imeline filosoof. Ta tavatses rääkida erinevustest tegusõnade, ülesande ja saavutuse taju vahel. Sa võid olla kaasatud mingis tegevuses, kuid mitte midagi saavutamata, nagu dieedi pidamine.
(Laughter)
(Naermine)
It's a very good example. There he is. He's dieting. Is he losing any weight? Not really.
See on väga hea näide. Ta on seal. Peab dieeti. Kas ta kaotab kaalu? Mitte väga.
(Laughter)
(Naermine)
Teaching is a word like that. You can say, "There's Deborah, she's in room 34, she's teaching." But if nobody's learning anything, she may be engaged in the task of teaching but not actually fulfilling it.
Õpetamine on sarnane sõna. Sa võid öelda, "Deborah, on ruumis 34, ta õpetab." Kuid kui keegi midagi ei õpi, võib ta olla kaasatud õpetamise ülesandes eesmärki täitmata.
The role of a teacher is to facilitate learning. That's it. And part of the problem is, I think, that the dominant culture of education has come to focus on not teaching and learning, but testing. Now, testing is important. Standardized tests have a place. But they should not be the dominant culture of education. They should be diagnostic. They should help.
Õpetaja roll on kaasa aidata õppimisele. See on kõik. Ja ma arvan, et osa probleemist on dominantse hariduskultuuri fookuse suuna hoidmine mitte õpetamisel ja õppimisel, vaid testimisel. Nüüd, testimine on tähtis. Standardsetel testidel on oma koht. Kuid need ei tohiks olla dominantne hariduskultuur. Nad peaksid olema testijad. Nad peaksid aitama.
(Applause)
(Aplaus)
If I go for a medical examination, I want some standardized tests. I do. I want to know what my cholesterol level is compared to everybody else's on a standard scale. I don't want to be told on some scale my doctor invented in the car.
Kui ma lähen meditsiinilisele vaatusele, tahan ma standardseid teste. Päriselt. Tahan teada, mis on minu kolesterooli tase võrreldes kõigi teiste standardse skaalaga. Ma ei taha, et mulle jagatakse minu doktori autos leiutatud skaalal
(Laughter)
(Naermine)
"Your cholesterol is what I call Level Orange."
"Su kolesterooli on, mida kutsuksin kõrgeks ohu tasemeks."
"Really?"
"Tõesti?"
(Laughter)
(Naermine)
"Is that good?" "We don't know."
"Kas see on hea?" "Me ei tea."
(Laughter)
(Naermine)
But all that should support learning. It shouldn't obstruct it, which of course it often does. So in place of curiosity, what we have is a culture of compliance. Our children and teachers are encouraged to follow routine algorithms rather than to excite that power of imagination and curiosity. And the third principle is this: that human life is inherently creative. It's why we all have different résumés. We create our lives, and we can recreate them as we go through them. It's the common currency of being a human being. It's why human culture is so interesting and diverse and dynamic. I mean, other animals may well have imaginations and creativity, but it's not so much in evidence, is it, as ours? I mean, you may have a dog. And your dog may get depressed. You know, but it doesn't listen to Radiohead, does it?
Kuid see kõik peaks toetama õppimist. See ei peaks seda tõkestama, mida see kahjuks tihti teeb. Nii, et uudishimu kohast on meil kultuuriline vastavus. Meie lapsed ja õpetajad on innustatud järgima rutiinseid algorütme kui pigem ärgitada seda kujutlusvõime ja uudishimu sädet. Ja kolmas põhimõte on see: inimelu on pärilikult loov. Selle pärast on meil kõigil erinevad elulood. Me loome endi elu ja me taasloome neid, minnes neist läbi. See on ühtne kurss, mis teeb meist inimese. Selle pärast inimkultuur on nii huvitav ja mitmekesine ja dünaamiline. Ma pean silmas, et teised loomad võivad omada kujutlust ja loovust, kuid see ei tule esile, mitte nii palju kui meil? Ma mõtlen, sul võib olla koer. Ja sinu koer võib olla masendunud. Tead ju, kuid ta ei kuula Radiohead'i, või mis?
(Laughter)
(Naermine)
And sit staring out the window with a bottle of Jack Daniels.
Ja istub aknast välja vaadades, hoides Jack Daniels'i pudelit
(Laughter)
(Naermine)
"Would you like to come for a walk?" "No, I'm fine."
"Kas sa tahad jalutama tulla?" "Ei, ma ei soovi."
(Laughter)
(Naermine)
"You go. I'll wait. But take pictures."
"Sina mine. Ma ootan. Kuid tee pilte."
(Laughter)
(Naermine)
We all create our own lives through this restless process of imagining alternatives and possibilities, and one of the roles of education is to awaken and develop these powers of creativity. Instead, what we have is a culture of standardization.
Me kõik loome oma elud läbi selle rahutu protsessi, kujutades ette alternatiive ja võimalusi ja üks hariduse rolle on äratada ja arendada neid loovuse viise. Selle asemel on meil aga standardiseerimise kultuur.
Now, it doesn't have to be that way. It really doesn't. Finland regularly comes out on top in math, science and reading. Now, we only know that's what they do well at, because that's all that's being tested. That's one of the problems of the test. They don't look for other things that matter just as much. The thing about work in Finland is this: they don't obsess about those disciplines. They have a very broad approach to education, which includes humanities, physical education, the arts.
Nüüd, see ei pea sedasi olema. Tegelikult ka see ei pea. Soome tuleb regulaarselt esimeseks matemaatikas, teadustes ja lugemises. Nüüd me teame vaid, et nendes on nad osavad, kuna need on ainsad, mida testitakse. See on üks testide probleeme. Nad ei otsi teisi asju, mis on täpselt sama olulised. Töö omadused Soomes on: neil ei ole kinnisideed nende õppeainete osas. Neil on väga lai lähenemine haridusele, mis hoomab endas humanitaarteadusi ning kehalist kasvatust.
Second, there is no standardized testing in Finland. I mean, there's a bit, but it's not what gets people up in the morning, what keeps them at their desks.
Teiseks, Soomel puuduvad igasugused standardsed testid. Ma mõtlen, seal on natuke, kuid see ei ole, mis inimesi hommikul üles ajab, mis hoiab neid nende laua taga.
The third thing -- and I was at a meeting recently with some people from Finland, actual Finnish people, and somebody from the American system was saying to the people in Finland, "What do you do about the drop-out rate in Finland?"
Kolmandaks -- ja ma olin hiljuti koosolekul mõne Soome inimesga, päris soomlasega, ja keegi Ameerika süsteemist ütles soomlasele, "Mida te võtate ette väljalangejate protsendiga Soomes?"
And they all looked a bit bemused, and said, "Well, we don't have one. Why would you drop out? If people are in trouble, we get to them quite quickly and we help and support them."
Nad kõik olid veidike hämmingus ja ütlesid, "Meil ei ole seda. Miks sa peaksid välja kukkuma? Kui inimesed on hädas, me jõuame nendeni üsna ruttu ja aitame ning toetame neid."
Now people always say, "Well, you know, you can't compare Finland to America." No. I think there's a population of around five million in Finland. But you can compare it to a state in America. Many states in America have fewer people in them than that. I mean, I've been to some states in America and I was the only person there.
Inimesed ütlevad alati, "Sa tead, et ei ole võimalik Soomet Ameerikaga võrrelda." Ei. Ma arvan, et Soome elanikkond on umbes 5 miljoni ringis. Kuid sa saad seda võrrelda Ameerika ühendriigiga. Paljudes Ameerika osariikides on sellest vähem inimesi. Ma mõtlen, ma olen olnud mõnes ühendriigis ja ma olin ainus inimene seal.
(Laughter)
(Naermine)
Really. Really. I was asked to lock up when I left.
Päriselt. Päriselt. Mul paluti enda järel uks lukustada.
(Laughter)
(Naermine)
But what all the high-performing systems in the world do is currently what is not evident, sadly, across the systems in America -- I mean, as a whole. One is this: they individualize teaching and learning. They recognize that it's students who are learning and the system has to engage them, their curiosity, their individuality, and their creativity. That's how you get them to learn.
Kuid mida kõik kõrge sooritusvõimega süsteemid maailmas teevad on see, mis hetkel ei ole kahjuks ilmne, üleüldiselt Ameerika süsteemides -- ma mõtlen kui tervik. Üks on see: nad individualiseerivad õpetamist ja õppimist. Nad tunnustavad, et õpilased on need kes õppivad ja süsteem peab neid kaasama, nende uudishimu, nende isikut ja loomingulisust. See on kuidas sa saad nad õppima.
The second is that they attribute a very high status to the teaching profession. They recognize that you can't improve education if you don't pick great people to teach and keep giving them constant support and professional development. Investing in professional development is not a cost. It's an investment, and every other country that's succeeding well knows that, whether it's Australia, Canada, South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong or Shanghai. They know that to be the case.
Teiseks nad tunnustavad väga kõrget staatust õpetaja ametile. Nad osutavad, et sa ei saa haridust parandada kui sa ei vali suurepäraseid inimesi õpetama ja neid varustama pideva toega ja professionaalse arenguga. Professionaalsesse arengusse investeerimine ei ole kulu. See on investeering ja kõik teised riigid, kes on edukad teavad seda hästi, olgu selleks siis Austraalia, Kanada, Lõuna-Korea, Singapur, Hongkong, Shanghai. Nad teavad, et selles on võti.
And the third is, they devolve responsibility to the school level for getting the job done. You see, there's a big difference here between going into a mode of command and control in education -- That's what happens in some systems. Central or state governments decide, they know best and they're going to tell you what to do. The trouble is that education doesn't go on in the committee rooms of our legislative buildings. It happens in classrooms and schools, and the people who do it are the teachers and the students, and if you remove their discretion, it stops working. You have to put it back to the people.
Ja kolmandaks, nad arendavad vastutustunnet kooli tasemel, et tööd saaksid tehtud. Näed, siin on suur erinevus Käsu ja kontrolli viisi vahel hariduses -- Mõnes süsteemis, see ongi mis juhtub. Kesk- või osariigi valitsus otsustab, nad teavad paremini ja otsustavad, mida sa tegema pead. Probleem on selles, et haridus ei lähe edasi seadusandluse hoonete kommitee ruumides. See leiab aset klassiruumis ja koolis, ja inimesed kes sellega tegelevad on õpetajad ja õpilased, ja kui sa eemaldad nende valikuvabaduse, siis see lakkab töötamast. Sa pead selle panema inimestesse tagasi.
(Applause)
(Aplaus)
There is wonderful work happening in this country. But I have to say it's happening in spite of the dominant culture of education, not because of it. It's like people are sailing into a headwind all the time. And the reason I think is this: that many of the current policies are based on mechanistic conceptions of education. It's like education is an industrial process that can be improved just by having better data, and somewhere in the back of the mind of some policy makers is this idea that if we fine-tune it well enough, if we just get it right, it will all hum along perfectly into the future. It won't, and it never did.
Selles riigis on aset leidmas imeline töö. Kuid pean ütlema, et see juhtub hoolimata dominantsest hariduskultuurist, ja mitte selle pärast. See on sama kui inimesed purjetavad kogu aeg vastutuult. Ja ma arvan, et põhjus on selles: paljud praegused eeskirjad põhinevad masinlikel hariduse põhimõtetel. Tundub nagu haridus on tööstuslik protsess, mida saab ainult parandada parema informatsiooniga ja kuskil mõne seaduse tegija ajukäärudes on mõte, et kui me seda piisavalt hästi modifitseerime, siis see hakkab toimima ning see kõik vuriseb perfektselt tulevikku. Ei see vurise ja pole vurisenud.
The point is that education is not a mechanical system. It's a human system. It's about people, people who either do want to learn or don't want to learn. Every student who drops out of school has a reason for it which is rooted in their own biography. They may find it boring. They may find it irrelevant. They may find that it's at odds with the life they're living outside of school. There are trends, but the stories are always unique. I was at a meeting recently in Los Angeles of -- they're called alternative education programs. These are programs designed to get kids back into education. They have certain common features. They're very personalized. They have strong support for the teachers, close links with the community and a broad and diverse curriculum, and often programs which involve students outside school as well as inside school. And they work. What's interesting to me is, these are called "alternative education."
Mõte on selles, et haridus ei ole mehaaniline süsteem. See on inimlik süsteem. See on inimestest, inimesed, kes tahavad õppida või kes ei taha õppida. Igal õpilasel, kes koolist välja kukub on selleks põhjus, mis on juurdunud nende eluloosse. Nad võivad leida selle igava. Nad võivad leida selle ebaolulise. Nad võivad leida, et see on äraspidi nende igapäevase eluga väljaspool kooli. Suundumusi on erinevaid, kuid lood on alati unikaalsed. Hiljuti ühel Los Angeles'e kohtumisel -- kutsutud alternatiivseteks haridusprogrammideks. Need on programmid, tehtud selleks, et lapsi haridusse tagasi saada. Neil on teatud ühised omadused. Nad on väga personaalsed. Neil on tugev õpetajate tugi, tihedad seosed ühiskonnaga ja avar ning mitmekesine õppekava ja tihti õpilasi nii kooli väljas kui kooli sees hõlmavad programmid. Ja need toimivad. Minu jaoks on huvitav, et neid kutsutakse "alternatiiv hariduseks".
(Laughter)
(Naermine)
You know? And all the evidence from around the world is, if we all did that, there'd be no need for the alternative.
Kas tead? Ja kõik tõendid üle kogu mailma näitavad, et kui me seda teeksime ei vajaks me varuplaane.
(Applause)
(Aplaus)
(Applause ends)
(Aplaus lõppeb)
So I think we have to embrace a different metaphor. We have to recognize that it's a human system, and there are conditions under which people thrive, and conditions under which they don't. We are after all organic creatures, and the culture of the school is absolutely essential. Culture is an organic term, isn't it?
Nii, et ma arvan, et peaksime omandama uue metafoori. Me peame mõistma, et see on inimeste süsteem ja on tingimusi mille all inimesed arenevad ning tingimusi mille all nad ei arene. Lõppude lõpuks oleme me orgaanilised olendid ja kooli kultuur on hädavajalik. Kultuur on orgaaniline mõiste, või mis?
Not far from where I live is a place called Death Valley. Death Valley is the hottest, driest place in America, and nothing grows there. Nothing grows there because it doesn't rain. Hence, Death Valley. In the winter of 2004, it rained in Death Valley. Seven inches of rain fell over a very short period. And in the spring of 2005, there was a phenomenon. The whole floor of Death Valley was carpeted in flowers for a while. What it proved is this: that Death Valley isn't dead. It's dormant. Right beneath the surface are these seeds of possibility waiting for the right conditions to come about, and with organic systems, if the conditions are right, life is inevitable. It happens all the time. You take an area, a school, a district, you change the conditions, give people a different sense of possibility, a different set of expectations, a broader range of opportunities, you cherish and value the relationships between teachers and learners, you offer people the discretion to be creative and to innovate in what they do, and schools that were once bereft spring to life.
MItte kaugel sealt, kus ma elan on koht, nimega Surmaorg. Surmaorg on kõige kuumem, kuivem koht Ameerikas ja seal ei kasva midagi. Seal ei kasva midagi, sest seal ei saja. Selle pärast ka nimi Surmaorg. 2004 aasta talvel sadas Surmaorus. 17cm vihma sadas maha väga väikesel perioodil. Ja 2005 aasta kevadel, leidis aset fenomen. Kogu Surmaoru pind oli väheseks ajaks kaetut lilledega. See tõestab seda: et Surmaorg ei ole surnud. See on unes. Kuid otse selle pinnase all on need võimaluste seemned, mis ootavad õigeid tingimusi, et esile tulla ning orgaaniliste süsteemidega, kui tingimused on õiged, elu on vältimatu. See leiab aset kogu aeg. Võta näiteks maaala, kool, piirkond, muutes tingimusi annad inimestele uue võimaluste tähenduse, uue hulga ootusi, uue suurema hulga valikuid, sa armastad ja väärtustad õpetajate ja õppijate vahelisi suhteid, sa annad inimestele valikuvabadust olla loov ja uuendada seda mida nad teevad ning tood koolid, mis kunagi olid kadunud uuesti elujõule.
Great leaders know that. The real role of leadership in education -- and I think it's true at the national level, the state level, at the school level -- is not and should not be command and control. The real role of leadership is climate control, creating a climate of possibility. And if you do that, people will rise to it and achieve things that you completely did not anticipate and couldn't have expected.
Suured juhid teavad seda. Tegelik hariduse juhi roll -- ma arvan, et see on tõsi rahvuslikul tasandil, riiklikul tasandil, kooli tasandil -- ei ole ja ei tohiks olla käskimine ja kontroll. Tegelik juhi roll on õhkkonna kontrollimises, luues võimaluste kliima. Ning kui sa seda teed, inimesed tõusevad üles ja saavutavad asju, milles sa üldse ei osalenud ja ei oodanud.
There's a wonderful quote from Benjamin Franklin. "There are three sorts of people in the world: Those who are immovable, people who don't get it, or don't want to do anything about it; there are people who are movable, people who see the need for change and are prepared to listen to it; and there are people who move, people who make things happen." And if we can encourage more people, that will be a movement. And if the movement is strong enough, that's, in the best sense of the word, a revolution. And that's what we need.
Benjamin Franklin on öelnud imeliselt. "Maailmas on olemas kolme sorti inimesi: Need kes on liikumatud, inimesed kes ei saa aru, või kes ei taha selles osas midagi teha; on inimesed, keda saab liigutada, inimesed kes näevad muutuse vajadust ja on valmis seda kuulama; ja inimesed kes liiguvad, inimesed kes viivad asjad ellu." Ja kui me saame innustada rohkem inimesi, kes oleksid liikumine. Ja kui liikumine on piisavalt tugev, mis selle kõige paremas sõna, revolutsiooni, mõistes. Ja see on mida me vajame.
Thank you very much.
Tänan teid väga.
(Applause)
(Aplaus)
Thank you very much.
Tänan teid väga.
(Applause)
(Aplaus)