We want our education systems to be integral parts of a country’s foundations, philosophy, and communities, including geographical and economic groups. At the same time, we understand that education also encompasses values, knowledge, and ideas from outside our country and community. We learn to compare our own values, often reinforcing our belief in them, while also recognising that there are other ways of thinking and organising society. Although important, I believe education often focuses too much on making us believe in our own traditions, values, and systems, making alternatives less acceptable. In some cases, this is beneficial, such as in nation-building for young countries, fostering patriotism, and working towards common goals. When we are strong in our own values and beliefs, we can be more open and tolerant of alternatives, borrowing from and lending to others.

Recently, when summarising the broader aspects of Norwegian education history over the past 150 years, particularly in rural areas which had separate laws until 1959, I highlighted that education was designed to support rural communities without monopolising the children’s lives. The common three-day school schedule allowed children to be more involved in the community than if they attended daily. On their days off, they participated in their parents’ work, primarily in farming and fishing. Large families, with many children and elderly relatives at home, required a great deal of housework, especially as there were few household machines or modern food storage facilities like fridges and freezers. Both boys and girls, particularly the latter, were engaged in these tasks. The children’s help was essential to keep the household and community functioning, especially when mothers were pregnant, during planting and harvesting seasons, and at peak fishing times.

In the cities, although children usually attended school every day, they were still expected to help at home or take on extra jobs such as errand running or assisting in workshops. These jobs, lasting only a few hours a day, were not considered child labour but were regulated to ensure they were not too demanding. Of course, there were breaches, especially in poor families, but we must remember that poverty was widespread in Norway and much of Europe until the 1950s. It was necessary for children to help as needed. This work had positive effects, as it gave children a sense of responsibility and usefulness. Idleness was unacceptable to children, parents, and the wider community. Thus, important educational and socialisation aspects were integrated into their lives.

One of the greatest losses in modern society and education, particularly in the West, is that people are no longer seen as contributors. A child, even through secondary school, is viewed as someone to be filled with knowledge and skills, not as someone who can contribute meaningfully. This leads many children and young people to feel frustrated and disengaged. In the West, many children do not thrive in school, and some disrupt classes, creating a negative learning environment. Bullying is a significant issue, and in some cases, there are even concerns about the safety of students and teachers. The root of this problem is that schools have forgotten that the most important aspect of learning and growing up is being seen and appreciated. We know this, but we don’t always act on it. Not everything was better in the old village schools in Norway, or in countries like Pakistan in the past and even today. However, there were strengths, particularly in the integration of schools with the surrounding society and the children’s sense of usefulness. It was also better when the curriculum was simpler and less demanding for both children and teachers. Today, education has become very competitive, often prioritising top grades over actual knowledge and skills.

In the past fifty years, education systems in the West and elsewhere have become more content-heavy, and the duration of compulsory schooling has extended. In Scandinavia, for instance, compulsory education grew from seven years to eight, nine, and even ten years, with full-day schools becoming the norm. These changes have led schools to become more detached from the communities they serve. Today, if a Scandinavian student does not complete the additional three years of upper secondary school, they have little chance of pursuing vocational training or securing a good job. Additionally, the cost of education has risen significantly, without always providing value for money or a return on investment for individuals or society.

In Pakistan, many children still do not attend school. We need to enrol them, and perhaps there are lessons to learn from Norway’s three-day school system or from half-day shifts, which could help stretch resources and foster closer ties between schools and communities. In the West, the high cost of education is also a problem, as is the fact that many children feel undervalued and are not learning what they need. Education must be enjoyable, and this can only happen when it is integrated with the society in which children and adults live. We should learn from the past, both from our own and other countries, as we plan future education systems, considering new technologies, values, and the work and thinking habits we need to develop – in Pakistan and beyond.

Atle Hetland
The writer is a senior Norwegian social scientist with experience from university, diplomacy and development aid. He can be reached at atlehetland@yahoo.com