FEBRUARY 24 ― There is that curious moment in festival time, late at night.

It is that time when the kids that haven’t overdosed on Kickapoo ― and hence are not still running around screaming their heads off ― have slipped into the land of slumber and you have finally said goodbye to the less than immediate relatives.

The house owner then breaks out the good stuff: better quality snacks that he didn’t want polished off by said swarm of hungry locusts ― sorry, children ― before lunch and better quality grog he didn’t want the family alcoholic polishing off all by himself. Also before lunch.

While the ice cools the 18-year-old Scotch or the hand warms the exclusive French cognac, the conversation inevitably makes its way round to education.

Fathers are naturally concerned about the welfare of their offspring and in a country like Malaysia, getting the right education is not cheap, or indeed easy.

But are 21st-Century children of any social standing getting the right education?

Where are we now, in terms of what we teach and how?

A few weeks back, we ran the front-page story on how all this technology is melting kids’ brains.

Okay, so it’s an oversimplification, but essentially we found out that too much exposure to all these tablets, smart phones and electronic gizmos can be detrimental to a child’s social development.

However, what if all this technology can be used to boost a child’s education?

Think of the rate at which school curriculums are currently taught.

Are they keeping pace with the array of technology available, and the ability to access information?

Scroll back 30 years or more and, notwithstanding the dumping of log tables and slide rules for scientific calculators, how many kids had access to a computer?

How many kids had almost immediate access to vast libraries of information?

No computers and definitely no Internet meant that doing projects that required any kind of research took days or even weeks, including a bus ride to the local library on Saturday and the ensuing brawl as 25 twelve-year-olds pounced on the three copies of one book they had to use.

Now, such a project can be done overnight, no library, just Google.

Similarly, the useless or outdated subjects we teach our kids sap valuable time from their schedule.

I learned woodwork in school. Not that it did me much good.

If anyone can explain how learning to cut a 45-degree angle in a plank of wood with Tenon saw is going to help when your toilet has just exploded or you need to change your engine oil, then you’re a better person than I am.

Also, the two kids in my class who went on to be joiners were taught from scratch when they started their apprenticeship, so that was clearly three hours a week down the (unexploded) toilet.

Even then, knowing how a printed circuit board was put together (a skill I learned later) would have been a far more useful attribute to have.

I was told that woodwork and other arts like needlework were essential life skills that people need in the event all this technology went belly up and we were back to square one.

That makes sense, foregoing progression to teach kids skills vital in the highly unlikely event of the apocalypse.

So why didn’t we learn hunting and fighting?

The point is, as society needs to evolve, then so does what we teach and the way we teach it.

In terms of technological and social advancement, the capacity of the human race has ballooned over the past 70 years.

How far has education developed in that time?

For children in the 21st Century, the speed at which they can access information should, by definition, allow them to learn at an accelerated pace.

Should there be a reason why SPM students in maths, for example, can’t learn calculus, partial fractions or complex numbers?

Can physics or tech students move on to, say, the laws of thermodynamics and fluid mechanics?

The opportunities are not just there for the technically minded.

Arts and humanities students could have more time for expanding their repertoire in the classics, philosophy and religion.

In fact, if smart phones are so popular, are educational apps encouraged by teachers and parents? Do they make learning fun?

Or are we held back by ourselves?

A child’s capacity for learning is limitless.

Until it hits puberty, a child’s brain is wired entirely for learning and so it soaks up new information like a sponge.

However, an adult’s brain is all but shut down as far as learning is concerned.

It knows pretty much all it needs to know.

Therefore, it is much more important for your child to know that when you reach for those rose-tinted spectacles and wistfully reminisce about how things were in your day, that is the only time your child is getting a good education, isn’t it?

As for a teacher, it is far easier to confiscate a smart phone than teach the child how to get the best out of it and the lesson too.

But what does that teach our children, that fear, ignorance and looking backwards are best?

Hopefully not. But education should not be about hope.

*Gareth Corsi is news editor at Malay Mail. He can be reached at gareth@mmail.com.my or on Twitter @GarethCorsi

** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail Online.