Leia o texto a seguir.

For decades, it seemed that the purpose of our education system was to encourage competition. Schools would award prizes to the most talented student and proudly display their names on bulletin boards. Nowadays, in many institutions, the key word has become "inclusion": no one should be left behind. Resources are channeled into helping the east capable; everyone's work (good or bad) is on the walls; and prize tables are heavily loaded with awards to make sure everyone is awarded a prize for something. Which approach is right?

Attempts to make education more inclusive are frequently criticized. Many point out that once students leave the protective environment of the classroom, they will face the challenges of the working world: what use will false reassurance be then? The purpose of school must be to reveal to people their limitations, so that they can find a vocation that suits them.

In the past, allowing the talented to rise to the top through competition would certainly have been important. In most factories, it was useful to separate the potential managers from the unskilled workforce, and companies relied on finding talented individuals to win business before their competitors did. An ethos of competition also helped countries to compete effectively with other nations as they scrambled for territory, raced to accumulate armaments or even traveled into space ahead of rivals.

But in the 21st century, are we really preparing young people for a world of competition? The academic James F. Moore argues that the days when businesses competed with each other are ending. Moore believes we should talk of "business ecosystems" nowadays. International corporations operate in global networks of suppliers and partners. Sometimes; even rival corporations work together. For example: companies often have to collaborate to define common industry standards.

What's more, hierarchies are disappearing within organizations. Modern companies have a wider range of business functions (public relations, IT, research and development), and so skills. Knowledge and decision-making are spread throughout the organization. In a modern marketing department alone, there are teams for collecting and analyzing a wealth of customer data, designing brands, advertising, etc. Each individual contributes vital skills and must receive equal training. Low-skilled work, by comparison, is increasingly being performed by automated labor; that is, robots.

But it isn't just in businesses that cooperation is becoming the norm. In the past, individuals, colleges, governments, and companies didn't have to collaborate. Now', 'collective impact" is becoming the gold standard. For example, an anti-obesity project called "Shape Up Somerville" managed to significantly bring down the average BMI (body mass index) in the town in just three years, by involving schools, colleges, local businesses, charities, government, and local citizens in a program of collective action. Led by academics, and funded by four agencies. The work involved designing school lunch menus, improving walkways, introducing gym membership packages, and running campaigns amongst the public.

Competition can still be useful. It's stimulating and can help us learn about ourselves. But it should not become a dominant feature of education systems. Those who do not receive investment will find it increasingly hard to fit into the modern world. It really is learning to take part that counts.

Fonte: (Texto retirado do livro Accelerate 2 p. 56.)