The 3 Lies of Harvard Noureddine Boutahar

During my stay in Boston in 2004, I had the privilage of visiting Harvard
University—that towering beacon of learning—in the company of a group of distinguished professors and students from Boston University. It was there, in the heart of this esteemed institution that enshrines Veritas (Truth) as its sacred motto, that I chanced upon a deliciously ironic paradox, one the locals recount with a knowing smile.

Standing proudly in Harvard Yard is a magestic bronze statue said to represent John Harvard. Among students, however, it goes by a far less reverent moniker: the Statue of Three Lies. At first glance, the label seems almost heretical in America’s oldest university, a place that claims truth as its lodestar. But, as the saying goes, the devil is in the details.

The First Lie: A Case of Mistaken Identity

The inscription confidently asserts that the statue portrays John Harvard himself. In truth, that’s a bit of a tall tale. When the sculptor Daniel Chester French began work in 1884, he quickly discovered that no authentic portraits of John Harvard existed; the man had died more than two centuries earlier. Faced with this void, French scraped together an escape by using a Harvard student of the time, Sherman Hoar, as his model—thus giving a fictional face to a very real benefactor.

The Second Lie: The Founder’s Myth

The pedestal also proclaims John Harvard as the university’s “Founder.” Historically, however, a different truth lies beneath the surface. Harvard was established by a formal vote of the Great and General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. John Harvard’s true claim to fame lies elsewhere: he was the institution’s first benevolent benefactor, donating half his estate and his entire library. The university bears his name as a tribute to his altruistic generosity, not as recognition of authorship.

The Third Lie: A Chronological Slip

Finally, the date 1638 is engraved as the year of Harvard’s founding. The records, however, are clear: the university was founded in 1636. The year 1638 marks John Harvard’s death and the execution of his bequest—not the birth of the institution itself.

Granting these narrative concessions, the statue remains a mandatory stop on any Harvard tour. Visitors and students alike line up to rub the statue’s left shoe for luck and for academic success. Decades of hopeful hands have polished the toe box of the shoe to a gleaming gold, creating a striking contrast with the rest of the bronze figure.

It is a scene that perfectly captures the uneasy marriage of academic dignity and popular myth. In the end, it reminds us that all that glitters is not gold—and that even at Harvard, a well-polished “lie” can grow into a beloved tradition.

AI is Teachers' New Bud Noureddine Boutahar

In the realm of education, there exist three distinct groups of teachers: some who find comfort in the familiarity of their established routines, some who display hesitation when it comes to embracing the unknown, and individuals like myself, who possess a natural inclination for exploring innovative approaches. These distinctions become particularly evident in the context of incorporating Artificial Intelligence (AI) into education, which is not only indispensable but also timesaving and transformative.

First of all, AI has become an indispensable part of our lives, permeating various aspects of society and reshaping our methods of work, communication, interaction with technology, as well as teaching and learning. Those who resist it today are just mirroring the mindset of the small-minded Internet Luddites from the early days of this millennium. Like it or not, Artificial Intelligence is poised to assume a central role in the field of education because it is increasingly recognized as a transformative force that can enhance teaching efficacy and learning outcomes. In education, AI plays an inexorably imperative role, rendering resistance akin to tilting at windmills and ultimately anchoring us to the past.

Secondly, AI offers vast transformative potential for language education. It stands to enhance its efficiency and effectiveness, providing language teachers with powerful tools to create more engaging and successful learning lessons for their students. AI algorithms can revolutionize teaching and learning by enabling personalized and adaptive instruction. Besides, AI-powered tools can offer instant feedback on various language aspects like pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary, allowing students to address their weaknesses in real time. Moreover, AI can provide a wealth of resources, for both teachers and students, such as interactive language applications, chatbots, and language translation services, which make language learning more engaging and accessible. It also has the capability to collect and analyze vast amounts of data, helping teachers identify learning styles and adjust their teaching methods accordingly. Overall, and to echo George Couros, AI will not replace great teachers but it will make them more transformational.

Thirdly, AI has the potential to both save time for teachers and alleviate their time constraints. It can aid teachers in saving time by providing services like summarizing lengthy content and generating video transcripts in the blink of an eye. It can create level-relevant tests, games, and exercises in a split second. Moreover, it can adjust the formality, tone, and style of written content immediately, and address individual student requirements instantly and free teachers from the 'one size fits all' model. Additionally, AI can make lesson planning more efficient by offering the most up-to-date and insightful methods and strategies available in no time.  It can also offer thought-provoking discussion prompts for both discussions and written assignments in a heartbeat, enhancing the overall teaching experience. Is there anything on Earth that could possibly top this? Isn't it absolutely worth giving it a shot.

Fourthly, in a constantly evolving world, marked by shifting trends and evolving societal norms, it is imperative for educators to acknowledge that times change, and consequently, people change as well. To remain effective and relevant in their roles, educators should avoid isolating themselves from embracing tools and practices that have become ubiquitous in the wider community like AI. AI is increasingly asserting its influence and is poised to take the lead in the field of education, without a shadow of doubt. So, any teacher who hesitates to leverage its power is essentially failing to adapt. Any teacher who is reluctant to play students at their own game is fundamentally refusing to change. In Charles Darwin’s words, “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent; it is the one most responsive to change.” Therefore, the ability to adapt and stay current is not merely a choice but a necessity for educators seeking to excel in their profession.

In a nutshell, AI has become the must-have superhero in the world of language teaching, swooping in to create a super fun, super accessible, and super flexible educational experience. It's a win-win for teachers and students, making learning a blast!

Massar: The Software that Broke our Education's Back Noureddine Boutahar

Students are taking to the streets in Morocco these days to demonstrate against Massar software because the proverbial little bird told them that it would hurt them more than help them. Although the Ministry of Education might have acted with good intentions to insure transparency and fairness in testing and grading, its untimely action has awakened a long dormant issue and truth: our education system is failing our students because of a myriad of reasons. This post, however, will cover only the ones which characterize teachers-ministry relationships and, consequently, affect the students and the teaching-learning process.

First, the teachers-ministry relationship has often been one of mutual suspicion and distrust. Both sides have been exchanging accusations for decades over the failure of our education system. Teachers have often pointed an accusing finger at the ministry and its bureaucrats and held them responsible for all the failures and disappointments of our education system. They have also criticized the department as ineffective and unproductive, spinning its wheel aimlessly. Teachers, on the other hand, have been stigmatized and labeled as instigators and education profiteers, and have been blamed for all the problems in education and for everything that goes wrong in schools. They, also, have too often been vilified and depicted as part of the problem instead of partners, experts, and authorities to be respected, consulted, and heard. This cat and mouse game is simply outrageous and has created an atmosphere of mistrust and has had devastating results and a serious negative impact on the teaching of Moroccan children.

Second, the above mentioned chronic, underground conflict is the outgrowth of the Ministry tightening its grip on all aspects of education. So, all the decisions have been made in a top-down fashion with almost no input from teachers who have and are still asking for an honest and open communication as well as a true partnership with the Ministry and other stakeholders. The Ministry, instead, practices the old Moroccan chauvinist saying of “ask for their advice, but never take it.” In fact, reports are regularly written by teachers about the appalling state of our education system and suggest reform strategies and options to improve educational outcomes. However, education officials – wise guys – usually take the propositions, if ever, with a grain of salt so as not to let the voice of hands-on men and women drown out or overpower their own. So, teachers have usually been the last ones to know of these superficial and limited patchwork reforms made at a ‘higher’ level.

Third, teachers have been, for decades, implementers of failed educational policies that they have had no hand or say in creating, and they are almost never partners in the policy development process. The deployment of Massar software a few weeks ago bears out on this claim. It came like a clap of thunder because neither the administrators nor the teachers nor the students were prepared for it. Certainly, the digital school management system will not hurt the students, but it has created a tense and uncomfortable atmosphere and roiled suspicion and fear because of the Ministry’s rashness and arbitrariness in introducing it. If it is natural for students to fear what they don’t know, it is not necessary for the Education Department to rush out the software until those it would affect get familiar and acquainted with it. It would have been better if the Ministry had piloted the software for enough time and allowed all the parties concerned to comment on it and make suggestions. The present version of the software has a few flaws that have to be fixed. These include – at this writing – things like a contradiction with ministerial memos in terms of the number of quizzes and tests and the overlooking of some subjects. So, what soured many is not the software itself, but the Ministry’s modus operandi.

Fourth, and I hope to be wrong on this one, our Makhzen – in general– often creates distractors to occupy people when it feels there is mounting dissatisfaction and/or frustration with substantive issues. Distracting people with side issues is a formula that never fails our de facto rulers (Makhzen). Most probably, Massar is one of these smoke screens used to hide the real and urgent need for a better and fundamental reform in education that involves all the stakeholders in the formulation of the purposes, ends, and means of our education. My last worry, though, is whether this software will survive and live up to the expectations of committed and dutiful teachers or it will suffer the fate of Gally Software, Genie, Programme d’Urgence, and others.

Last, but not least, is the frustrating bureaucracy which pervades every nook and cranny of this sector and hinders initiative, stifles creativity, and impedes innovation. I, myself, suffered the cudgel of bureaucracy time and again. A good – or maybe bad – example that still stands out in my mind happened back in 2006 when I dropped a project for my school that was to be funded by the UME and RELO for the simple reason that I could not cut through the meandering procedure of bureaucracy. Red-tape is not only frustrating and dissuading but also wastes so much time and energy and costs so much money.

To be able to make serious inroads into reforming our education system and into dealing with the current horrible situation, the Government and Education Department need to treat teachers, administrators, supervisors, and parents as true partners for the equal benefit of all. These partners contribution will make work lighter because, as Henry Ford said, “If everyone is moving forward together, then success takes care of itself.”