“Scenarios for Teaching and Training: From Being ‘Kodaked’ to Futures Literacy and Futures-Proofing”

 

Being Kodaked

The article “Scenarios for Teaching and Training: From Being ‘Kodaked’ to Futures Literacy and Futures-Proofing” by Sohail Inayatullah paints a vivid picture of how education might adapt—or fail to adapt—in the face of rapid automation, artificial intelligence, and global disruptions. Using scenarios developed from case studies in Australia and Malaysia, it shows how schools and universities could either cling to outdated models, make small digital adjustments, embrace emerging industries, or radically reimagine a world where jobs are no longer the central focus of education.

What makes the article engaging is the use of metaphors. Being “Kodaked” refers to the downfall of Kodak, a company that ignored change and was left behind. Likewise, educational systems that keep training students for jobs that vanish will risk irrelevance. The “drowning” metaphor reflects systems that only adapt incrementally, moving too slowly to keep pace with change. By contrast, “future-ready” education equips learners for robotics, renewable energy, emotional intelligence, and lifelong adaptability. The most radical future envisions education beyond jobs altogether, where learning is about meaning, creativity, and flourishing in cooperative economies supported by ideas like universal basic income.

The strength of Inayatullah’s approach lies in its clarity and imagination. The scenarios make it easy to see how different choices in education policy can lead to very different futures. The article also succeeds in connecting global trends to regional contexts, highlighting how Malaysia might pursue “Uberized universities” or micro-certifications, while Brunei could leverage its wealth to experiment with flexible, purpose-driven education.

Yet, the article has limitations. The warnings about a jobless future rely on bold forecasts that may exaggerate the impact of automation. Historically, technology has eliminated some work but created new kinds of employment too. The more radical visions—such as education for a world beyond jobs—are exciting but feel aspirational rather than practical. There is little detail on how governments, teachers, and communities could realistically transition to such systems. Likewise, while flexibility and emotional intelligence are mentioned as crucial, the article leaves unexplored how these could be systematically built into classrooms and assessments.

Overall, the article is not a policy blueprint but a tool for imagination. It challenges educators and policymakers to step outside of business-as-usual thinking and consider futures that may seem uncomfortable or even impossible today. Its biggest value is in sparking dialogue: should education prepare us just for jobs, or for life in a world where jobs may no longer define us?