What is education for?
For me, the question isn’t so much what is education for, so much as who. This may seem like a facile point to make - we all know that education is for the students. That’s why people pursue careers in education: to enhance and improve the life chances of children and young people. But how much of what goes on in schools is really centred on them?
The system is run, and usually commented on, by people who enjoyed school and did well. Media commentators. Of course I’m also in that group. Too often, we try to recreate what worked well for us, assuming it will work for everyone. We do so with the best of motives. But it doesn’t work for a substantial minority of children. We need to think more about them. They matter. The child who isn’t a good “fit” with school. The child who struggles, has special needs, or is not a particularly likeable or conscientious member of the school community.
I am agnostic about who runs schools. England has always had a mixed economy of provision and multiple providers, due to a mixture of historical precedent and successive governments’ policies. I am far more concerned about what happens inside schools - for children - than about whose name is above the door.
In recent years, that diversity of schools has expanded exponentially. A thousand flowers (well, three and a half thousand at the last count) bloom. I am not opposed to this, if it is in the best interests of children. Different things work for different people. Unfortunately, too often that is not what drives this burgeoning diversity. Rather, it is driven by the beliefs, experiences and preferences of those running both schools, and chains of schools.
As a profession, we all need to make sure such diversity of provision is managed in the interests of the children living and learning in it. That means, regardless of the good intentions of those doing it, that breaking the law is unacceptable, whether the breaking is intentional or through ignorance. Above all, schools’ first concern must be the benefit and interests of children, not adults.
Look at the curriculum: pupils tell me they want a curriculum which prepares them for adult life, with clear relevance to their lives in AND outside school. They want high quality PSHE, including sex and relationships education. They want equal opportunities to study courses that best fit their strengths as young citizens. In my view, they are right on this last point in particular. The CBI, the Institute of Directors, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Chambers of Commerce, all seek young people with a rounded sense of self and self-worth, with the skills and motivation to go on learning throughout their lives.
This is something private schools do very well. The popular myth? Public school pupils spend their days sitting in rows conjugating Latin verbs in unison: miles away from the truth. Speak to any “old boy or girl” and they will say is how identified and nurtured students’ individual strengths as people, as citizens, leaders and thinkers.
My challenge? If it’s good enough for children in public schools, and we want a vibrant population of thinkers, voters, entrepreneurs, it’s good enough for children in the comprehensive schools where I started, and in those I tended and challenged in Local Authorities later in my career: those to which most of England’s young citizens go to learn, and to grow.
Schools must prepare pupils for the real world. On that, we can all agree. It gets trickier when we try to define what that means. Academic knowledge and qualifications are a vital part of it. They are not the whole story. The large majority of schools do all this very well. I have visited schools all over England where staff bend over backwards to include all students, acting in their best interests. But there are many other pressures on school leaders. There is – inevitably - a temptation to respond to these. Delivering what children and young people need might make it more difficult for an increase in “EBACC” scores. A school may lose points and places in the league tables, which of course do not apply to the private sector. And there, surely, is the nub of this Great Debate.
My office will, in the near future, consult on whether collectively we can identify indicators, and desirable outcomes, for the education system - can we identify the things that constitute a “good” education? We will then examine how ever-changing policies contribute to achieving these, and what more should be done. I hope all those reading this think piece will contribute, for none of us thinks best alone, the other central focus of this Great Debate.
The system is run, and usually commented on, by people who enjoyed school and did well. Media commentators. Of course I’m also in that group. Too often, we try to recreate what worked well for us, assuming it will work for everyone. We do so with the best of motives. But it doesn’t work for a substantial minority of children. We need to think more about them. They matter. The child who isn’t a good “fit” with school. The child who struggles, has special needs, or is not a particularly likeable or conscientious member of the school community.
I am agnostic about who runs schools. England has always had a mixed economy of provision and multiple providers, due to a mixture of historical precedent and successive governments’ policies. I am far more concerned about what happens inside schools - for children - than about whose name is above the door.
In recent years, that diversity of schools has expanded exponentially. A thousand flowers (well, three and a half thousand at the last count) bloom. I am not opposed to this, if it is in the best interests of children. Different things work for different people. Unfortunately, too often that is not what drives this burgeoning diversity. Rather, it is driven by the beliefs, experiences and preferences of those running both schools, and chains of schools.
As a profession, we all need to make sure such diversity of provision is managed in the interests of the children living and learning in it. That means, regardless of the good intentions of those doing it, that breaking the law is unacceptable, whether the breaking is intentional or through ignorance. Above all, schools’ first concern must be the benefit and interests of children, not adults.
Look at the curriculum: pupils tell me they want a curriculum which prepares them for adult life, with clear relevance to their lives in AND outside school. They want high quality PSHE, including sex and relationships education. They want equal opportunities to study courses that best fit their strengths as young citizens. In my view, they are right on this last point in particular. The CBI, the Institute of Directors, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Chambers of Commerce, all seek young people with a rounded sense of self and self-worth, with the skills and motivation to go on learning throughout their lives.
This is something private schools do very well. The popular myth? Public school pupils spend their days sitting in rows conjugating Latin verbs in unison: miles away from the truth. Speak to any “old boy or girl” and they will say is how identified and nurtured students’ individual strengths as people, as citizens, leaders and thinkers.
My challenge? If it’s good enough for children in public schools, and we want a vibrant population of thinkers, voters, entrepreneurs, it’s good enough for children in the comprehensive schools where I started, and in those I tended and challenged in Local Authorities later in my career: those to which most of England’s young citizens go to learn, and to grow.
Schools must prepare pupils for the real world. On that, we can all agree. It gets trickier when we try to define what that means. Academic knowledge and qualifications are a vital part of it. They are not the whole story. The large majority of schools do all this very well. I have visited schools all over England where staff bend over backwards to include all students, acting in their best interests. But there are many other pressures on school leaders. There is – inevitably - a temptation to respond to these. Delivering what children and young people need might make it more difficult for an increase in “EBACC” scores. A school may lose points and places in the league tables, which of course do not apply to the private sector. And there, surely, is the nub of this Great Debate.
My office will, in the near future, consult on whether collectively we can identify indicators, and desirable outcomes, for the education system - can we identify the things that constitute a “good” education? We will then examine how ever-changing policies contribute to achieving these, and what more should be done. I hope all those reading this think piece will contribute, for none of us thinks best alone, the other central focus of this Great Debate.
No comments:
Post a Comment