59 Comments on Schools – back to basics

graham furey on Sat, 9th Jan 2010 9:06 pm


The first of your ‘events’ is revealing – not about you but about all of us as parents, who make choices about schools on the basis of league tables and other criteria which we, more publicly, consider to be poor measures of success. And yet we keep choosing schools that do well by standards we know to be ‘bunk’.

How many parents are there that are willing to take risks on the education of their own children in schools which might look a little like the ones you begin to describe? I am frequently spouting (publicly) the benefits of a ‘creative education’ and of the diminished importance of traditional reading and writing training in an increasinly digital age, and yet when it comes to my child’s education I worry about their ability to spell and to write clearly, with instruments called pens and pencils.

Perhaps we should leave education policy to those that don’t have kids of their own.

oldandrew on Sat, 9th Jan 2010 10:19 pm


Your diagnosis is utterly wrong.

Your son has learnt so little in French because the teachers were trying to “helping young people enjoy life and achieve their full potential” instead of making sure he knew a lot of vocabulary. The French teacher wouldn’t have been “maximising exam passes” because there are no Key Stage 3 French exams. You are describing a lack of knowledge, and yet most of your solutions suggest reducing the focus on actual knowledge (instead of skills) to even lower levels.

Exams only apply pressure in certain years and most schools become obsessed with exams only because they are the exception to the normal run of things. When exams come up children suddenly have to have some knowledge, the rest of the time they don’t, and learn very little. They are too busy doing things like developing competencies in “Citizenship, Learning, Managing Information, Managing Situations and Relating to People”. Opening Minds looks exactly like the sort of thing that is causing schools to devalue knowledge and focus on generic skills that don’t exist or can’t be taught. I have to say I find it very difficult to square your positive comments about Opening Minds with other posts where you have talked about the science of minds and brains. What does empirical research actually tell us about the learning styles, thinking skills and generic competencies of the Learning Minds curriculum? What does it tell us of the role of knowledge in thinking?

An additional point: trade unions have very little control over what goes on in schools. The education trade unions are too divided to achieve anything. Producerism is the very last thing we are seeing, the producers don’t even know what they want.

There are two key issues in secondary education: The Behaviour Crisis and the Retreat From Knowledge. That is it, and you seem to be ignoring one and encouraging the other. Both are likely to be better explanations for your son’s failure to learn basic French vocabulary than anything else.

mas on Sat, 9th Jan 2010 11:11 pm


I don’t agree with the need to cram young peoples heads with knowledge, the majority of which is needed only temporarily to pass exams and is digested in such a way & discarded shortly after those exams – I do agree there should be more emphasis on supporting young people with the skills to effectively use knowledge (and ascertain which knowledge is good) – to be fair it’s only very recently that knowledge has become so easy to obtain and so widespread etc. to justify that opinion but that’s a point itself in the need for a curriculum to evolve very quickly.

I do agree with Andrews later point about trade unions – it is industry, services, manufacturing et. al that should be determining what the needs of the curriculum are – not educationalists. The role of educationalists should be to determine how best to support young people towards those aims – not politicians.

A radical opinion I have that I’m sure many won’t share is that teaching should become a profession to which people seek to aspire to later in life. If for example there was a minimum age of 35 (possibly older!) then those that were teaching would have had to have spent some years working in the ‘real world’ and arguably would be better prepared to prepare young people for the same.

As for French – why, why, why is that still a lesson in secondary schools?!

Chris on Sun, 10th Jan 2010 6:24 am


I don’t agree at all! What you are saying is that because your son can’t work out what one word means in French, that the whole of the KS3/4 curriculum is a waste of time and pointless?

There may well be areas that could be improved on in secondary education, but I am not a teacher, so I will not presume to know more than the experts – teachers. If you want to know what to do to improve schools and education, go and ask a teacher! I have the utmost respect for the profession – all the teachers I know are the most hard-working people I know, and have the best interests of the children in their charge at the centre of what they do every day.

It is all too easy to sit on the sidelines and have an opinion. To get an understanding of what it is really like in a classroom, take a walk out of your ivory tower and spend a week with a teacher (French if you will) then hopefully you will understand the pressures that most teachers are under.

I reiterate, I am not a teacher – could you do what they do? I couldn’t!

Ingrid Koehler on Sun, 10th Jan 2010 8:36 am


Graham – I think you’re absolutely right to worry about your child’s ability to spell, read and write properly. In a digital age, reading and writing is even more important. As is the ability to think logically, to test rigorously and to be able use mathematics fluently.

Many of these things rely on convention (how we spell, how we write formula), so it’s important to be able to recognise and use the grammar of communication whether that be in written language or digital code. I’m afraid some of learning that probably does rely on rote, memorisation and drilling. You cannot communicate your creative skills if you do not have a basic command of the language.

oldandrew on Sun, 10th Jan 2010 8:42 am


“to be fair it’s only very recently that knowledge has become so easy to obtain and so widespread etc. to justify that opinion but that’s a point itself in the need for a curriculum to evolve very quickly.”

Progressive educationalists have been claiming that information is easily looked up, and therefore knowledge does not need to be taught, for decades. I would guess it has been fashionable since children moved from writing on slates that would be cleaned at the end of the lesson to writing in books that could be stored.

I recently read some essays from 1969 about the Plowden Report. One, by Robert Dearden, attacks head on the “rucksack theory of knowledge” – the view that knowledge is a mass of bulky, unconnected items, and that a child’s store of knowledge, like a rucksack, can be more or less full and can be carried loosely behind. He also addressed the idea that there is a general “information-getting” skill which can be used across disciplines as a substitute for knowledge. In order to understand something you have to know things. In order to think effectively you have to know things. He was talking as a philosopher, but this has now also been demonstrated empirically by cognitive psychologists.

As technology changes the reason for devaluing knowledge changes. But knowledge remains necessary. Looking up numbers on a times table was never enough to enable someone to add or subtract fractions effectively. Knowing where to look up dates has never been enough to enable someone to put historical events into relevent context. Being able to look up French vocabulary on the internet is not going to allow you to have a conversation.

Tessy Britton on Sun, 10th Jan 2010 10:34 am


‘The ultimate measure of reforms should be whether they make it more or less likely that more schools can become truly intelligent institutions.’

Well said Matthew! The schools where radical change is being practised are so exciting. In Big Picture schools (60-70 schools now in US – http://www.bigpicture.org/) the curriculum is made more personal and relevant and often created by students through individual research projects. (Dennis Littky described their work at Poptech http://vimeo.com/8042477) There are a number of other schools using research projects (sometimes one day a week) to develop higher order cognitive skills, as well as practical and personal skills.

The debate about knowledge vs skills often diverts or dampens this vitally important conversation. Knowledge is inspiring: knowing how to apply it, analyse it, evaluate, connect and create new things with it is essential. Without brain-accessible knowledge (rather than internet-accessible), how can we stretch our creativity by making new connections and ideas using diverse components. But knowledge is not equal – and information is not the same as knowledge – and if education is to be ‘intelligent’ as Matthew describes, then we need to be able to differentiate.

The reason why so many people dislike the exam system is that at some levels (GCSE for example) they are too boring – a linear re-transfer of information. They often only test memory and revision time – but knowledge plus complex, non-linear learning skills is a combination that seems to animate students and teachers.

If we encourage students to *create* their own new knowledge … and I would argue we should – how can we measure their achievements with questions about existing knowledge alone?

Achievement is as exciting as enjoyment, and developing new *additional* ways to assess really complex and interesting skills is where I hope we are headed in the future.

Martin Robinson on Sun, 10th Jan 2010 10:53 am


It is always dangerous to take an isolated incident and conflate it beyond its immediate context…

and your post touches on many things, perhaps too many for us to make immediate sense of it. I will try, however to draw some conclusions.

Year 9: the most ‘disengaged’ year of schooling? When teenagers are at their most teenage? Teaching this age group requires a lot of skill in the teacher, but the balance should be in favour of focus and curiosity. Like Oedipus, as told by Sophocles, the student knows that there is a great deal missing from their understanding and when all the paths come together the moment of realisation is of such importance. So, starting from a humble vegetable, should lead far beyond the immediate and measurable translation of the word ‘mangetout’ and into fascinating stories from history, geography, english, literature, only fools and horses, franglais, the decline of french, the ubiquity of the english language (I could go on)…

The importance of learning in subjects needs to reach out beyond just the subject, great teaching does this. Any subject is fascinating if taught with great enthusiasm and with the idea that learning is a journey through which one idea/thing connects to many others. It is the importance of narrative which many schools/students/parents/teachers fail to instill. Where are we? Where have we been? Where are we going? What is the big picture? What are we curious about? Why are we curious about this? What should we be curious about? How will we go about finding out? What connections are we making? What is apophenia? What evidence is there? etc.

Education, first and foremost, is the thirst for knowledge and ideas, framed through great stories and journeys. Take away the narrative and the idea of progress what is left? A series of unconnected fragments with no point leading to the next exam hurdle after which a new set of unconnected fragments take over.

‘Enjoying life and achieving full potential’ for teenagers can work against education. I am not sure that the short term idea of ‘enjoying’ necessarily helps us but ‘flow’, ‘resilience’, realising the importance of struggle, learning to tolerate moments of hard work and, yes, boredom, can be important as well as building the skills to alleviate boredom by finding out ways to make what we have to do part of our ‘necessity’, part of our ‘drive’. Full potential is probably never achieved, we need to learn to cope with the idea of transition better, Exams should not be the end of journeys but schools are overly ‘result’ driven where potential is seen only in short term gains. We got 90% A-C etc. has nothing to do with education but is the language of the factory, of output, of measuring the easily measurable. The importance of fostering a missionary zeal in creating a place of learning, of discovery, is far more important than the utilitarian aim of increasing a percentage here or there, yet we need tools to help us in this and how these tools are used and are judged is where many of the problems lie.

Accountability, in the short term, is important but what of the longer term? How do we know how good schools are until we take into account the longer term effects of our schooling and how do we measure that? Your previous post on character is important here. I think, somewhere, the answer to our perceived education malaise lies somewhere in expecting more of our students whilst giving them a stronger framework and narrative in which to excel.

Stanley Parker on Sun, 10th Jan 2010 11:21 am


I have always argued that by far the best way to learn a language is to spend an extended time in the country of that language. Is it time for a holiday in France for your and your nine year old, Matthew?

mas on Sun, 10th Jan 2010 11:27 am


@oldandrew I’d still argue the technology and information developments in the past 10 – 15 years have changed peoples access to knowledge to such a radical extent it has to be taken into consideration.

These arguments never make sense as “knowledge” vs “skills” – both can lead to the other and both require the other to be of use – but to expand on your point about French as an example – learning French doesn’t prepare young people to communicate in industry with people that speak languages other than French. You could argue that learning a language helps the development of skills to understand how to better learn further languages – but then I’d suggest this could be even better achieved not by limiting learning to the knowledge of one language but by supporting students to understand language skills so that they can more easily learn various languages. This being appropriate for secondary age and providing a platform for continued learning in further and higher education when they may then choose to specialise in particular languages.

mas on Sun, 10th Jan 2010 11:53 am


“We got 90% A-C etc. has nothing to do with education but is the language of the factory, of output, of measuring the easily measurable” – Exactly!

Far too much concern with ‘outcomes’, ‘outputs’ & so on and nowhere near enough with process.

I’d also like to emphasise one of Matthews points – accountability – which if done right could make a massive difference to how young people are educated. In youth work circles the involvement and ‘participation’ of young people has long been very important…… well at least they claim so – suggest the service they provide should be accountable back to young people and you’ll get a less than enthusiastic response. It would be very interesting though if providers were accountable back to users, likewise in schools.

Zoe Elder on Sun, 10th Jan 2010 11:55 am


It’s difficult to know where to begin. This is such a huge area of debate and one which every member of society has some kind of vested interest and some degree of knowledge and experience. This in itself can be problematic.

It is, therefore, vital for each of us to pool our shared interest, expertise and commitment to education and the development of young people’s aspirations and work together. We must make connections across all sectors, recognising the distinct contribution each area can make to developing an education system fit for the 21st Century. In doing this, we must all actively seek to understand the innovative work many of our schools are undertaking right now. This must be done with an open, and as Carol Dweck describes, a ‘growth’ mindset. We must be prepared that innovative practice that addresses 21st Century learning needs will look, feel and sound very different to our own experiences of school, and we must be reassured that, on the whole, if it is working, then it should.

It is not simply a case of either knowledge acquisition or skills development. We must have both. The uncertain world of the 21st Century that we will pass on to the next generation is saturated with the problems and failings of previous generations. If the ways in which we have educated in the past have not prevented and have, in fact, contributed to the global challenges that we now face, how on earth can we expect the same educational system to provide solutions using the same educational structures? It is worth noting that the leaders who have overseen the global economic and ecological crises that we now face and that we are passing on to the next generation were the educational ‘successes’ of the past generation.

The current education system demands transformation. The first step towards this must be for the policy makers and educationalists to inform the wider society and particularly the media, about what they know does work, and for the wider society to be prepared to listen and endorse.

With this, we must accept that roles must change. For one, the role of the teacher is already changing and it must continue to be adapted. Teachers need to become, as Valerie Hannon of the Innovation Unit refers to ‘expert pedagogues’. Teachers must be facilitators of learning, experts in how the brain works and in how we can empower and excite young people to develop the skills and knowledge that will serve them well in the shifting sands of the future.

Another role that must be allowed change is that of the school. The place of schools in our communities must adapt. Some of the most successful gains have been made where schools have blurred the boundaries between formal and informal learning. Where active connections have been made between the curriculum and the local community. The RSA ‘Schools without Boundaries’ project has developed such an approach.

A previous comment suggested that we educate to serve economic needs. What a sad state of affairs this would be if it were the case. I suggest that we educate for one simple reason. For peace. if we work backwards from this, then surely we will achieve a relevant, engaging and exciting education system which serves every individual and the whole of our society exceptionally well?

oldandrew on Sun, 10th Jan 2010 12:00 pm


mas,

I’m not saying we ignore technology, students should be taught to use it, but we shouldn’t use it as an excuse to devalue knowledge even further.

I’m no expert on languages but I have severe doubts that there are “language skills” that can be taught independently of learning a language. There might be languages (e.g. Latin) the provide a better starting point for learning other languages, but it is beyond me how you could ever identify somebody as having “language skills” that make them suitable to proceed to learn a language without actually teaching them a language.

mas on Sun, 10th Jan 2010 12:17 pm


@oldandrew – I’m being pedantic but I’d say students shouldn’t be taught to ‘use’ technology – they should be supported to ‘understand’ it. Particularly with technology whatever they’re taught now quite likely won’t be in use when they leave school.

I take your point though and I don’t mean to devalue knowledge – it’s more that I think there’s much more value in learning to use knowledge effectively than there is from measuring a students worth simply in how much knowledge they can memorise.

re. languages I’m far from qualified to really know the best way of learning a language but I’ll be very surprised if there are not “language skills”. I absolutely agree that learning (at least parts of) a language is the best way to understand how best to learn more – but for this age group my point is that being limited to just one language which very likely some students will either not like or fail to see value in arguably prevents them from taking a further interest in the future. As an example I’ve taken groups of young people to work with schools in Malawi and Tanzania – each time those involved have learned the basics of languages we’re likely to encounter – basic greetings etc. This doesn’t take very long and of course you learn much more when actually there – but the point I’m making is at secondary age learning the basics of a variety of different languages towards understanding how different various languages are seems much more interesting and useful than being limited to just one set of knowledge.

As an aside the funniest language learning we did was spending ages learning numbers in Chichewa – only to discover once in Malawi that they don’t bother with Chichewa numbers – they use English numbers!

Alistair Owens on Sun, 10th Jan 2010 1:19 pm


In the ten years it takes a child to pass through our educational system the world will have changed immeasurably. They will have endured the policies of around eight Secretary’s of State for Education (maybe see the department’s name changed three times) seen an exponential growth in new technologies, the shift of manufacturing to the fare east and the onset of truly global markets. These will test their ability well beyond GCSE exams.

We have duty to prepare children for adulthood and succeed in a world with a phenomenal rate of change. It is not a question of completing the same curriculum. We need to establish a vision of what they will need by the end of their schooling days to be able to set an equal foot in the world along with vast numbers of better educated children from overseas. This should be the very least of our endeavours.

Alistair Owens keen2learn

oldandrew on Sun, 10th Jan 2010 1:47 pm


mas,

I think you are still making unnecessary distinctions between skills, and understanding and knowledge. Knowledge is not just about “memorising”. Even if it was you remember best by thinking about and understanding the thing you are trying to remember. More importantly, you think (and do) most effectively, when your knowledge is secure.

I do not believe you can be taught to “understand” technology in general without being taught how to use some technology in particular. Similarly, with language skills, I’m not doubting that they exist, just that they, rather than actual languages can be taught. Learning goes from the particular to the general, not the other way round. The trend in education to reduce content in order to increase “understanding”, “skills” or “interest” has been going on for about a hundred years and it just doesn’t seem to work. We need to learn from that past experience, not try to create the world anew from first principles whenever some new piece of technology appears.

21st Century Trivium Man on Sun, 10th Jan 2010 2:31 pm


The answer, of course, lies in the restoration of the Liberal Arts approach, in particular, with a refashioned Trivium. The Trivium needs to be refashioned to take into account the reality of life in the 21st Century and the effect that this has had on pupils, on technology, on the world of work, family, citizenship, the arts, science and humanities etc. However, the Grammar, Logos/Dialectic, Rhetoric approach to education, if done in a way that creates the ‘habits of mind’ that are necessary for a deeper level of learning to take place, will solve many of the problems raised by our ‘failing’ education system.

The Times leader talks about the decline of Liberal education, and Andrew Motion talks about: “Schools are underestimating pupils’ intelligence and stifling their creativity,” In my estimation this underestimation is also restricting Teachers. My latest blog takes this argument further: http://21stcenturytriviumman.blogspot.com/2010/01/over-examined-and-under-educated.html

mas on Sun, 10th Jan 2010 3:37 pm


I don’t think I especially disagree with your thoughts – I differ in the emphasis, but as already said one can’t work without the other.

I do think modern society requires people to be able to adapt much more quickly than has previously been the case and that is why helping young people to understand how it is that they can master various skills is important – working from memory is fine for some things, but surely we need people to want to continue learning – to be investigative, creative, curious ?

As for your last argument I imagine there are as many who would argue strongly that the traditional approach of “teaching” does not work for them as there are those that argue for a return to more traditional approaches.

What I will say above all of this though is that any approach is always much more effective when it’s delivered by people who are passionate about it – and much as there’s a need for individual learning styles to be considered, there’s a good argument for individual approaches to teaching to be supported too.

Kid Charlemagne on Sun, 10th Jan 2010 3:52 pm


I’m not sure how anonymous this is, so i’ll keep the specific details thin; but in my comprehensive school key stage 3 is a joke. all the focus is on KS4 and KS5 because that’s what we’re judged on. we are so target and results driven that we don’t care about years 7-9 because we’re not judged on it. we’re given aspirational targets at the start of year 7, and we just increase the kids by a sub-level each term to show progression up to the end of year 9 where they have all met their aspirational targets. it keeps the head and the borough happy. some subjects have even managed to start teaching GCSE equivalent courses from Year 7, and it’s not uncommon to have 100% A-Cs now as a result then by year 12 when they have all met the criteria to get onto A Level courses they’re completely unprepared and the corner cutting cycle continues.

QCA are starting to cotton on to the ways teachers can cut corners to get these fantastic results and are making the exam boards update their courses but with the pressure teachers are under to get every student to achieve their aspirational target or get at least a C at GCSE (whichever is higher) means they’ll only find more shortcuts and interpretations of the rules. a lot of schools are switching over to the welsh exam boards because they dont have to meet QCA guidelines.

we’re due an ofsted visit in 2011 some time and we’ve been told to write success criteria on the board and to coach the students on the 4-5 ofsted questions they’ll be asking students (like “what is your current level and target level? what has your teacher told you you need to do to improve it? can you show me an example of work you are proud of?” etc..) to the point of if you don’t have success criteria written on the board you may struggle to pass your performance management observations. so even with that we’re cutting corners to get the best results on paper.

oldandrew on Sun, 10th Jan 2010 4:07 pm


“I do think modern society requires people to be able to adapt much more quickly than has previously been the case and that is why helping young people to understand how it is that they can master various skills is important – working from memory is fine for some things, but surely we need people to want to continue learning – to be investigative, creative, curious ?”

The point (again) is that these are not actually independent of knowledge within a given discipline. Your ability to investigate, create or enquire has a lot to do with what you already know.

“As for your last argument I imagine there are as many who would argue strongly that the traditional approach of “teaching” does not work for them as
there are those that argue for a return to more traditional approaches.”

My last argument was not about traditional versus non-traditional, but presenting ideas that don’t work, and have repeatedly not worked, as new innovations justified by new technology. I would never reject an educational idea because it wasn’t traditional, only for being “progressive” in the sense of being part of the existing, but failed, tradition of progressive education.

“What I will say above all of this though is that any approach is always much more effective when it’s delivered by people who are passionate about it – and much as there’s a need for individual learning styles to be considered, there’s a good argument for individual approaches to teaching to be supported too.”

I take your point but I can’t resist pointing out that there isn’t a need for individual learning styles to be considered. Learning styles don’t exist.

mas on Sun, 10th Jan 2010 4:27 pm


“don’t work” for who? If there ever was an age when an approach really worked for everyone then most definitely we should go back to it – I’m not aware that’s the case? Assuming it isn’t then surely new things have to continue to be tried?

I’m assuming your dismissal of learning styles is related to some definition of that term rather than a statement that people don’t learn in different ways (which would be absurd)

With your earlier point about technology I sense understandable fatigue there with old ‘innovations’ dressed up in technology and that’s a fair point. I don’t see value in the ‘traditional’ vs ‘progressive’ battlelines though – I see the role of secondary education as preparing young people for their future, and surely that involves both learning from the past and looking to the future and therefore requiring both old and new approaches?

oldandrew on Sun, 10th Jan 2010 4:45 pm


I’m quite happy to try genuinely new things, but low-content education that is meant to be aimed at developing generic skills or advancing understanding is not a new idea. Nor am I arguing for traditional versus progressive battlelines, because after a hundred years “progressive” methods are a tradition in themselves. And when I say they don’t work, I mean that there are invariably more effective alternatives, for every child.

As for learning styles, students do not differ significantly in how they learn best. Different teaching styles fit different topics, but not different students. This is an empirical question that has been researched extensively, and the overwhelming evidence is that there is no such thing as identifiable learning styles.

mas on Sun, 10th Jan 2010 5:04 pm


I feel the same about your first points but your last point seems to contradict with “there are invariably more effective alternatives, for every child”.

Anyone responsible for teaching mixed groups has to compromise towards what methods work best for most – but that doesn’t mean individuals don’t learn most effectively in different ways. If it were true that different teaching styles did not suit different students why would they differ so much in what they learn? If I’m wrong then presumably better recruitment of teachers to teach only the subjects that best suit their style will mean the system can soon churn out perfect graduates? Besides seeming unlikely that doesn’t sound particularly desirable either!

oldandrew on Sun, 10th Jan 2010 5:32 pm


The “for every child” bit was for your sake; so you didn’t ask “for who?” again.

Different children learn different amounts in lessons because of different levels of ability and effort and not because of different learning styles.

mas on Sun, 10th Jan 2010 6:14 pm


ah I read that a little out of context then sorry.

I’m very surprised that anyone involved with teaching doesn’t think that different people learn in different ways – not meant as a personal dig by the way I simply mean I’m genuinely surprised because none of my work with young people has ever suggested they don’t.

I think we’ve hijacked this blog enough for now – it’s been an enjoyable way to pass the time in the snow on a Sunday

Michael on Sun, 10th Jan 2010 11:31 pm


Very interesting and thought-provoking discussion.

At the tail end of a recent post I mentioned the work of Jake Chapman and this discussion instantly called to mind something he wrote about the nature of complex problems, that are often seen as being intractable. Here it is:

“Disagreements are the bread and butter of political discourse, but [these kind of] disagreements… are of a different nature. The disagreements are between agencies or stakeholders or groups of people who are active within the domain of the issue itself. Furthermore, these disagreements involve divergent views not simply on what the ‘solutions’ are, but also about what the problems themselves are.”

Matthew, next time you are in the frozen foods aisle, will it be peas or petits pois?

The first-ever Innovation Unit blog quiz – test your content knowledge « Disciplined Innovation on Mon, 11th Jan 2010 9:44 am


[...] You don’t need to read very much about education before you come across arguments about the place of ‘content’ (that is, stuff that you memorise) vs. ’skills’ (that is, strategies, methods, and the ability to apply to match a particular method to a particular situation). For a characteristic instance of this debate, see the comment stream to this blog post by RSA chief executive Matthew Taylor.  [...]

matthew taylor on Mon, 11th Jan 2010 10:00 am


Thank you everyone for a fascinating debate.

I guess, for me, relevance and motivation are vital. If there is no connecting thread for knowledge, or if the child doesn’t see any reason why knowledge or skills are important then it simply goes in one ear and comes out the other. it isn’t just that my 14 year old doesn’t know much French it is that my 16 year old can already hardly remember much the knowledge he crammed for the GCSEs he stumbled through 9 months ago.

Motivation might in the past have been provided by very strict and structured environments where children were driven by fear of teacher or parent sanction but changes in social norms have made this much less powerful. If there is a strong predisposition towards learning and attainment brought in to the school this can make a difference (one of the reasons independent schools do so well). But as some recent research has shown, in some working class schools there is a reverse norming in which children who work hard and succeed are vilified by their peers.

Which is why, for good or ill, the strategy now has to be engage children more richly in understanding the why and how of learning. The pro or anti knowledge debate is a bit of a red herring. I love knowledge but the facts i know are the ones which I can pin on a ‘clothes line’ of stories and connections. This is, in part, what I meant by ‘reflexivity’ in my original post; the ability of the members of the school community to reflect on what they are doing, why they are doing and what their role is in it. This in itself – this ability to think about thinking and to reflect on the substantive rationality of ultimate ends – is in itself a vital life skill.

Too much of what happens in too many schools is essentially unthinking.

oldandrew on Mon, 11th Jan 2010 8:09 pm


Perhaps it is because I am a teacher that I react badly to statements which, while they don’t sound too terrible in themselves, when implemented will amount to more of the same i.e. dumbing down.

In particular:

We all want motivated students, but when we start talking as if motivation is derived from the content of the curriculum rather than the culture of school, home and community then we immediately move from teaching what is worth knowing to teaching what we think the student would like.

The debate about knowledge is not a red herring. We are not teaching students enough knowledge to be good at the subjects they need to be good at and the excuse is consistently based on false ideas about knowledge and thinking. Acquiring substantial amounts of knowledge is not sufficient for being able to think effectively, but it is necessary and lack of knowledge is currently the main obstacle to our students. Anyone who complains that students know too much but are encouraged to think too little is fundamentally out of touch with what is going on in our classrooms. They are encouraged to think far beyond the limits of their meager knowledge, and are left frustrated and failing. Moreover, if you propose policies based on the faulty critique outlined above you will inevitably make the problem much worse.

Finally, there is the “futurist” fallacy. Rhetoric about how the world will change is so dangerous to education. Of course, the world will change. That is inevitable. But it is not new and it is not something the young have to be trained for. The thing about the young is that they are young. They are “new” themselves. They don’t have to adjust to the future, they are the future. We don’t teach them to be young; we teach them to be human. Schools do not give children “the future” we can only give them the past. We give them the best of what is already known, it is up to them to sort out the rest. The future is built on the past; it is not the absence of the past. Attempts to prepare children for a world that doesn’t yet exist can only leave them trapped unable to cope with the world that does exist. As a teacher I dread every curriculum that is promoted as preparing students for “jobs that don’t yet exist” or “technology that hasn’t been invented”. This is just code for “learning that isn’t going to happen”.

oldandrew on Mon, 11th Jan 2010 8:17 pm


mas,

I suggest you look into the empirical work on learning styles . Seriously, they don’t exist.

http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/2008/08/27/a-helpful-video-on-learning-styles/

martin Robinson on Mon, 11th Jan 2010 8:18 pm


It is great to see the desire to create ways of assessing ‘complex and interesting skills’ (Tessy Britton) and Carol Dweck’s ‘Mindset’ (Zoe Elder) mentioned in the responses to Matthew’s post. I believe that by connecting assessment with the idea of a ‘growthful’ ‘Mindset’ some of the problems discussed can be addressed. I have written a bit about this on my blog and also about the concept of Mastery:
http://blog.yesassess.co.uk/2010/01/master-learner-learning-journey.html

21st Century Trivium Man on Mon, 11th Jan 2010 9:01 pm


@OldAndrew – I agree with what you are saying when you talk about the problem of a lack of knowledge.

The abandoning of the liberal arts approach to education where knowledge is learned, tested, argued with, in the classroom to one where nothing of any note is argued about for no apparent purpose is one of the great disasters of our state education system. Are we really to believe that because of a breakdown in the old hierarchies and the idea that everything is of equal value, anything can be learnt? How can we talk about beauty, if it is always relative?

Morality, truth, quality, art, literature are all susceptible to an anti-intellectual collapse and we end up teaching rubbish to kids who think that what they ‘fink’ matters and that we are all, like, individuals and stuff and what we like is what we like and what it means to us is what it means and this is boring, can’t we have a fun lesson?

Yet when you capture them with truly great learning that, ‘stands on the shoulders of giants’, get them to find out IMPORTANT things and discuss, argue, learn, and really, really enjoy then, that is education. It is this engagement in learning and the ‘common pursuit’ that will prepare them for life in the 21st century not some guessing game about what skills may be needed in the future.

mas on Mon, 11th Jan 2010 9:08 pm


@oldandrew – stop luring me into these debates, I have work to do

I’ve seen that clip before – if there’s one thing I learned above all else from psychology in my student days – it’s that it’s all based on theories. Likewise to be fair with ‘learning styles’, and additionally a lot of what I’ve read about them is wrapped up in various scientific and academic gobbledegook.

My premise is a little different than how learning styles are regarded in the various definitions of memory etc. My thinking is that while different people may have lots of similar traits, ultimately they’re still individuals and on that basis different people will learn less or more effectively in different circumstances, situations, approaches & so on & so on. There may be arguments that it’s things like work ethic, personal circumstances, personality issues etc. etc. that are most significant towards this – but to me that still creates a case for accommodating that different people will learn most effectively in different ways in so far as though things need to be accounted for too.

That said funnily enough I’ve quite often cursed my wife (who’s an early years teacher) for pulling me up on my methods of teaching our children to read (citing the latest approaches to literacy) – with my response being something along the lines of “people have been learning to read perfectly well for hundreds of years do you think they’ve only just discovered how to do it right?!” – I contradict myself frequently!

Overall though I can only see more value in looking to support individuals preferred methods of learning over assuming everyone should be able to learn from the one method (for which there is surely plenty of evidence of failure?)

Joe Nutt on Mon, 11th Jan 2010 9:12 pm


Fascinating and enjoyable reading. What saddens me is that the way this government talks about education, one would think there was no such thing as a good school never mind a great one. Why on earth were they talking to you about this Matthew and not the great schools this country should be so proud of and “exports” so successfully?

Ian Leslie on Tue, 12th Jan 2010 10:40 am


MT’s story at the top is like the old joke about a conservative being a liberal who just got mugged…maybe in education it’s the same except the equivalent of being mugged is realizing your chlld doesn’t know what ‘mange’ means after years of French lessons.

Matthew, you are self-aware (‘reflexive’) enough to see that your response above is rather waffly and doesn’t really address the points oldandrew has been making, particular re the Open Minds approach.

Thank-you old Andrew for a blast of common sense. Your arguments are so much more impressive because, instead of waving around abstract nouns, you actually seem to, you know, know stuff.

matthew taylor on Tue, 12th Jan 2010 3:13 pm


This has been such a fascinating debate. Although, as often happens in this most emotive of policy areas, there is some talking past each other. Andrew attacks the idea of learning styles with a powerful video rejecting the idea that there are verbal, visual and auditory learners. It is all about meaning says the good Professor. But my argument is also about meaning. For something to have meaning it has to connect to some other bit of experience or learning – otherwise we would remember everything that we experience and soon go mad. This is where relevance and motivation comes in.

Anyway, I’m not trying to extend the debate here. Instead I want to suggest the RSA holds an event here at John Adam Street covering some of these issues. I want to invite Andrew to speak in that debate and others who have commented to be part of it too. The divide will be at heart between ‘progressive’ and ‘traditional’ ways of thinking about teaching and learning (‘yes’ i know the labels aren’t helpful but you know what I mean).

But first, we need a proposition. So my invitation to Andrew, Mas, Tessy , Joe, Martin et al is to see if we can craft a proposition which is clear, engaging and on which we genuinely disagree.

Andrew, as you are the most forthright how about you have the first go?

mas on Tue, 12th Jan 2010 3:19 pm


great idea and would love to be involved – I’m a bit limited in opportunities to get down to London, although if it (presumably) fits around school times that should be fine

Martin Robinson on Tue, 12th Jan 2010 10:48 pm


Thank you Matthew, would be an honour to be involved.

I would like to second Mas by asking that it fits around school time – suggest feb. half term or weekends… ?

Look forward to seeing Andrew’s idea…

Now, will Michael Gove come along ?

Sue Hewer on Wed, 13th Jan 2010 4:03 pm


Matthew

Was it the way you pronounced ‘mange-tout’?????

sue

Tessy Britton on Wed, 13th Jan 2010 5:15 pm


Great idea Matthew – I would love to participate!

What I haven’t seen, but would find fascinating, is a collective, disciplined deconstruction of the terms ‘traditional’ and ‘progressive’ in the context of Right Now’.

‘Progressive’ schools often have long traditions which can prove very hard to innovate, plus I see some ‘traditional’ schools which are currently very progressive in their thinking, often by blending a recognition of the value of brilliant teaching etc with a cautious introduction of carefully researched new practices. Other schools are drowning in hastily introduced ‘progressive’ practices?

– What do these terms mean when they are applied in a up-to-date context?

- How are these terms being misrepresented currently and do they need re-defining …. re-grouping or even de-grouping? (As is often posed in politics – have the divisions and labels become meaningless when considering individual practices/policies?)

- What should we be valuing, understanding and cultivating?

- What are the differences between educational practices rejected because of effectiveness, compared to those rejected for fidelity/diffusion issues?

Could we possibly consider designing an event which includes investigative/exploratory elements too?

oldandrew on Wed, 13th Jan 2010 5:49 pm


mas,

You are still treating differences in learning as evidence of differences in learning style rather than differences in ability or effort. The point is that when anyone tests this, it turns out not to be the case. Dismissing the whole of psychology as “theory” doesn’t get you off the hook. The video was just to guide you as to a good place to start looking (i.e. Dan Willingham’s website) not simply to claim the authority of a pyschological theory. It is the empirical research which suggests learning styles don’t exist.

Matthew,

The learning styles stuff was aimed at mas, not you.

Thanks for the invitiation. I am always willing to share my opinions, although I am not really much of a public speaker. However, I have no idea about a proposition. I do feel that this is one of those debates where the disagreements hinge on some of the assumptions being made rather than the positions being put forward. More than anything my point has always been to establish what is currently going on in schools, whereas I think other people have been more concerned with what should be going on, possibly to the point of disregarding present realities. I think it’s difficult for any proposition to allow for debate about both what is happening and what should happen.

mas on Wed, 13th Jan 2010 7:53 pm


My aim wasn’t to be dismissive, I think it’s perfectly valid to point out that just about everything related to this debate is theory. The point I made seemed to have been made also by the Professor you linked to in the video posted in the comments of your post.

If you’re able to explain to me what the singular learning style is that applies to everyone then I’ll concede the point and gratefully apply it.

I don’t believe that all children can achieve the same and actually I’d argue current practices provide a false picture of what young peoples abilities actually are with pressures for schools to achieve targets, rather than to accurately assess the skills and abilities of students – so I don’t deny the importance of ability and effort. However to simplistically regard that students who fail only do so because of either ability or effort suggests a low regard for many young people, who in my opinion, would thrive were different approaches used to support their learning.

I don’t believe lessons based on working towards exams that require the memorisation of facts are the best approach for either helping young people to:
- discover their abilities and talents
- develop those abilities further
- or to most effectively prepare them for society

Of that there is plenty of evidence – not based in theory but based in those children who fail at school or leave school hating education.

I don’t really understand what it is that you’re arguing for? – I’d be interested to hear your arguments as to what secondary education should be and more specifically how it should be.

oldandrew on Wed, 13th Jan 2010 8:05 pm


“My aim wasn’t to be dismissive, I think it’s perfectly valid to point out that just about everything related to this debate is theory. ”

My point was that it is not just theory.

“If you’re able to explain to me what the singular learning style is that applies to everyone then I’ll concede the point and gratefully apply it.”

My point is that there is no such thing as learning styles, not that there is only one.

“I don’t believe that all children can achieve the same”

Again, differences in achievement do not imply differences in learning style.

“However to simplistically regard that students who fail only do so because of either ability or effort suggests a low regard for many young people, who in my opinion, would thrive were different approaches used to support their learning.”

There’s nothing simplistic about the importance of actual ability and actual effort instead of a fantasy short cut. To imagine that for each student there is some special teaching style out there which when applied will reduce the need for effort or ability is obvious wishful thinking.

“I don’t really understand what it is that you’re arguing for?”

Learning. Mainly I’m just arguing against ideas that, in practice, are harming learning.

mas on Wed, 13th Jan 2010 8:06 pm


Also to add there is nothing in that video that I’d disagree with – a better example of my thoughts about learning styles would be if you’ve ever found that to explain something to somebody you’ve had to try 2 or 3 times – each time altering the way you explain it – if you have and yet the first way you explained it worked perfectly well for somebody else….. well that’s what I mean! (Along with the other factors already mentioned in earlier comment)

mas on Wed, 13th Jan 2010 8:16 pm


sorry having internet issues so my previous comment crossed with yours

You seem to keep suggesting that you have an absolute answer for what is the correct approach but avoiding explaining what that is through arguments about semantics. If there is an approach not based on theory but based on absolute certain fact I think there are a great many people that would appreciate you sharing it.

I can see that many of the suggestions can be viewed as harming the ability of students to pass exams – I absolutely can’t see that they can fairly be regarded as damaging learning.

I haven’t at any point suggested it is possible to create a method that allows students to dispense of effort and/or not require ability for them to excel – I thought I’d clearly argued the opposite. I do however know of plenty of young people for who the secondary school system has not worked but other methods have – indeed I’m one of them.

The most relevant part of the question is the part you didn’t answer “I’d be interested to hear your arguments as to what secondary education should be and more specifically how it should be” – understanding that would perhaps make better sense of your stance than the vagueness of “learning”

oldandrew on Wed, 13th Jan 2010 8:59 pm


“a better example of my thoughts about learning styles would be if you’ve ever found that to explain something to somebody you’ve had to try 2 or 3 times – each time altering the way you explain it – if you have and yet the first way you explained it worked perfectly well for somebody else”

Doesn’t the video actually explain almost that exact situation? (At 5:50 seconds in?)

The reason I can only give the vague answer “learning” to the question about what I’m arguing for is because it is a vague question. I am distrustful of anyone with a single policy as an answer to that question. I have no one simple idea. I have a long list of things to get rid of, and a long list of things I like and would like to see developed, and a long list of books I can recommend for helping one think sensibly about education. But no simple, easy answers. No slogan. No label.

mas on Wed, 13th Jan 2010 9:16 pm


no I don’t think so – I think what you said in one of the early comments makes sense with regard to the film (something like different teaching styles are better for certain subjects) – so yes obviously explaining something visual is better done with a picture. I’m thinking more that for some people having a context makes a concept easier to understand, whereas for others maybe a simple list – or whereas some can easily process information read out to or presented to them, others need to discuss it and then others need to actually do it before they can reach the same levels of understanding. So for me if we accept there are 3 students with the same potential – it’s possible each of them would need a different approach to realise that potential – but that doesn’t disregard that there may be another 3 that could never reach the same potential as those first 3.

No need for a slogan – I was just curious as to whether you felt the system should be based on exams/what you felt the role of secondary education was etc. but I can understand not wanting to be pinned down on those.

Martin Robinson on Wed, 13th Jan 2010 10:11 pm


I’ve tried to come up with some ‘debates’ between ‘progressives’ and ‘traditionalists’:

Should we educate school students about the ‘best that has been thought and said in the world’ (Arnold) or should we ‘want to see the child in pursuit of knowledge’?(Bernard Shaw)

If education is not child centred, then what is at its centre?

Are schools academic institutions or the place where society is shaped?

Joe Nutt on Fri, 15th Jan 2010 3:37 pm


Matthew,
I’d be happy to participate and I am used to public speaking, paid and unpaid! I think all 3 of Martin’s propositions have lots to recommend them, and would happily debate any of them, but think the first is especially apt. If you simply exchanged “information” for “knowledge” in it, you’d have pretty much encapsulated where the current debate stands.

oldandrew on Sat, 16th Jan 2010 1:30 pm


I like the option with the Arnold and Shaw quotations. However, I still think there is a fundamental problem here. Everyone will agree on principles: knowledge is important but rote memorisation isn’t enough.

The disagreement is about where we are now. I am claiming that our current mainstream secondary education system is on the far extreme of the anti-knowledge camp with just the (ever-lowering) hurdle of examinations keeping it from tipping over into complete disregard for all knowledge. Others seem blissfully unaware of the situation.

I think it’s difficult to have a debate over such an empirical matter, particularly when not everyone here has first hand experience of present day, “bog-standard” comprehensives.

mas on Sat, 16th Jan 2010 8:11 pm


I think there’s agreement that where we are now isn’t where we ought to be.

My proposition would be that a subject based curriculum is not the most effective approach to supporting 11-16 year olds to discover their skills, talents and abilities and prepare them towards the next stages of their life.

With regard to not everyone having first hand experiences of “bog standard” comprehensives, is it not valuable to have perspectives both from those that do and don’t?

oldandrew on Sat, 16th Jan 2010 8:23 pm


mas,

If people don’t agree about where we are now then it doesn’t really matter whether they agree that we shouldn’t be there.

And no, opinions based on complete ignorance of reality are not valuable perspectives.

mas on Sat, 16th Jan 2010 8:55 pm


well it’s disappointing to hear that’s your view not least because it suggests the likelihood of good debate is unlikely.

I may not agree with all the opinions expressed on here but I wouldn’t accuse those that gave them of ignorance. What I would call ignorance is the failure to consider that others may have something of value to offer – all sectors can benefit from looking beyond their own pond from time to time.

Still if we can’t even agree on disagreeing further exchange is pointless – it’s been an interesting discussion though.

oldandrew on Sat, 16th Jan 2010 10:11 pm


I’m not sure I did accuse anybody in particular, I just objected to the suggestion that the perspectives of people who have no experience of the thing they are talking about as “valuable”.

matthewtaylor on Sun, 17th Jan 2010 7:46 pm


Thanks again to everyone – particularly Mas and Andrew – for this debate. I will give some more though as to how we could shape the debate so it is discussing real differences but also has the right balance of diagnosis and prescription.

Joshua Genner on Fri, 29th Jul 2011 1:15 am


I have been thinking a lot about the use of technology in schools recently and I just wanted to share one of the thoughts that I keep coming back to.

The debate around technology often becomes ‘can technology really do what a teacher does? I think this is the wrong question. I think the right question is ‘what can technology do about as well as a teacher can, that will allow a teacher to do a lot more of what teachers do a lot better than technology?’

Now I think the general answer to this question is technology should do a lot more of the 18th Century ‘broadcast’, ‘one size fits all’, education 1.0, part of education; the 20 minutes the teacher spends at the start of the lesson explaining the principles. So teachers can do a lot more of the one on one teaching. Teaching 3.0 we might call it.

Heading in this direction I think Salman Khan has some very interesting answers to this question ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTFEUsudhfs )

oldandrew on Fri, 29th Jul 2011 8:14 am


Joshua,

The “broadcast” is more a parody of traditional teaching invented by its opponents than a method anyone competent would entertain. When the teacher is stood at the front of the class they should be questioning the class, and answering the class’ questions, not simply transmitting to passive recipients.

Joshua Genner on Wed, 3rd Aug 2011 10:43 am


Andrew,

If it was invented by its opponents I must say I am impressed with the commitment they have shown in taking up the teaching profession to parody from within.

My school years are not that far behind me, and believe you me, I had a good number of broadcasters. What’s worse, the broadcasts we’re often not only absent of any engagement, but very very boring.

Of course it is true they should be questioning and inviting questions, so too it is true they often do not.

oldandrew on Wed, 3rd Aug 2011 12:24 pm


Joshua,

I’m just suggesting that if we discuss how teachers should teach then we have to start from considering approaches done well rather than done badly. If we judge an approach to teaching by talking about its worst possible practitioner then you are parodying an approach, even if there exist bad practitioners out there. Teachers who deliberately just lecture a class without asking or answering questions are pretty damn rare in state comprehensives as they are now, so it’s a pretty poor starting point for discussion. Replacing a hypothetical bad teacher with a video is one thing; replacing a good teacher with one is ridiculous.

It is probably worth noting that in educational debate people call their straw men “paradigms”.

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!