Education policy should be guided by pupils' talents
(Originally published by the Independent)
The challenge is to create a system that equips pupils with
essential skills, but offers genuine variety and choice in its methods and
materials. One that will still produce engineers, in which children who display
an aptitude for algebra are encouraged to pursue their talent. But equally one
in which children are not made to feel stupid for failing to solve simultaneous
equations, and are instead rewarded for identifying and developing their aptitudes.
Such a system might help reverse the pressures on education from industry, and
conversely force the corporate world to adapt to the individual abilities of
children.
The degree to which this is possible may be reasonably questioned, and it may even be deemed incompatible with a capitalist economy. But if we regard education as valuable in itself, and are properly concerned at the overwhelming number of children and adults whom education has failed, we must be willing think radically in the pursuit of alternatives. The more we avoid doing so, the more our schools will resemble what Noam Chomsky once aptly described as “a system of indoctrination of the young.”
As a rule of thumb the least enlightened views on education
tend to be expressed by people who thoroughly enjoyed their experience at
school. Those who excelled in a traditional classroom environment are often
unable to relate to those who didn’t (the majority). They typically ascribe the
failure of their peers to bad teaching, individual laziness or the absence of
an abstract concept like “rigour” or “creativity”.
It is a curious and unfortunate fact that whilst those who
thrive academically are in a small minority of the population, it is their
voice which invariably comes to dominate the entire discourse on how we should
educate our children. Those on the right, like Michael Gove, argue we have lost
our way and need to return to Victorian era values of discipline, rote learning
and individual pupil responsibility. Liberal commentators and Labour party sympathisers
shout back that we should be progressing away from repetition and rules, towards
a more creative learning environment which also caters for less intellectual
children.
The result is an educational pendulum continually swinging
between two farcical models, both of which fail to accept and incorporate a
fundamental truism; that children are not homogenous and there is a huge
variation in the way different individuals learn best. This is seldom mentioned
because it is inconvenient for almost everyone in charge. Politicians favour a
curriculum which takes little work, both in research and implementation. Those
in industry support any curriculum which will produce obedient workers who require
minimal investment and training. The resulting system conforms to the interests
of both parties and in so doing neglects those of the children.
Few commentators question the extent to which education
should mirror the needs of industry. There is no doubt that a modern society
requires engineers, scientists and arguably even bankers. It follows that our
education system should cater for these needs. What I question, however, is why
all children must be subjected to a curriculum which in the great majority of
cases utterly fails to encourage the pursuit of individual talent.
To give a controversial example, I am not convinced that
every child should be forced to learn algebra. It is not that I am closed to
the idea, rather I have yet to be provided with concrete examples that
demonstrate why such knowledge is of extreme importance outside of the
professions which use it. That is not to doubt its usefulness, but it is worth
asking whether children who do not display an aptitude or interest in algebra,
as I didn’t, would not profit more from focusing their energies elsewhere, as I
believe I would have.
A common mistake is to put all of the elements which make up
the core subjects (maths, English and science) into the same category of
essentiality. Whilst I agree it is vital that all children learn to read, write
and acquire basic numeracy skills, I do not accept that it is equally essential
for them to be well versed in the works of Chaucer. What I propose is that
children be encouraged early on to discover what they enjoy and are good at,
and be given the tools to explore their interests further. It is, of course,
possible to go too far in this direction, and it must be remembered that all
children need some structure and guidance in order to learn. But the success of
schools which facilitate learning without rigid curriculums and obsessive
examination can provide us with a good source of inspiration.
The Montessori approach, devised in the early 1900s by Italian physician and educator Maria
Montessori, is famous for allowing young children unusually high levels
of freedom to choose and explore subjects they are interested in, whilst encouraging
collaboration over competitively and pressure. In 2006, a US study published in
the journal, Science, found that children attending Montessori schools
outperformed their peers at traditional schools across a range of abilities including
social skills, numeracy and literacy. Under Labour, the number of private Montessori
schools in the UK was expanded, and a struggling primary in Manchester achieved
impressive results after becoming the first state school to adopt the
philosophy. But rather than transform every underachieving state school into a
Montessori school, a more realistic approach would be to incorporate some of the
radical methods that work into the national curriculum.
The degree to which this is possible may be reasonably questioned, and it may even be deemed incompatible with a capitalist economy. But if we regard education as valuable in itself, and are properly concerned at the overwhelming number of children and adults whom education has failed, we must be willing think radically in the pursuit of alternatives. The more we avoid doing so, the more our schools will resemble what Noam Chomsky once aptly described as “a system of indoctrination of the young.”
Comments