Two articles of interest in the Guardian today: an interview with Chris Woodhead, former chief inspector of schools, as well as a call for the next "big idea" in education.
As someone who believes in the power of autonomy in education, I don't agree with Chris Woodhead that the best way to facilitate real learning is in the "traditional, fact-based" manner as he conceives of it. I also don't agree with his distate for the words "personalised" and "accessible" in relation to learning, but I suspect we're quibbling over rhetoric: He is perhaps viewing education as something that should be delivered through a state schooling system; I am not.
The kind of learning I advocate is personalised and accessible: that is its beauty. This is not synonymous with a woolly, morally subjective, "dumbed down" education. It is intellectually rigorous and, most importantly, lifelong - based on the individual's intrinsic motivation to continually explore, question and learn in relation to whatever is important to their existence. With recent advances in technology, this has never been easier to facilitate in any area of specialism (even at very advanced levels) without necessary recourse to traditional educational models.
In my kinder moments, I suspect that, in kicking away from the authoritarianism of traditional schooling, New Labour was actually attempting to implement a system of learning along the lines of that which I have just described. Unfortunately, it failed to understand the fundamental principle of this approach: learning belongs to the individual, not the state. Its very manner of implementation was as authoritarian as that which it was seeking to leave behind.
With very few possible exceptions, a school system is simply incapable of delivering what is, in essence, a profoundly anti-establishment education. That does not mean that autonomous learners will never access schools, teachers or experts, but rather that they will never rely upon them as an unshakeable source of wisdom and authority. Such learners are supremely responsible for the quality of their learning experience. They rely upon developing their own faculties of reason and critical thinking as they progress through life, relationships and work - the "teacher knows best" ethic is largely unhelpful, as the best teachers know.
This is the very antithesis of any kind of authoritarian approach to education, which any system of state schooling as we have known it necessarily invites.
Chris criticises the Labour government's obsession with equality of outcome, rather than championing equality of opportunity, and I agree - I, too, regularly make this distinction. Children are diverse: they will not have identical futures, and they should not be treated as if this is possible or desirable. "Equality" and "diversity" are too often trotted out together without real understanding or application.
But a return to a traditional education system, where academic achievement is prized above all else; where fact-based learning is delivered top-down and examinations, rigorous though they may be, nevertheless only measure the measurable - that is to say not much of value of at all - this is not a step forward. It is not encouraging independent thought and preparing children for how life really is. It is not giving them equality of opportunity and respecting diversity either. For the majority, it won't foster a lifelong love of learning.
People who advocate a return to such a system are often as concerned with a return to morality as they are "proper" education, often in fact confusing the two things. I think that this is a big mistake.
You and I expect to be allowed freedom in matters of personal choice - and what could be more personal than learning? It seems to me highly immoral that anyone could presume to dictate exactly what somebody should know, when they should be allowed to know it, and the precise manner in which it should be learnt. Similarly, dictating what someone wears, what someone has in their lunchbox, and when they may go to the toilet, is also pretty questionable.
However, you and I also expect that, if we cause harm to other people, we will be prevented from continuing to do so, or be punished in some way for our actions. If we accept that children are people too, then we also have to accept this is as true for them as it is us. Schools should be able to effectively deal with incidences of bullying, for example, without fearing the consequences (either to their reputation or their funding).
The problem arises, however, where issues of personal choice are treated as issues of morality, and dealt with accordingly. Personal choice is not an indicator of morality. I don't want to delegate my parental responsibility to a school whose policy it is to prevent or punish my child for questioning her teacher, however politely. I don't want the school to intervene on my behalf and confiscate her Mars bar, suspend her for wearing her own coat, or give her a detention for choosing the library over a netball lesson.
None of these actions signify, to me, a school upholding strong moral values. None of these actions teach my child anything valuable about learning, respect for people or property, or personal responsibility.
I know that other people's interpretations of choice and morality are different. So I think that the only answer is to embrace plurality: privatise schools, implement a voucher scheme, and continue, of course, to ensure that families who choose to home educate are able to do so without discrimination or undue interference. For every child, however educated, there would finally be real accountability, resulting in improved standards across the board. Perhaps most importantly, children would have a far better chance of benefitting from the real equality that springs from acknowledging and valuing diversity. That's my big idea.
Update: After I wrote this I read this article on LewRockwell.com. The following quote really stood out for me:
"Yglesias’ reaction to growth of the Austrian school isn’t surprising – naturally he’d like nothing more than to see the debate on the economy confined to Keynesian drones versus monetarist drones. Anyone who dares to question authority, to propose that these false alternatives are intellectually bankrupt, is on the "fringe," you see. These are the approved alternatives, citizen. Choose from among them. The experts know what is best.
Citizen: But the experts have been all wrong! Shouldn’t we question them? Shouldn’t we listen to the people who had a clue?
Commissar: Let us hear no more of this anti-social talk about your betters. Stay away from the fringe, citizen. Listen to the experts."
