- Resources: £3 Billion cuts to schools funding over 5 years. LEAs will disappear, early years and 16-19 interventions squeezed the hardest and will most likely disappear.
- Infrastructure: More regional school commissioners – targets more academies and chains, lift coasting schools, not sure on other roles yet. Results so far suggest that they have had a poor impact.
- Teacher supply: Teacher shortage, falling grad numbers, weak wages in education push potential teachers elsewhere. Crude incentives system which does’t support recruitment or retention. Student loans for PGCE is wasted money, all training should be free.
- Leadership: 50% of heads will retire in the next 10 years. No good training provided to train people to become outstanding heads.
- Expertise: Lack of quality professional development, teaching has suffered massive de-professionalisation. Lack of management training means people squeeze rather than effective manage makes working conditions worse.
Holding onto the Future, Antony Gormley (1987).
One is looking at a mould of a man holding an in descript mould. The mould in the foreground has potential to become something and this possibility it holds is being clung onto. This represents how insecure we are of our futures, these insecurities derive from a man’s inability to determine their own future. Gormley, when critiquing this work, quotes Joseph Boyd, “The man doesn’t yet know who he is, we must invent him.” The decision to do so suggests that the observer has the power to change this man’s future. So, do we not have an autonomous, self-determined future?
When realising the true fragility our own futures we begin to turn to others to prepare a mould for us to cling onto. The drive, ambition and autonomy of making these decisions for ourselves is removed and success is only possible in the eyes of the observer. This renders an individual powerless unless given the opportunity to be successful, by a liberated individual. Why are we so dependent on a system where our futures are not ours, but decision and reflections of others?
The power of liberation, the power of education.
Freedom from prescribed thoughts and behaviours is a doctrine that many believe is already given to them. But, much of our society and educational system is already predetermined and reflective of the interests of the liberated few, not the masses. The power that education can bring to an individual is unrivalled:
“Education either functions as an instrument which is used to facilitate integration of the younger generation into the logic of the present system and bring about conformity or it becomes the practice of freedom, the means by which men and women deal critically and creatively with reality and discover how to participate in the transformation of their world.” (Paulo Freire, 1996)
So, what we appear to have is an educational system that reflects the interests of a conformist society where the young are integrated into society. We only have to refer to innovations, movements and liberations to understand the positive power free thought provides society with. This is not to suggest that every person is going to radical change the world we live in. Yet, it will provide a society where everyone knowingly contributes. To build an educational system where we strive to liberate and produce radical individuals who all have the power to determine their own future is a just system.
Changes to education
Disproportionate emphasis on the importance of academic attainment has generated unnecessary focus on one aspect of what it means to be a human. This focus implies that we no longer look to educate people, but to generate the most reliable data to support our ideals of “Education”. This doesn’t reflect the requirements of being a radical thinker:
“The more radical the person is, the more fully he or she enters into reality so that, knowing it better, he or she can transform it. This individual is not afraid to confront, to listen, to see the world unveiled. This person is not afraid to meet the people or to enter into a dialogue with them. This person does not consider himself or herself the proprietor of history or of all people, or the liberator of the oppressed; but he or she does commit himself or herself, within history, to fight at their side.” (Paulo Freire, 1996).
Recent shifts in education are decoupling from a sole focus on academic performance and looking more at what we want our student to look and be like in the future. Movements towards character education are promising they already show evidence of developing individuals who care about themselves and their lives (EIF, 2015). These humanist approaches suggest we are moving in the right direction of developing well round educated individuals. We must be careful not to view the development of character in terms of reliable data, because you can not quantify a person. Is this enough to create liberated individuals who have the power to determine their own futures?
Unfortunately not… (I’ll be blogging about this next time).
“Theory is splendid but until put into practice, it is valueless.” (James Cash Penney). An educational example, “Yes, I understand what to do sir.”
The introduction of new theories, skills and attributes is difficult because students struggle to get to grips with practicing new theories. As an educator this is where the true value is added. So, how do we move from the theory of non-cognitive development to implementing it into practice?
From Policy to Practice
The continual debating by political panels, educational theorists or interjections from third parties leaves untested theories. The classroom teacher, unknown to them, has been involved in developing new policy. They are now expected to put this policy into practice. Like the students they will struggle, but in this case there is no one on hand to support them. The theory is forgotten as true mastery has not been attained. A reactive response develops to throw together evidence of practice. (For example, marking books in my PGCE and NQT year). So how do we support the implementation of non-cognitive development into the classroom?
Simple answer, bring teachers into policy development. Over the past month I have been involved in 4 different policy networking events, where the general theme has been on non-cognitive development in students. Buzz words were flying out left, right and center. Yet, every time I found myself able to relate to strategies used in the classroom, that exemplified the non-cognitive traits. Offering a critique to proposals based on evidence shifted the direction of conversation from the “policy buzzworder’s” to myself. This demonstrates the value of those in the classroom.
Implementing non-cognitive skills?
A Head teacher from a local school told me, “the schemes of work in their school center around the kind of people that would be successful in University or vocational qualifications” and backwards plans from this vision. When I am developing a scheme of work, I think about the non-cognitive skills and learning objectives I want the students to develop. For example, I have recently planned and finished a unit of work on Metals and their Reactivity. The non-cognitive focus is to develop independence, self-reflection and choice (I’ll be blogging about this next week). This was alongside the academic learning goals. By orientating yourself to focus on the kind of students you want, the activities begin to tailor themselves.But, failures, critiques, alterations and improvements have been important to support the reflective development of this teaching strategy.
This is where the problems lies, there is no accountability for non-cognitive development in the classroom. Therefore, the risk:benefit ratio is useless, because it not worth risking progress to develop new systems of non-cognitive learning. Consequently, teachers can not relate to the policy that is trying to be implemented and their opinions become less valued. It’s easy to see the paradox we are caught in. So where does this leave us?
College of teachers…