What do the great and good think everyone should know? Desmond Tutu, Shami Chakrabarti and Lord Bingham give their view
What should everyone know?
What should be included in the National Curriculum? What this question really asks is ‘what should everyone know?’.
And this question is not as simple as it seems. This is why the RSA is holding a debate on this topic on 22 March at 6pm, inviting some individuals from outside the education debate to discuss the question.
I’ve had a go at unpacking some of the questions thrown up by the question of what should go in the National Curriculum in the form of some sub questions:
- What knowledge is so important that EVERYONE in our society should know it?
- What should everyone know HOW to do?
- What should every young person know in order to have an equal chance of making their way in the world?
- What is so crucial to participation in our culture and society that every child needs to have access to it?
- What is so crucial to the maintenance and transmission of our cultural and intellectual inheritance that every member of society needs to be taught it so it doesn’t get lost even if it has little of no utility to the individual?
- Is there such a thing as useless knowledge?
- What is so crucial to our economy that the largest possible number of children should be given the foundations so enough choose to pursue it?
- What should be taught in schools because society can’t or won’t teach it to all children equally?
- What is so important to shaping and changing our society for the future that all children should be introduced to it now? When is this indoctrination, and when is is values driven education?
- How does our view of what everyone should know reflect our view of what society we want? Or does it?
- What should everyone, perhaps, NOT know? How far does the enlightenment ideal of full, complete and free access to knowledge still hold, and is there any ‘truth’ that we would want to ensure – in retrospect – that no one knew? (How to make an atomic bomb, for example?)
Check out Shami Chakrabati’s response on our website.
What do you think everyone should know? Answers below please.
Collectively thinking about the curriculum
As promised, Friday’s seminar on the implications of social brain theory for how we think about the national curriculum resulted in a fascinating discussion.
Social brain theory is based on a relatively new synthesis of social psychology, evolutionary theory and neuroscientific fundings that add up to a view of the mind/brain/individual as more socially embedded and less individualistic than dominant economic models of behaviour allow for. See the RSA’s social brain pages for more information.
Full details of the contributions and the day are available online, but here I wanted to make one or two observations that struck me as particularly important.
The first is how quickly people grasp the implications of the social nature of the brain for the kinds of skills or attributes we should be inculcating in children. There was a general consensus that room should be made for children to work together, to develop high level collaboration skills, to learn how to solve problems in groups and to behave altruistically.
One participant called it the challenge of how to provide structures in which children are encouraged to be open and giving, rather than ‘going in on themselves like a sea anenome’ which is what happens as soon as incentives are introduced for people to behave selfishly.
One implication of this is in how we construct schools as institutions that inculcate certain types of behaviour. If our unconscious brains and habit forming repetition are, as social brain advocates would argue, more important than we thought, then the kinds of behaviours and attitudes that are being developed through the structures, hierarchies, rules and routines of the school are perhaps as or more important than what is explicitly taught in the classroom. One participant referred to the ‘implicit curriculum’ of behaviour shaping that is often found in primary schools. Another participant asked how often children in secondary schools had the opportunity to watch their teachers collaborating on lesson plans, or anything else.
The second implication of how the education system reinforces assumptions about individualism and competition as the dominant model of human behaviour is the obvious thorn of assessment. As the Innovation Unit’s Alec Patton blogged on Friday, cooperation between students when it comes to assessment is currently constituted as a cardinal sin rather than a learning outcome to be rewarded, and so the messages being sent to the unconscious brains of children will mitigate against collaboration at the all important assessment stage. If we want to encourage collective skills towards problem solving then we must think hard about how those collective skills might be measured for individual children working together. It’s not easy.
However, there was a palpable determination in the room that we need to think more clearly and more robustly about how schools and learning are constructed in light of the emerging social brain thinking and the hope is that the conversation is only just beginning.
The social curriculum – how who we are affects what we learn
Social brain theory, which looks at insights from a range of disciplines that deal with human brain, mind and behaviour sciences, posits that our rationality is more emotionally driven, that we are more socially responsive, and that our decisions are made more unconsciously than simplistic models of rational, individualistic beings making rational decisions allow.
What are the impacts of these insights for how we think about the curriculum? Do we create and ‘own’ knowledge in our individual minds, or in the interactions between them? Are our achievements, excellence and success individually owned, or collectively?
Tomorrow, at a seminar being held at the RSA, we hope to bring together social brain experts with curriculum experts and those with insights to bring from epistomology, the study of digital collaboration, and research into dialogue in the classroom.
Watch this space for what we might collectively find.
Redefining excellence
This morning I went to a debate, held by the Young Foundation and Relate at the RSA, on whether schools should teach social, emotional and other skills alongside academic subjects, and I wondered how far the debate might be pushed in the direction of valuing such skills as much as if not more than academic ones.
The consensus on the panel was generally that schools should – indeed must – take account of children’s wider context and emotional life, not only so that they can learn at school, but so that they can deploy what they learn in order to get through life, gain employment and generally lead fulfilled existences.
There was some contention about the danger of squeezing out knowledge in this equation and much rebuttal to the tune of skills and knowledge not being separable – that one requires the other in any sane system. The tension seems to revolve not around a difference in what people want – rounded, happy, capable, knowledgeable, culturally aware young people – but in the analysis of why we are not there yet. Is it because we have a system still obsessed with unconnected content and knowledge for its own sake, or is it because we have an educational establishment obsessed with well being and self esteem?
Either way, much of the tenor of the conversation related to social and emotional skills as remedial features of schooling – they are something that schools need to teach because many students don’t get these things at home and so they cannot succeed academically. Those from affluent backgrounds probably don’t need such provision and are already free to excel at the things that schools do anyway such as academic knowledge, cognitive skills, sports and the arts.
But should we be being more ambitious than this? Social and emotional skills might be important to underpin and make worthwhile academic excellence, but where is the emphasis on developing excellence in the social and emotional skills as an end in themselves? Surely a sane, balanced society wants to develop and reward those who can understand, empathise, work with and influence other people?
The ageing population and looming crisis in social care means that we will soon be needing large numbers of people who are capable of caring first and foremost – from all backgrounds, and of all academic abilities.
Given this, just for fun, imagine for a second an education system that selects for further study based on a child’s social and emotional skills – on their ability to work with or on behalf of others, regardless of their academic ability. A system in which academic ability might be brought to bear as a supporting factor in job applications, to provide employers with additional information about a person but that excellence in social and emotional skills are what people are looking for. A system in which the children of professional parents would need to prove their ability to relate to people in order to access qualification for entry into the caring professions, and young carers who develop a deep ability for self sacrifice and patience are rewarded for this (rather than for attainment in subjects) with access to a diverse range of educational opportunities, including academic.
The apparent absurdity of such a model shows how deeply we are wedded to valuing a very narrow – albeit important and valuable – form of human capability in our formal education system. And perhaps this is the right thing for schools to be focussing on. But I can’t help thinking that we need to be honest about the limited view of a person that any qualifications gained in such a system gives us.
Apprenticeships and vocational courses – valued, to a degree…
Aiming to get 50% of the population into university, short of diminishing the advantage of the wealthy, may in fact have aggravated the problem.
Of course, everyone who wants to study at university should have an equal opportunity to do so regardless of the amount of money their parents earn. However, now that there is such pressure for students to go to university, not only have tuition fees risen (and look set to perhaps do so again soon), but a degree seems to be losing its value.
Students are leaving university with increasing levels of debt (largely due to the increasing numbers of students now attending university that perhaps wouldn’t have otherwise chosen to) and are then finding that, where a degree used to be a sufficient qualification to get a job, now it is necessary to fork out even more for a masters degree, or to depend on family to provide financial support through an unpaid internship. So, short of opening up job opportunities for all students regardless of socioeconomic background, anecdotal evidence and personal experience would seem to suggest that the problem has just been pushed further down the line – it is now if you can afford to study for further qualifications or to work for free, that you appear to be at an advantage when it comes to getting a job.
Of course the job difficulties for graduates are partly due to the current economic climate, yet it seems the real root of this problem is the assumption made by government, and amplified accordingly in many schools and industries, that without going to university and getting a degree you have failed in some way. If other routes into employment were genuinely valued by government and society at large (rather than being rather patronisingly referred to as ‘admirable’ by those who advocate that the only proper education is one that prepares for academic study at university) we could afford to send those who desired to pursue further academic study to university without leaving them with crippling debts, and others could pursue alternative qualifications or gain appropriate experience safe in the knowledge that this will be equally valuable and rewarded with employment or recognition in the same way that university degrees currently are.
I am not suggesting that university places ought to be reserved for only the rich, but that there is more genuine choice for all. That the student from a disadvantaged background has the chance to study at a top university, and that the student from a wealthy family of Oxbridge graduates can choose to attend an excellent vocational course in engineering. If the freedom of choice does not work both ways, then it is surely not providing equality of opportunity at all. Nor is it genuinely valuing vocational options – if middle class families are not aspiring to their children being able to access high quality non university learning then the claim that vocational options are valued as highly as academic options remains hollow.
I think therefore I learn
Teaching philosophy in primary schools is viewed by some as one thing too many or an unnecessary luxury, yet it seems to me that the disciplines such as rational and critical thought, learned through the practice of philosophy, can provide an important foundation on which a child can build throughout his or her school career. These are skills that will enable a child to more easily access the rest of the curriculum – to take full advantage of the learning opportunities provided in other subjects.
I don’t suggest that every 5-year-old be fully versed in Anaxagoras and Empedocles, rather that we develop curiosity and critical thought in children, and the ability to approach a problem creatively, without the fear of being wrong. Philosophical thought presents the perfect platform for this. Addressing questions such as, ‘Can we step in the same river twice?’ or ‘Am I dreaming?’ gives children the opportunity to exercise these skills. (Philosophy 4 Children and The Philosophy Shop are two good examples of teaching philosophy in primary schools.)
I believe that practising philosophy develops, most significantly:
- Meta-cognition
- Rational thought
- Critical thought
- Curiosity
- The confidence to be wrong
- A respect for other opinions or arguments, coupled with the ability to make informed judgements about their validity or usefulness.
- The ability to look at things from many different perspectives – to ‘think outside the box’, to use a popular cliché.
These things are not just intrinsically valuable, but also provide students with the tools to access and make the most of learning opportunities throughout school, and indeed throughout life.
The same seems to be true of the RSA’s Opening Minds programme. Competencies such as managing information are not only valuable life skills, but will actually enable students to reap the full benefit of their future school career. This is often an area overlooked – those who object to skills or competency based curricula, in favour of valuing subjects and learning for learning’s sake, tend to assume that all students are equally able to pick up a book of Shakespeare, say, and immediately appreciate its value. They assume that teaching skills is only for skills sake – can teaching skills not aid the teaching and learning of knowledge too?
Teaching philosophy, or indeed competencies, can provide students with a ‘hook’ or route into the enjoyment of learning, and the tools that allow them to get the most out of learning – they help to make learning not simply a means to an end, but an end in itself.
Reflections on the Manchester curriculum
On Monday evening the RSA hosted a reflections event in Manchester to celebrate and review the fantastic work schools and their students did last year, working with the Manchester Area-based Curriculum.
What was particularly encouraging was the enthusiasm of the Manchester Fellows to build on the successes and failings of the approach in order to further facilitate the interaction and collaboration of schools with the surrounding area, including (but not restricted to) local companies, facilities and environment. It would seem that many of the resources necessary to create lasting and productive relationships between schools and their local communities are already in place – local councils already have lists of contacts in local businesses for use when organising year 10 work experience for example – and there are many organisations really keen to get involved with their local schools.
What is needed is a way to aggregate all this information and to connect schools, resources and people, for instance, the professional tour guide company Tour Manchester, who are very keen to be involved in engaging students with Manchester, to the schools.
Yet all the enthusiasm for opening schools up to their locality suggests that this is not simply wishful thinking, but something very attainable if we harness the ‘social capital’ present, but often untapped, in and around every school. So our next step seems clear – to get the brilliant and enthusiastic fellows of Manchester together to discuss just how these relationships can be built and maintained.
RSA Fellows take on challenge of designing education
The RSA held its AGM last Wednesday, and RSA Fellows from all over the country came to John Adam Street to participate in seminars run by the projects team, make pledges on the fantastic exhibition (for which somehow we got permission to paint wavy coloured lines on the walls), and attend the formal proceedings of the day.
Our contribution was a seminar session on the topic of ‘How can design help education’ run with the design team (see previous post). The audience were split about equally between those of a design background, and those from an education background.
Emily Campbell and I spoke a little on how we felt that design, conceived of as an everyday problem solving capacity possessed by the citizenry, rather than as a professional skill, could be applied by teachers and head teachers to solve the problems they face every day. Like lesson planning, classroom layout, the school day, the curriculum…
We wanted more ideas, and then ways the Fellowship could make it happen. The below was what the audience of Fellows came up with:
1. Sustainability in education – how might teachers and schools become better at designing sustainable institutions, as well as resources that promote sustainability? Could the RSA help to provide or enlarge access to teaching resources on sustainability?
2. Enterprise and business – enterprise programmes nearly always ask young people to engage in some form of design process as part of their projects, even if it may not be called “design” – teachers could benefit from continued professional development related to design.
3. Redesign of the policy environment – the idea that the policy environment has resulted in a reduction in teacher creativity as the current one is designed to ensure compliance – if we want to increase teacher creativity, we need to design a policy environment that actively promotes it.
4. The idea was put forward that non didactic, “cognitive” teaching is more resource intensive than traditional didactic teaching and has major expenditure implications for core subjects…but on the other hand, some of the most creative education that one of the participants had seen was in South Africa where resources were scarce or non-existent.
This raised an interesting point about the power of scarcity in leading to creativity. Designers often work within a tight brief and budget – the skill lies in coming up with a creative solution within those limitations. As we enter a period of increasing resource scarcity, is this an aspect of design that our public service professionals would benefit from learning? Also, the kernel of a practical project idea – work with teachers to address an identified problem in school with no extra resources – or maybe even fewer resources? Way of breaking out of the endless ‘fine, but where is the money coming from’ mentality? The phrase ‘something different, not something more’ was suggested.
5. Redesigning the language of learning – if design is all about people, user centred etc., then education can learn from this discourse – it should be learning, learners and children that matter, not teacher, systems and ‘educating’. Perhaps the RSA could spearhead an initiative to redesign the language of learning?
6. Designing online access for schools in South Africa – one Fellow asked the attendees for practical help in designing a solution to the problem of a school he works with in South Africa where circumstances severely circumscribe the options for getting the school online. It was re-emphasised that the less the schools have the more creative they become in how they deliver learning. An example was that given the ubiquity of the mobile phone, and the lack of facilities, lessons can be delivered via mobile phone in a way that more resource rich education systems would find difficult to experiment with or to stomach.
7. The idea of continuous change was posited – how do we equip teachers to cope with continuous change, and enable them to equip young people with the same?
8. Later, in conversation with RSA Projects staff, one Fellow invoked the Teach First “buddy” system which recruits mentors or experienced professionals to support newly qualified and qualifying teachers in their first years in the classroom who may be feeling isolated or simply have a lot of questions. It was suggested that the RSA’s network of teachers and professionals could yield a similar network of support.
Any more ideas, comments on the above, suggestions for how to bring some of these ideas into practical action, or further discussion all very welcome!
The future of special needs education
Do we need a debate on the future of special needs education?
How does public policy on special needs education need to change?
RSA Chief Executive Matthew Taylor gives his views – let us know what you think.
RSA Vision
RSA Animate
RSA Comment
RSA Bookshop
The RSA Bookshop, in partnership with Blackwell's the UK's leading academic bookseller, offers Fellows and friends an opportunity to purchase books and to explore our speakers’ ideas in greater detail. Visit the RSA Bookshop.