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.
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.
How can design help education?
This Wednesday (7 October) sees the RSA’s Annual General Meeting held at the House on John Adam Street, and the Education and Design teams have joined forces to invite RSA Fellows to contribute their ideas to a potential new cross disciplinary endeavour.
The RSA design and education
teams are exploring ways that a devolved capacity for rigorous design can be applied in education, to increase the capacity of teachers and schools to create the curriculum, learning environments and learning experiences that best meet the needs of their young people. Rather than leave it up to professional designers, we want to see teachers and heads capable of designing for themselves.
Timetables, school buildings, lesson plans and curriculum are all already areas where teachers do their own designing, although they might not think of it in those terms.
What would happen if we designed the school day with how children best learn in mind? What does the classroom designed for enquiry based learning look like?
We are looking for Fellows to help us think of more ways that design can be applied to education, and then for ideas about how the RSA and the Fellowship can make it happen!
Add your ideas to this blog and we’ll bring them up on the day, or if you are an RSA Fellow please do come along to the House at 2.30pm to join the discussion!
Have a look at what else is going on on the day, and register your attendance.
Children, their world, their education
Robin Alexander and team are coming to the RSA on 19th October for a debate on the primary curriculum as part of the launch of the Cambridge Primary Review.
The RSA, Cambridge Primary Review and Esmee Fairbairn Foundation host a public event to launch the debate about the final report of the Cambridge Primary Review.
Join a panel of expert commentators as they discuss the implications of the report for teachers, schools, local authorities, national policy, children and childhood.
Speakers will include: Robin Alexander, Director of the Cambridge Primary Review; Mick Brookes, General Secretary, National Association of Head Teachers; Professor Mary James, formerly Deputy Director of the ESRC Teaching and Learning Research Programme; Roger Luxton, recently-retired Director of Children’s Services and Deputy Chief Executive, London Borough of Barking and Dagenham; Barry Sheerman MP, Chair, House of Commons Children, Schools and Families Committee; Dame Gillian Pugh, Chair of the National Children’s Bureau and of the Cambridge Primary Review Advisory Committee.
Book a place to attend this free event.
Opening Minds across sectors
The RSA hosted a really successful event in collaboration with IPD, the professional development association serving the independent sector groups GSA, HMC and SHMIS on Monday. The event sought to bring some of the experience of schools implementing the RSA’s Opening Minds programme to an audience of independent school representatives, and at the same time explore new options for collaboration between the state and independent sectors. Speakers included Anthony Seldon, from Wellington College, Lesley James from the RSA Academy and Patrick Hazelwood from St John’s School and Community College in Marlborough.
The developments at the RSA Academy, St John’s and Wellington College are inspiring, yet, when it comes to implementing such drastic transformations in their own schools, teachers and curriculum leaders may understandably find the task overwhelming. However, the independent representatives highlighted lots of smaller things that they can do in order to change the way they think about education and ensure they keep students at the centre of our school practices.
So, here are some of the things they suggested:
- Encourage independent learning in the classroom – independent research and enquiry – and perhaps even encourage some student-led learning.
- Let year 7 students direct the syllabus in PSHE lessons, so that the issues explored are those that are important to, or affecting in some way, the students in the class. If the issues covered are relevant to the students, surely this will encourage greater engagement with the lessons?
- Follow Patrick’s lead and drop Head of Department roles, allowing teams to take equal responsibility for the students’ learning and for the performance of the whole team.
- Creating a professional learning community, that develops teacher practice rather than criticising or judging it.
- Re-emphasising the importance of personal growth, and particularly personal growth through independent learning, rather than spoon-feeding.
- Using competencies rather than content as the starting point when planning schemes of work.
The range of ideas discussed demonstrates that, however big or small a change we feel able to make, there are always ways in which we can better engage both students and teachers in education and development.
Can we all be a bit more like Lance Armstrong?
A few things recently have got me thinking about the relationship between ‘world class’ achievement, notions of excellence, and education. We can’t all, by definition, be the best, but as a society we share in the excellence of our highest achievers. This is why we watch sport, appreciate brilliance in the arts, and take pride in hosting the Olympics. But how do we harness the inspiration that we find in other people’s excellence to inspire ourselves to be the best we can be, even though we accept we’ll never be that good? Is a competitive model (while useful in some respects) enough?
It hit the news earlier in the month that Lance Armstrong casually told his followers on Twitter that he was going on a bike ride near Glasgow, should anyone care to join.
About 300 people turned up for the ride. The genius of the gesture was that a bike ride is something people do as a family, when they are children, or when older with your mates to the pub. What Armstrong did was to connect his highly technical, expensive, competitive and tortuous sport to the everyday experience of millions of people. Participation and competition do not need to be mutually exclusive.
A second contribution: some time ago Tod Machover of MIT came to the RSA to talk about the Future of Music. He spoke of the limited nature of the modern music industry where those with talent (or selling power) are elevated to enormous heights above the average listener of music. Machover argues for a new ecology of music where world class musicians engage in a more positive interaction with their audience so that rather than simply being passive consumers of music, more people participate in and create it. Machover cites the example of Radiohead’s remix project where the band (who have acquired almost god-like status among music fans) provide the ’stems’ of selected tracks from their new album free online for the public to download, remix and then share. They even provide the software to do it with. The public then vote on their favourite remix – and everyone is a winner.
These two examples of world class performers engaging with the public in a way that has the potential to inspire millions must surely make us think about how we encourage achievement in education.
The problem is that we are moving in the opposite direction – increasing restrictions on contact between young people and adults have resulted in key literary figures boycotting schools. Television shows such as The X Factor and industries like football show ordinary people elevated to extraordinary fame, but do not create new relationships between the famous and the rest.
If we want to inspire young people – in school or out of school – then we could start, as a society, by thinking about how we offer them a future not as winners or losers as the current competitive model might suggest, but as participants in a society that is capable of amazing things.
Should we raise, lower, or abolish the bar in education?
Matthew Taylor has blogged an open letter to Michael Gove, which has given rise to some really interesting discussion of the notion of what we mean by raising or lowering the bar in education.
I think we need to be clear about what we mean by ‘bar’ when we talk about raising it or lowering it – do we mean bar to participation (or further post-compulsory participation) in education, bar to some kind of educational success during compulsory schooling, or bar to what we consider excellence/high achievement in the traditional sense (academia, the arts, sport)?
The debate on standards gets very murky partly because these definitions of ‘bar’ are confused.
If we are talking about participation in compulsory schooling then the argument that setting the bar high raises standards across the board rests on an assumption that when told they’re not good enough, children will simply work harder to be good enough, rather than disengage. I’m not sure that experience of lower achieving children in schools will bear this out (note statistics on the correlation between school exclusions and learning difficulties). Raising the bar to participation in education is by definition exclusionary and supports the notion that only a select few should be allowed access to the benefits of further or higher education – or even GCSEs.
If we are talking about educational success for every child in school then there is a problem that those who think that all children deserve to have their interests served by schools, and to be encouraged and supported to be as good as they can be at whatever it is that they’re good at are accused of lowering the ‘bar’. The assumption being that valuing the abilities of every child lowers expectations so achievement and excellence and standards are not encouraged.
I don’t believe that this is true. I think that excellence and achievement and standards are lower than they could be because the interests and talents of so many children are not being developed to their full because those children are not up to the expected narrowly defined bar in certain areas of learning defined by government as important for the economy and our culture.
Finally, if we are talking about the bar being set at a level where universities, employers and parents can tell who the ‘achievers’ are, and differentiate them from the rest then do we want this to be *the* bar? Can it not just be *a* bar for *a* route to success and a fulfilled and useful life? Would it being *the* bar not imply (as it has done in the past) that some have ‘made it’, are a ’success’ and some haven’t? Should school these days really be about separating the wheat from the chaff as in the old days, or should it be about supporting every child to fulfil their positive potential? I would be very surprised if most of those who advocate having just one bar thus defined would also accept the view of society that emerges as a consequence of doing so: one of winners and losers, elites and masses, powerful and powerless.
There has to be a question about what the bar represents (being good at what?) and whether we need one at all if every child is being encouraged to succeed at the top of their ability to do so. Perhaps what we in fact need is a more differentiated measure and to move away from a linear and universal notion of standards, bars and achievement.
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.