Chapter 4. The Great Education Debate
Later in this chapter you will find an account of the different types of school in Britain, the curriculum followed by British school children, and some significant differences between your school education and ours. But such descriptions are not enough, because all our many discussions about education in this country centre around the fundamental question: 'What is Education For?'
Unless we know the answer to this question we cannot decide what kind of schools we should try to develop, and what subjects teachers should be teaching. We have all been in education, just as you have, so we all have strong ideas about it; so millions of people contribute to the debate - as parents, teachers, employers, academics - and even children, and from the results of all these discussions, arguments, research results and observations, governments have to make policy.
You might like to ask yourself 'What is education for?' Here are some possible answers which are supported by different groups in Britain today:
(1) Education should give children the essential knowledge to survive in today's society - reading, writing, basic mathematics, computer skills;
(2) Education should develop the child's imagination -through stories, poetry, dance - and develop his curiosity and sense of wonder - through science, history, geography and so on;
(3) Education should produce an economically effective grown-up who can find real work and add to the economic strength of society;
(4) Education should enable the child to fulfil his potential in all possible ways;
(5) Education should turn the child into a good citizen, someone who understands his responsibilities as well as his rights in our society, and who is capable of contributing to the community;
(6) Education should offer to pupils the accumulated knowledge of previous generations and of other contemporary societies in, for example, history, languages, physics, philosophy, literature and religious traditions;
(7) Education is the process by which society turns an undisciplined and ignorant small child into a socially competent, hard-working, morally conscientious adult.
(8) Education is the process of teaching the child to question authority, to have a critical and challenging mind so that he can learn to make his own choices in life, undeterred by official power and social prejudices.
Some of these ideas can be combined; others are plainly contradictory. Here is a brief explanation of how different kinds of people support different theories of education.
Most British governments take education seriously. During the last twenty-five years, successive governments have been worried that too many children do not learn such basic elements of education as how to read and write properly, with the consequence that they leave school more-or-less unemployable. Inevitably these are mostly children from poor homes with under-educated parents and harsh social conditions. In order to solve this problem much money and effort has been put into standardising the achievements of school children through a common curriculum, with planned hours on different subjects, much emphasis on basic skills, and many measurements of the achievements of schools and their pupils. By the early years of the twenty-first century, English children (the systems differ somewhat in Scotland and Wales) endured more tests and exams than children anywhere else in the world. In a number of surveys they were also among the least happy children. And unhappy children do not flourish in their studies.
The intentions of our governments were thoughtful; they argued that every child has only one chance at childhood education, and it cannot be fair for such a large number to be deprived of the basic skills that enable us to lead an ordinary effective adult life. But by concentrating on definitions of education (1) and (3), they were leaving out so much which mattered to the teachers. Good teachers are usually enthusiastic about definitions (2) and (4) and - especially for older children - (6). So for many years they have been frustrated by the government's demands. They are longing to teach in their own way, and to introduce imagination, curiosity and individual development into the curriculum.
Now the educational pendulum seems to be swinging back the other way. Some tests have been abolished. Music and art which had largely disappeared from the curriculum are being reintroduced; teachers are being given more freedom to teach in their own ways rather than following a centralized system. Governments know that good teachers are at the heart of education and that they must be listened to, but governments are also fearful that children who are allowed to use their imaginations too much will tend to drift away and not learn anything serious at school. By 'serious' they mean 'skills'.
Some governments are also deeply concerned about the relationship between education and society. They see schools as places which offer a great opportunity to make society more cohesive. At school children share experiences even if their home backgrounds and circumstances are very different, even if they are living in a diverse multi-cultural world. Educationalists argue that once upon a time - fifty years ago - our society was much more homogeneous (and also much more hierarchical). People knew their position in the community and were usually prepared to accept it. Now our multi-ethnic society is much freer and more democratic, but it draws upon so many traditions, ideas and values, that we have almost lost our sense of a united nation. As a consequence of these worries, many projects and experiments have been introduced into our schools which are based around ideas of community, being good citizens, rights and responsibilities. All teenagers have to have regular lessons exploring personal and social development; education is for turning children into good citizens. This is the idea in (5).
Meanwhile, universities worry about the fact that the students entering higher education seem to have read so little and know so little that is essential for a broad and deep 'liberal education'. By 'liberal education' we mean 'education for its own sake, learning because as human beings we want to learn and understand - not education as training for a job. So universities want more concentration on (6) and less on the narrow learning of (1) and (3). They want 'educated' students who have wide knowledge of the wisdom of earlier civilizations. They want students who can deal with ideas and concepts. Some of them are always searching for students who have been educated according to (8), as are some school teachers.
Parents want their children to learn to read and write and to do well in exams. Many of them also see school as a socializing institution which teaches children how to behave with other people, how to be conscientious and disciplined and sensible. At the same time, when they think about the needs of their child they want the full potential of their child to be noticed, encouraged and developed. So they tend to demand an education that concentrates on (1), (7) and (4).
As for the children, they have to accept what the schools, the teachers, the politicians and the educationalists provide. Until they are teenagers, they mostly want to feel safe and happy, free from bullying, with knowledgeable and friendly teachers who show them how to be excited about the wonders of the world, encourage (hem to ask questions, and help them to work at their own pace; they want the chance to sing, dance, act, play with mathematics, investigate science, challenge their teachers and be challenged back, and to work in disciplined but not oppressive conditions.