In all the current to-and-froing about state schools versus private schools and whether Govian “Free” Schools will actually work or not, one big question has remained pointedly unasked: why do we need schools at all?
If the answer is that they are simply a method of social control, you may read no further: we should all just accept that schools exist for the primary purpose of keeping young people occupied while their parents are out at work and, provided that they more or less accomplish this limited goal, their job is done. Of course, no politician in his or her right mind would make this case. Instead, we are told that the key function of schools is to endow their students with the knowledge, skills and values that they will need to be effective and competitive in a globalized, many-cultured and rapidly-changing world. Perhaps, though, we should see this as the mission statement not of schools, but of education, which leads us neatly back round to the question with which this argument began.
Certainly, with modern technology being what it is, there is little actual need for pupils to congregate in the gloomy cathedrals to Misery that are most state schools. The vast majority of lessons could easily be carried out via the medium of Skype. Think about this: teachers could do everything that they do well by interacting with pupils who only appear to them as faces on a computer screen. Since those pupils would not be physically in the same place at the same time, most of the discipline problems that bedevil modern teaching would melt away, while “absebteeism” could be tracked in a straightforward manner. Moreover, pupils would no longer be saddled with whoever happens to have been employed by whichever school they end up at and so could exercise genuine consumer choice in educational services; good teachers would attract large numbers of pupils while those deemed inadequate would drop out of the profession. Teachers would be further incentivised if they were paid per pupil – there being no further requirement to build and maintain expensive school premises would mean that fees could be generous, making teaching an attractive career choice for the brightest and best.
There are, naturally, plenty of potential objections to the above. Most obviously, it will be pointed out that actually timetabling a programme that was unique to every individual pupil would be a potentially insoluble logistical nightmare (although, in America, attempts are being made to solve it using smart phones and iPods as tracking devices). Some curriculum subjects also have a practical element to them that can only be carried out in a classroom situation – science, sport and drama are just some examples of these. Then there is the socialisation argument; according to this, the school environment is vital for young people because it gives them the self-confidence and social skills to interact positively and productively with others. Mmmm: not only does this fly in the face of the manifestly obvious fact that the classroom is hardly the best place in which to “socialise”, but it has to be asked (and this would probably merit research), how many pupils really feel sufficiently comfortable and relaxed at school to make developing their social skills viable? The bullies are perfectly well “socialised”; for everyone else, the average school day is arguably spent in a condition of nervous anxiety.
Ultimately, the ideas presented here are a provocative response to a highly complex problem. That said, it really is high time that we started to think the unthinkable as far as education is concerned. We need to be clear about the purpose of education, how best we can achieve that purpose and, within that, precisely what, if any, role should be given to schools.
No comments:
Post a Comment