The most recent episode I viewed was particularly telling in the way that it concentrated on the students rather more. Two issues stood out particularly.
1) Alvin Hall turned up to teach some maths. He has an amazing work ethic and burns with intelligent energy and charm. Having spent a long night trying to come up with a lesson plan that would work, it did and it was great to see the enthusiasm he managed to provoke in some students. What was far more interesting was his blunt honesty. In an address to camera he said that he was a bit surprised to hear Jamie and the others refer to the students as 'bright', and that there must be a difference in definition between the US and the UK. He acknowledged that they might be wily and have some emotional intelligence, but that they were certainly not academically able. Which was a refreshing light to cast on this programme. In education and the politics of education it seems that it is no longer acceptable to say that kids aren't bright (in the US sense). Rather, that they have been denied the right to be bright (there's a campaign slogan in the making).
It takes me back to my teaching days at a union conference where one delegate demanded that teachers abandon the concept of failure in favour of 'deferred success'. That bizarrely wonderful idea has no useful application in education as the system stands. Schools are largely geared up to, and measured by, one standard - academic success. By that measure these kids have undeniably failed. And rather than admit that the current system is outdated successive governments have poured money in to try and make it work. The consequences of this are twofold.
Firstly, the academic bar has to be lowered in order to generate success, or even the potential of success. The implication is that you just have to find the right trigger to release a student’s innate ‘brightness’. This takes the burden of responsibility off the shoulders of the student and places it onto the education system and the teachers who are tasked with making it ‘work’. The first casualty of this approach is the need for failing students, and their apologists, to recognise the need to meet the system half way by being prepared to work hard at getting results, and by applying the ‘self-discipline’ that Alvin Hall cited as the root of his success, and rise out of poverty.
Secondly, because of the refusal to embrace the notion that intelligence is the product of self-discipline, effort and a degree of opportunity, educators are forced to allocate disproportionate resources to underachievers at the inevitable expense of those who are willing to work to get results. Even with the fortune that is being thrown at the students of Jamie Oliver’s Dream School, the outcome so far has been less than impressive. Certainly to lavish such resources on a national scale would bankrupt a country far more quickly than any amount of city financier shysters could.
So, what is the answer? Well, that depends on whether we can shift the present educational paradigm away from simply validating academic intelligence. We need an education system that is fit for purpose; i.e. recognising which intelligence traits a student possesses and then tailoring their education to develop their strengths (assuming they do have some – only a small minority of people don’t have some ability in the range of intelligences that have been identified). This means completely reorganising the education system. But that need not cost the earth. Indeed, given the present willingness to spend billions on making tiny increments of improvement at the bottom end of the scale, one can’t help wondering if it would be cheaper as well as more productive to simply scrap the education system and start afresh.
The alternative is to stick with the existing education system, that was constructed to serve the needs of the nation nearly two hundred years ago. We stick with the failing formula of kids being bundled together purely by virtue of their age (thereby refusing to acknowledge their manifold differences of ability, maturity, gender, temperament etc). We thrust a curriculum down their throats that has increasingly little relevance to the rapidly changing world. We insist that there is only one form of success that is meaningful in the education system – academic achievement. Accordingly we dedicate resources to those that can and want to achieve and accept that the remainder will be casualties of the system.
I know this has considerable appeal to the Darwinist right in politics, but it is a bit of a skewed view of the ‘survival of the fittest’ principle. It’s a bit like saying the only successful species are those that can run fast, and that, perforce, rules out a whole host of alternatives: what about those who can fly fast, or swim fast? What about those species that can climb higher or burrow deeper? What about those who live longest or propagate on the greatest scale? The beauty of the human species is that it is far more adaptable than others, and that it has the adaptive intelligence to do all those things: run, fly, swim, climb, tunnel, prolong life and reproduce with alacrity. In order to flourish we need to find ways to exploit the diversity of skills we have. The tragedy at present is that we seem wed to the notion of a very limited definition of achievement. If you aren’t intelligent, rich, famous, or a sports star then you are a failure – whatever other skills you may possess in abundance. But because we don’t want to think like that we’ve come up with the face-saver that everyone has the potential to be a success within that limited definition. Leaving aside the dishonesty of the situation, the more worrying issue is that it undermines any efforts to develop or validate wider skill sets. Why work hard and apply self-discipline when you can just wait for the megastar inside you to emerge?
2) The second issue relates to student behaviour. One of the reasons why the Dream School is doomed to failure is the soft-pedalling around the issues of self-discipline and respect. This problem was thrown into sharp relief by a confrontation between the headteacher and an unbelievably stroppy, arrogant and egotistical female student. Why should she respect him, just because he’s the head teacher, she screeched? Well, duh, because he is the head teacher, that’s why. I know there are exceptions to the rule, but generally, those in positions of authority have had to work hard to get there and they respect the authority which they then have responsibility for. And that’s why the default position is that we should respect them. That’s one of the first lessons that should be drummed into kids. The second is that they must, must, must, be self-disciplined. They must be taught to defer gratification in order to do what is necessary. Starkey came up with a wonderful phrase last night when he referred to the students’ ‘emotional incontinence’. That was bang on the money. What needs to be done is a bit of emotional potty training. That’s what Jamie’s students really need, far more than lessons in Latin, Shakespeare, politics, poetry, science and so on. Only when they have learned to control themselves will they master the skills they need to live successfully. (Sorry to sound like Yoda there, but it’s true, young padawans).
It’s an fascinating and thought-provoking series. Get stuck in.
Sunday 27 March 2011
Thursday 17 March 2011
Jamie's Dream School 1
My son persuaded me to sit down and watch Jamie Oliver’s new show – a series where the chef has been given carte blanche to offer some failed school kids a second chance by putting them in front of some of the finest minds in various fields of specialism: David Starkey, Simon Callow, Rolf Harris and Prof Winston tonight with more luminaries to follow. The students were classic disaffected types with a degree of native wit but no path to channel it. So what was Jamie’s take on educational reform?
It started promisingly enough with Jamie confessing that he had ‘failed’ at school, like them, and pointed out that they were not exceptions to the rule of academic success. In fact, the majority failed to achieve the notional target of five good GCSEs across a range of high value subjects (I guess this was a reference to the new English Bacc). He said that, with some lack of conviction I noted, that they were not failures but were brilliant and just needed to be given the chance to be shown that. Of course the risk is that these kids will simply be given the chance to fail a second time, in a very public arena.
The groundwork for the school did not inspire much confidence. Out came the uniforms which were promptly customised by the students, so that was a point lost to both sides. Then there was the peculiar choice of some teachers. Here I think the flaw in the thinking was that you only had to put a rocket scientist in front of a bunch of kids and they would convert to academia like evangelists. Of course, this isn’t the case. A teacher first and foremost must have good interpersonal skills. That is an absolutely vital prerequisite that no amount of brains or reputation can replace. As David Starkey proved with clarity as he held his first history class. Right from the off he was on the wrong note. In the space of a few minutes he had picked on a student and called him fat. Not only did the student react and point out that this was bang out of order, but so did most of the rest of the class. Then Starkey sneeringly asked if the student thought he was being clever by challenging his authority. To which the student rather sharply retorted by asking Starkey if he thought it was clever to humiliate a student, just so that he could feel superior by putting someone else down? There’s impressive emotional intelligence, I thought.
What this brought home, rather starkly, was that intelligent teachers are not the answer per se, and here one has to challenge one of the implicit ideas of the series: that the kids’ failure was down to the teachers and the schools they had attended. If only they had had a nice school, like Jamie’s, and experts like David Starkey, then they might not have failed. So, back to teacher bashing, in effect.
It always depresses me how willingly most people are prepared to offer an opinion about education on the basis of no expertise in the matter, just a set of prejudices drilled into them during their own school days. A constant parade of education secretaries have dictated their views on what makes for good education without any consultation of teachers and students. Oh, they’ll happily talk to headteachers and college principals, but they are often careerists (successful careerists) who are in the process of losing their grip on classroom realities. Not all of them, I am happy to say. There are still quite a few managers of education who still reflect on the principles of education, but they are fighting a rearguard action.
Of course the real problem with education is systemic. For a rather good exposition of the failings of the current educational paradigm I suggest you might look at Ken Robinson’s excellent TED speech:
http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html
It’s not a perfect answer, as we can’t, and shouldn’t, all be artists but he is right to point out the crushing shortcomings of a system predicated upon a very narrow definition of knowledge. I have to admit that I tend to be one of those who think that it is important to push certain subjects to the top of the agenda and this was a good reality check. The key thing is to balance the provision of ‘can do’ tools to students while providing them with the opportunity to nurture their creativity. We need to constantly question the point of education and make the system respond to the range of intelligences embodied by an increasingly diverse student body.
I rather fear that the Dream School, as it is currently constituted, is going to turn out to be a frustrating nightmare rather than delivering much of real value to those involved in the process.
Then I watched this clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1AH_lKDQF8
It certainly does present a very different version. And I'm confused - what happened to the confrontation that was in the televised edit? There's no inkling of it here. Either it was cut from this version, or there were two sequences of film shot. In which case Channel 4 are playing a very dodgy game.
This version shows Starkey in a much more positive light, and he does seem to hold the attention of the class far better than he did in the TV cut. It is an interesting lecture and some of it will have sunk in, but it is at the end of the day largely a monologue and rather rambling at times. What is interesting is that his rather hard edged take on the realities of succeeding and failing at school was accepted by most students who recognised the truth of his words. Which is encouraging.
On reflection I can't help suspecting that there must have been two 'lessons'. Both Starkey and the students seem to have different behaviour in each film. It's very suspicious.
It started promisingly enough with Jamie confessing that he had ‘failed’ at school, like them, and pointed out that they were not exceptions to the rule of academic success. In fact, the majority failed to achieve the notional target of five good GCSEs across a range of high value subjects (I guess this was a reference to the new English Bacc). He said that, with some lack of conviction I noted, that they were not failures but were brilliant and just needed to be given the chance to be shown that. Of course the risk is that these kids will simply be given the chance to fail a second time, in a very public arena.
The groundwork for the school did not inspire much confidence. Out came the uniforms which were promptly customised by the students, so that was a point lost to both sides. Then there was the peculiar choice of some teachers. Here I think the flaw in the thinking was that you only had to put a rocket scientist in front of a bunch of kids and they would convert to academia like evangelists. Of course, this isn’t the case. A teacher first and foremost must have good interpersonal skills. That is an absolutely vital prerequisite that no amount of brains or reputation can replace. As David Starkey proved with clarity as he held his first history class. Right from the off he was on the wrong note. In the space of a few minutes he had picked on a student and called him fat. Not only did the student react and point out that this was bang out of order, but so did most of the rest of the class. Then Starkey sneeringly asked if the student thought he was being clever by challenging his authority. To which the student rather sharply retorted by asking Starkey if he thought it was clever to humiliate a student, just so that he could feel superior by putting someone else down? There’s impressive emotional intelligence, I thought.
What this brought home, rather starkly, was that intelligent teachers are not the answer per se, and here one has to challenge one of the implicit ideas of the series: that the kids’ failure was down to the teachers and the schools they had attended. If only they had had a nice school, like Jamie’s, and experts like David Starkey, then they might not have failed. So, back to teacher bashing, in effect.
It always depresses me how willingly most people are prepared to offer an opinion about education on the basis of no expertise in the matter, just a set of prejudices drilled into them during their own school days. A constant parade of education secretaries have dictated their views on what makes for good education without any consultation of teachers and students. Oh, they’ll happily talk to headteachers and college principals, but they are often careerists (successful careerists) who are in the process of losing their grip on classroom realities. Not all of them, I am happy to say. There are still quite a few managers of education who still reflect on the principles of education, but they are fighting a rearguard action.
Of course the real problem with education is systemic. For a rather good exposition of the failings of the current educational paradigm I suggest you might look at Ken Robinson’s excellent TED speech:
http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html
It’s not a perfect answer, as we can’t, and shouldn’t, all be artists but he is right to point out the crushing shortcomings of a system predicated upon a very narrow definition of knowledge. I have to admit that I tend to be one of those who think that it is important to push certain subjects to the top of the agenda and this was a good reality check. The key thing is to balance the provision of ‘can do’ tools to students while providing them with the opportunity to nurture their creativity. We need to constantly question the point of education and make the system respond to the range of intelligences embodied by an increasingly diverse student body.
I rather fear that the Dream School, as it is currently constituted, is going to turn out to be a frustrating nightmare rather than delivering much of real value to those involved in the process.
Then I watched this clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1AH_lKDQF8
It certainly does present a very different version. And I'm confused - what happened to the confrontation that was in the televised edit? There's no inkling of it here. Either it was cut from this version, or there were two sequences of film shot. In which case Channel 4 are playing a very dodgy game.
This version shows Starkey in a much more positive light, and he does seem to hold the attention of the class far better than he did in the TV cut. It is an interesting lecture and some of it will have sunk in, but it is at the end of the day largely a monologue and rather rambling at times. What is interesting is that his rather hard edged take on the realities of succeeding and failing at school was accepted by most students who recognised the truth of his words. Which is encouraging.
On reflection I can't help suspecting that there must have been two 'lessons'. Both Starkey and the students seem to have different behaviour in each film. It's very suspicious.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
