Education - Fit For All

In The Case For Change I wrote,

"Transforming education will depend more than anything on perspectives. We have to generate values capable of building efficient public education systems fit for all."

Understanding what 'fit for all' means is central to the future of education in our country. From the outset, let me confirm, I believe every child and young person has the right to expect only the best from the system. There can be no disagreement about the need to raise standards and maintain quality of provision. Everyone responsible for managing and delivering the service has a duty in this regard. But, I fear there is a problem in translating this rhetoric into action. It relates, I believe, to the issue of perspective. Undeniably, there is little by way of a common understanding about the aims of education and the values that should shape it. (See Primary First)

It is time to address this. Unfortunately, there is little consensus about how we should be proceeding. It isn't that no one has a point of view. Indeed, as everyone has personal experience of schooling, many people have something to say about it. I would never seek to remove or challenge this right. However, there is a sense in which, rather than adding to the debate about what education is for, the fact that opinion is so widespread greatly complicates matters. We must not ignore particular views, but neither should individual experiences deter us from taking a broader perspective about our aims for education. In the present vacuum (no nationally agreed aims), ongoing reform of the system lacks strategic direction and without it there is little hope of clarity about the future.

As difficult as it might seem, what is required is just such a consensus about the aims of education in a modern society as well as a set of values that most of us would be prepared to sign up to. There are opposing ideas about the role education should perform in our time. Many look to the past for their guiding principles. There is much to be learned from doing so but, to accept that what may have worked then will work now is open to question. It isn't surprising that, growing as it did out of the demands of the Industrial Revolution, universal public education was modeled along industrial lines. Even today, this influences thinking to a degree, with talk of educational outputs and reliance on strict quality assurance measures. 

Professor Ken Robinson has argued that there is a view of schooling as functioning rather like a production line - control the inputs, apply consistent quality assurance methodology throughout, and what emerges is a pretty standard model ready to be further shaped by the world of higher education and/or employment. Whether this is accurate at anything other than a superficial level is certainly debatable but, currently, there is a sustained focus on standards that, if taken to extremes, begins to look to some like a form of standardisation of children. If this is happening to any degree, it is worrying and moreover it won't work beyond a superficial level.

Quite uncontroversially, we can all agree, there are no standard inputs. All babies, children and young people are different. First, their genes define what natural endowments they begin life's journey with. Then, through interactions with their immediate environment, rich or otherwise in stimulation and opportunity for growth and development, they progress along a unique path through life. It is a complex and unpredictable process; especially, it is unpredictable. Seldom is it a case of, if this happens, then that will result. What we have are unique individuals on different life-paths with widely different skills, dispositions, attitudes, capacities, abilities, etc. etc. Eventually, they find their way into schools that are also unique entities, constantly changing as myriad factors vary over time. Nothing is static and little is predictable. Yet there is an odd notion that, somehow, it is.

So, what does any of this have to do with the idea of an education fit for all?

Well, unless there is an understanding and acceptance of the unique dispositions, potential and abilities of the children entering the system and progressing through it, the underlying perceptions may be fundamentally flawed. It matters if this influences the planning of curricular and more importantly if it shapes our thinking about standards and attainment. A system that ignores the potential influence such views might exert, is inherently unfit. It risks putting some individuals at an immediate disadvantage. There is no level playing-field and this is why the foundation/primary stage is so important to individual children and to the system as a whole. Much too important, in fact, for it to be driven by narrow testing of a small sub-set of skills rather than guided by formative assessments across a broad range of skills.

Significantly, meaningful debate about the effectiveness of education is further hampered by the concepts of equality and fairness. These are often used interchangeably. This is a source of potential problems, both in relation to outcomes for individuals and to judgements about the effectiveness of the system. Put simply, if we wish to create a fairer society, as I believe we do, there will be instances when inequalities have to be built into the system, for example, the allocation of the pupil premium in schools. So much depends on leadership and vision at schools' level, strengthened from the outset, where necessary, by a full range of local support services for dealing with underachievement. 

If schools are to be deemed fit for all, what happens within the foundation/primary phase has to be re-though in line with a shared vision and agreed aims for early education. This should include examining everything, from the funding formula, with enhanced provision for staffing and appropriate interventions for individual children; the formative role of assessment in learning; the professional development of teachers and support staff to raise and improve the quality of teaching and the quality and range of the curriculum. 

Underpinning all this, there needs to be a debate about whether it is appropriate to expect that every child can or should perform according to the present narrow interpretation of attainment in the so-called basics at the end of the primary phase. Literacy and numeracy are important and play an central role in learning throughout life. Most children eventually achieve sufficient competence by the age of eleven to cope with the increased challenges of more formal learning at secondary school. However, there are children for whom this is not the case. What happens to help them find their strengths and construct a passport to a full and meaningful life is a measure of how well 'the big society' works. There are many skills-sets and different activities that add value to society and improve the quality of life of citizens. Achievement in the arts and sport stand alongside developments in science, engineering and technology. An education fit for all recognises the importance of this and seeks to identify and value individual differences and strengths in all children, avoiding the temptation to have them all pass through the same sieve.