Now, I have had furious debates over education policy in particular with one of my closest friends, who happens to be a Teaching Assistant and the result has often been that I end up being labeled as completely out-of-touch in what children expect and need from school. I think even the word "draconic" has been used to describe my thoughts concerning the education system once or twice. However, I - rather obviously - was a child myself and I grew up going through the British state education system and my views have been forged in large part due to my upbringing in this system.
So, what are my supposedly "controversial" views on education policy? Well, first I think I should outline one of my most important philosophical beliefs concerning human nature - that all human beings are suited for some things but not others. It's one of the oldest philosophical arguments, first finding fame in Plato's "Republic", the cornerstone of Western political thought. For those who haven't read "Republic" (which you should - it's amazing), Plato advocates a perfect society split into three classes, based on the level of ability and virtuousness of the individuals comprising that society. At the bottom of the ladder are the "workers", who crave money and profit and thus hold no actual power concerning the governing of the state. In the second, middle class are the "Guardians", who are courageous and brave and serve to protect the state as soldiers and maintain order as policemen. However, they also do not make decisions of state, as their good intentions towards the state can be corrupted by their innate sense of pride. The top and most exclusive class of Plato's society comprise the "Philosopher-Kings", those most virtuous and wise men who possess complete political power, as only they can make the decisions that would be in the interests of the entire society. Thus, with every individual performing the task that they are naturally best suited to, society would thus function organically and each individual will be satisfied and happy.
OK, as you have probably realised, Plato's argument is ridiculously undemocratic, with power in his society being held by a small group - it has been criticised many, many times, most notably by 20th Century philosopher Karl Popper in his book "The Open Society: The Spell of Plato." But Plato's argument does not rest on the belief that all people are equal - he believes that each person's individual level of virtue causes inequality in people's abilities and merits and thus only the most virtuous should rule - "Rule by the Best" in all but name. He reinforces this by saying that one would never go to anyone but a doctor (a.k.a. the most qualified) to be treated when sick - so, why should it be any different in the case of who rules us?
At this point I must - but shouldn't have to - reassert that I am a democrat and have been raised in a society to accept as natural the equality and rights of all people, regardless of intelligence, ability and socio-economic position. Of course I would not want to be a member of a society that Plato advocated all those thousands of years ago (because I know I wouldn't be a philosopher-king), but I do see some merits in his argument, particularly regarding education policy and this has been reinforced by my own memories of being an English state school student.
"Setting", the division of students into ability groups is reminiscent of Plato's three-tiered society and it's something I strongly believe in. Concerning my own memories, I remember from the beginning of secondary school (Year 7), everyone in my year was setted, and yes, I was in the top-level sets for every subject (but maths, second set respectively). I learned well in this arrangement, as did my peers. Then when GCSEs began in Year 10, we were suddenly all put into mixed-ability sets for every subject but English and Maths. For me, this was awful - suddenly in my class I was surrounded by loud, rude, untamable brats who seriously hindered my own ability to learn. Science and history lessons were especially unbearable. One thing I do remember was that teachers seemed powerless to maintain order - was this because they were just bad at their job or because they were so frightened of the possibility of having legal action taken against them if they did try and restore order? My school in particular, I think the former was definitely true for some teachers but overall, I think the fear of the latter also affected them all.
So, to this day, I have always been a firm believer in setting students according to ability and am very pleased that the Conservatives would reintroduce it. I firmly believe that pupils should not be treated the same, as Labour seems to have insinuated by enforcing this ridiculous mixed-ability grouping policy. All pupils are individuals and thus they are all different, with different needs and setting makes it easy for schools to address the particular needs of pupils. Those in the higher sets can be pushed to their intellectual limits, those in the middle sets can be pushed to aspire to be those in the higher and those in the lower sets can be given the extra support they need to achieve the level of education every individual requires to survive in society.
Abandoning those pupils in the lower sets is not my purpose, as I'm sure many of my Labour and Liberal Democrat friends would accuse me of doing. That is simply not the point of progressive Conservatism. Progressive Conservatism aims to fight a war against poverty, not against the poor, with the belief that all individuals in society have a right to prosperity and socio-economic betterment without the red tape of government shackling them down. Those in the lower sets would not only be given extra support in achieving their educational requirements, but their own ambitions would also be nurtured and, if they don't happen to have any ambitions, the school would be instructed to do all necessary means to foster them. Thus, it is imperative that the government - with the assistance of good parenting - to instill if not a love but a respect for learning and the importance of education to all of the nation's children, regardless of race or class. Only through education can one better themselves.
Personally, I would even go further in my reform of the British education system and would take the European models as an example. I believe firmly that not all children are academically-minded and those that aren't should not be shoved down an academic route that they will fail to exceed at. Of course, every child needs a base level knowledge in English, maths and science, but some children are much more naturally vocational than academic and if this is the case, it should be these attributes that are encouraged. These individuals will be the future railway workers, electricians, plumbers, builders, hairdressers etc. and they play an absolutely critical role in society. Which is why I would advocate an education system based on two strands - one focussing primarily on academic subjects and one focussing primarily on vocational subjects, such as Design & Technology. One argument against this may be that those children in the vocational strand will feel inferior to the academic strand and thus become demotivated in learning. I say, children love to do what they can do (and do well in) and subsequently what they enjoy. And if they enjoy, they learn more quickly. And if they learn, they better themselves and our society as a whole.
However, in the here and now, I sit back contented in the knowledge that setting is going to be reintroduced to all public schools - and take a moment to once again appreciate the true and utter genius of a philosopher who lived so many millennia ago but still packs a great intellectual punch in the issues and thoughts of today.
No comments:
Post a Comment