Confusion over Role of Schools in Education

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

There were a couple of letters in the paper this morning, about education... (in The West, 28 Dec 2010). Teachers are confused, from Robin Clarke, says that development of a positive attitude to learning is an essential part of "the early years". Mike Armstrong, in Clear evidence, says that outcomes based education is the cause of falling year three literacy and numeracy.

Both writers make good points. One writer misses a key point: The role of a school in a child's education.

Clarke writes of "the importance of literacy and numeracy" but with the caveat, "within context and when students are ready". Clarke quotes from a national early years learning framework, which has the focus on "being, belonging and becoming".

Now does that sound like academic wank or what?!

Really, though, "being, belonging and becoming" is important to a child. Not that I know what it means, but Clarke implies that "being, belonging and becoming" is the building of a child's "self-identity, confidence in capacity to learn, communication and social/emotional wellbeing". Which means -- in English -- that you have to start by getting the child ready for learning.

Armstrong writes as a practising teacher. He writes that there is a "curriculum vacuum" and implies that the new national curriculum will not solve many problems. The result is, that teachers don't know what to teach. No wonder students don't learn to national standards.

So we have Clarke telling us that children need to be prepared to learn even before they start to learn. And Armstrong tells us that, even when the student is ready to learn, the teachers don't know what to teach.

These are two entirely separate problems. And Clarke's problem is not entirely with the schools.

Children must be prepared for learning. Sounds good. Except that preparation for learning depends on the child's environment before they even reach school.

If a child arrives at school -- the first day -- with no ability, no interest, no communication skills for learning -- what can the teacher do? Start from scratch, teaching skills which a child should have learnt from family? Teaching things which a child should learn in the first three years of life? Now that the child is five or six years old?

In my post on Sycophantic Self Service I wrote that teachers should be allowed to teach. That is, to provide education -- not social services. In broad terms, a teacher's role is to teach "the three Rs".

If the child is not ready to learn, all the teaching in the world will not help. Even a solid and practical curriculum will not help. If the child is not ready to learn, the child will not learn.

So.

What do we do?

Here's a good idea...

Follow Barnett's proposal, to provide pre-school and out-of-school services at the school site. Hire professionals to provide those services. Take the load of non-teaching away from teachers.

Where the parents or guardians are not able or not willing to prepare a child for learning -- help them. Susan Sheridan is showing the way, learn from Sheridan: help the guardians to help the children.

Provide every possible help for parents and guardians, to get their children ready to learn. At home, the child learns to learn. At school, the child is there to learn.

Don't waste the teacher's time -- don't ruin education for the other children -- teach children who are ready to learn.

Teach only children who are ready to learn.

Provide all possible services, to help parents to help children be ready for school.

Then say, if your child is not ready for school, your child will not go to school. Age is nothing, ready to learn is all.

School starts, for every child, when the child is ready for school. Every child will start equally ready. School is for learning. If a child is never ready to learn, there is no need for that child to go to school.

Sure, we may need "institutions" to babysit the children who never learn to learn. They can gain the social experience without destroying education for children who are ready to learn. Just don't waste the teacher's time with children who are impossible to teach.

Oh, yes... Also... Provide a curriculum that actually tells the teacher what to teach.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com