My thoughts keeps returning to the dichotomy between satisfying the needs of an infirm education system and delivering a curriculum that supports and engages my pupils. I will always have to deliver lessons that meet the national curriculum. Doing this isn't quick and easy and leaves few opportunities for going off-piste. There is always be an end game I am working towards; end of Key Stage levels, giving pupils the skills they need to succeed in GCSEs.
Picture this conversation...
Head: So, Mr Lewis, your end of year 9 L5+ percentages are massively down on previous years, and fall below local and national levels. You've also fallen to the 4th quartile. How do you explain this?
Me: Yes, but my learners can now express themselves confidently and safely in this digital age.
Will that carry any weight? I doubt it. Will I be able to look myself in the mirror each night, and still have a job, knowing I've made a difference to lives rather than provided a bunch of stats that show I'm a good teacher. Should I trust more in the intangible notion that I am making a difference? Does it matter what I think, when my head teacher and the local government are beholden to statistical data? If my effectiveness is only ever going to be measured by the results my pupils achieve, then is it wise to put the cart before the horse and put the learners at the centre of my lessons and deliver the curriculum they need rather than the one that's forced upon us?
So, how do I tick both boxes in my lessons?
This got me thinking about Sugata Mitra's extraordinary Ted talk from 2013. In it he says he doesn't think our current education system is broken, merely outdated. He is of course, correct on the latter, but I'd contest that it IS broken. It is and has always has been a behemoth that is fuelled by and driven inexorably towards quantifiable and measurable performance targets that benefit neither the learners, employers nor society. A self-serving machine; by effectively delivering the content the government dictates, I prove I am a good teacher; my school proves it is a good school, the LEA proves it is a good LEA, the government shows that it is a good government. What's missing this this though?
To move this behemoth from its current trajectory is near impossible, all it can do is continue along its path. New initiatives, curriculum revisions and national priorities come and go, but don't ultimately make a single meaningful difference. As inspirational as Mitra's vision of a school in the cloud is (and holy crap is it inspirational!), it's not achievable.Yet, anyway.
So, the new big question I have is this... How can we quantifiably evidence that our pupils are progressing and leaving schools with a skill-set that is desirable to employers and higher education. What even are the skills demanded by these nebulous entities?
Perhaps another question is.. Is it better to be highly effective in a broken system or to impotently rage against it? If it is truly impossible to effect meaningful change in our education system, should we strive at being excellent exam factories? Don't blame the player, blame the game. Or do we dare to be better? Can we succeed where Buzz Lightyear, Woody and Jack Skellington failed? Should I try to make my pupils fly, Space Ranger-like, or should I limit them to being mere toys?
*PS Whilst I will gladly watch any and everything Disney, the Tinkerbell movies aren't actually favourites of mine and have only been included to further illustrate my point.
No comments:
Post a Comment