University of Exeter: A Business or a Centre for Education?

Photo credits to the University of Exeter

Claire Smy discusses the recent sacking and reinstatement of English Department Lecturer Sam North.

I write to voice my concern for the wider issue I feel surrounds the events of the last week.

As a teacher of English to secondary and A-Level students I have seen, over the course of the last several years, the limitations that have been placed on teachers by ‘managers’ who see themselves as running businesses rather than centres for education. Government targets and the charging of tuition fees have moved the goalposts so far away from the beliefs and passions of grass roots teachers, that many now find themselves in a position where they are teaching to exams, setting targets that are unattainable purely for the sake of setting targets, and spending much of the time they would otherwise be dedicating to planning stimulating and informative lessons to filling in data and ticking boxes. It is exhausting, demoralising and damaging.

To see education as a business is to forget one vital factor. Pupils and students are not bits of data – they are human beings. They are human beings who are open to new ideas and to discovering new passions; and inspirational teaching, by staff members who have the time, energy and freedom to inspire their students, is key to the success of those who are on the receiving end of our education
system.

Sam North, in his open letter to The Tab, states ‘one of the things [universities] have to watch out for is not to baby students along as if they were still at school.’ It is a sad indictment of our school system, but one that holds a lot of truth. Pupils who have not been able to explore their subjects fully and in a spontaneous way, have limited knowledge and understanding both of the subjects they study, and of the world around them. It is my belief that box-ticking and the worry of Ofsted scores and league tables has been largely responsible for creating this ignorance and lack of autonomy. And where do university students come from? They come from schools.

Tuition fees have, it seems, ensured that now universities too are concerned with box-ticking and league tables, and are in very grave danger of churning out graduates who know what they need to know but do not have the necessary skills to find out more. And what does that mean for British industry? It is all very well being able to get a job upon graduating because one has the right piece of paper, but graduates who cannot think for themselves are of very little use to anyone.

Sam North may not have ticked the boxes that secured sufficient funding for Exeter University, but I know from first-hand experience that he has the most wonderful ability to make his students think for themselves. He is able, through his skill and expertise, his care and compassion, to facilitate the ability in students to go inside their own minds and find the amazing creativity that lurks in its darkest corners. This is a rare skill indeed, and one that Exeter University and its students – past and present – are incredibly lucky to have the benefit of.

Claire Smy

Should lecturers at the university have an obligation to secure funding or is their ability to teach a more valuable asset? Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group.

Oliver Cary: Has the coalition achieved its aims for education?

In the first of his column posts, Oliver Cary reviews the coalition’s progress on its aims of 2010.

The recent Mid-term review represents a chance to evaluate how far the coalition government has come to achieving its aims of 2010, and Michael Gove’s significant changes in Education have been hounded by criticism. Although much of this has centred on his proposed ideas to improve our system, there is understandable criticism of his policy that had already seen tangible changes.

Attempts to make more university places available may be possible, but raising fees to £9,000 has caused public protest and there are still vacancies at a quarter of Russell Group universities this academic year. The government’s aim for prospective students to have access to data of student satisfaction, costs and graduate salaries appears promising, but success for the institutions is measured by league tables.

Increasing university contact time, a common occurrence for students this academic year, is supposed to justify the increasing fees. How useful is this extra contact time? Many university standings come from postgraduate research results, as each institution has to meet its quota of outputs. David Priestland suggests that universities attempt in ‘gaming’ the system gain better standing in league tables, rather than giving more constructive contact time.

Photo credits to Babro Uppsala

Various changes to schools have also taken place, and the introduction of free schools and academies since September 2011 has also been criticised. Taxpayers have been sceptical of funding new Maharishi schools that teach transcendental meditation as part of their curriculum. New academy parents appear to appreciate their 5 year old children learning basic Mandarin, but there are still places not being filled at these schools.

Although many would argue that Mandarin in primary schools, and meditation that keeps students balanced through secondary education are unnecessary, Gove, however, seems to be too radical in his efforts to maintained a tight curriculum. His proposed Ebacc, an English Baccalaureate to start in 2015, has already been petitioned against. Those from the National Union of Teachers and the National Association of Head Teachers petitioned against marginalising subjects which do not form part of the Ebacc, and the petition gained 20,000 signatures in its first two weeks. Stephen Fry, who gave his support to the petition, stated via Twitter that the Ebacc would ‘pose a real threat to the status of creative subjects and vocational education.’

Michael Gove’s policy may cause our next generation to become more disenfranchised from education than our own, and his policy has extended to teachers as well. Plans to introduce ‘performance-related pay’ schemes are intended to raise the quality of teaching, and whilst this is hugely desired, it puts further pressure on teachers. Additionally George Osborne’s plans to give head teachers full responsibility for distributing pay amongst staff have created controversy. Head teachers, with this increased responsibility, and little experience with finance, could lead to chaotic administration in schools.

The intentions of educational policy are always to raise standards of education, enthuse and re-engage society’s youth and justify government spending. Gove’s intentions are no different, but he has undoubtedly made himself unpopular. In recent polls by YouGov for the National Union of teachers, only 13% thought the Government were taking education in the right direction. Teacher morale has decreased over the last year and Christine Blower, chair of the NUT, believes this is the result of ‘continual criticisms and undermining of pay and conditions’.

Michael Gove’s plans and policy for changes in education are perhaps too radical, and attempting to achieve quick changes without proper consideration and review of results. In attempting make improvements at university, school and teaching levels he has created three separate avenues of criticism, and has lost considerable support for his policies in the process.

Should we axe the arts?

“A soft option”, “colouring in”, “not a proper subject”- some popular opinions from students and teachers on seeing art as a subject in the school curriculum.

Children paint colour wheels. Photo by Navy Hale Keiki School

Undoubtedly, most of us have memories of art classes that involved intricately gluing pieces of shiny paper together to form a collage – a common recollection that suggests the teaching of art nowadays is perhaps more preschool than fine art.

The issue of art being in the school curriculum is currently in dispute. The international artist Tracey Emin is leading the campaign to save art education ,suggesting that removing art would lead to riots and outcry.

Perhaps Emin’s riot suggestion is a little dramatic. Being an artist who is better known for her controversial subject matter than the work itself, Emin’s vocal outrage at the proposal is unsurprisingly drawing press attention.

But is Emin right? Is there more to art in schools than painting a picture? Whilst I recognise the cringe worthy stereotypes of the typical art classroom, I am inclined to agree with Emin, and believe that art most certainly does have a place in schools.

I am an English student. Apart from the narrowly creative aspect of the degree, it seems rather distant from the world of art at first glance; and if I am saying that, I can’t imagine how you scientists must feel. But having studied art up until A Level and having strongly considered it as a degree and career path, I feel I am in good standing to suggest that art should have better recognition than it does.

Perhaps I am swaying from general opinion here, but whilst having skill when drawing and good technique is important, what is far more significant is the way art affects how you think.

When producing work, the concept and creative idea are the core. This is true of any subject: the core idea of an essay, the premise of an experiment; it is the idea that is central to the learning.

At a higher level, artwork is about what a piece of work represents, and the message it attempts to put across to the viewer. Emin is the absolute spokesperson for ‘concept’, with her work always getting the viewer thinking. Whilst some may be interested and others disgusted, it can be argued that this is precisely the point- the work gets you thinking.

Art is about making you think, being creative, and learning to articulate a concept or idea; this is what we need on the curriculum over how to mix paint to form purple.

Photo by PennState

Also for me, art is perhaps the most personal form of expression there is. Being able to have – forgive the cliché – a ‘creative output’ is something I highly value. It is near enough impossible to train individuals to become great artists literally, as this is very much dependant on ability and innate creativity, but what art can do is develop a personal voice, and creative development.

Thinking about great works of art, what is innovative about them is the way the artist displays a new way of thinking – this is what we need in schools today. Examining art trains the mind to read work sensitively, looking for deep motives or inspirations beyond what is seen simply on the page. An ability to read ‘between the lines’ is a skill required in everyday life and in the workplace, imperative to success.

Thus whilst I can see that for many people art is just about a pretty picture, it must be considered that there is far more to art than simply that. What is significant is the way art makes you think and develops creativity. A subject that inspires individualism is surely something schools cannot refuse, even if it does start with making a mess with the paints and glitter.

 

By Tess Shennan

Making a date with the past

Oliver Cary discusses the Coalition’s plans for the History curriculum in British schools and the Chalke Valley History Festival.

The Government’s focus on the next generation in Britain is evident with a new curriculum in core subjects being established next year and a complete implementation across subjects by 2014. Intellectuals, professors and teachers are among those who are critical of our curriculum, and it is understandable as the prestige of British education has faded. In global tables South Korea, Japan and China are among the highest-rated, with Finland topping the table for the majority of the last decade.

Michael Gove, secretary of education, hopes that changes to the history curriculum will spark a more fervent interest in the subject. The current system is often argued to be too modular and specific, and Gove wants children to understand a narrative of British history. Poor knowledge of important people and no grasp of British chronology are central to complaints of the latest generation of young people.

Photo credits to Oliver Cary

At the Chalke Valley History Festival this June, discussion between field experts and the public was prominent on this very subject. The event, the UK’s largest history festival, boasted lectures from Sir Max Hastings, Antony Beevor, Amanda Vickery, Jeremy Paxman, Michael Morpurgo, Ian and Victoria Hislop, Tom and James Holland, and Dan Snow amongst others. In discussion with a member of the audience, Dan Snow remarked that narrative history teaching based around chronology lacks depth and students cannot fully appreciate the effects or nature of the topic. James Heneage, co-founder of the festival, believes ‘it’s easy to drill facts into children’ but enthusiasm is lost.

Photo credits to Oliver Cary

However, enthusiasm was present at the festival across all age groups. From schoolchildren listening to Tom Holland’s animated telling of the Odyssey, to veterans of the Falklands war listening to Rowland White describing the role of the heroics of Vulcan bombers in the Falklands. While outside the tents, War Horse displays, sword schools and WW1 trench warfare re-enactments took place to the crowds. Ian Hislop described the festival as ‘quite extraordinary…with a great audience’. If Michael Gove’s wish for children to learn Britain’s ‘story’ is to come to fruition, the Empire must be seen as fashionable, says Jeremy Paxman. Paxman, in interview at the festival, commented that imperialist history is tarnished by prejudice as modular history often reduces a national perspective of history. He believes that history in schools has to ‘succumb to a dull doctrinal set of prejudices that don’t inspire people’.

Photo credits to Oliver Cary

Nick Gibb argued in the Telegraph this October that this debate is not new, and the kind of debate through which student ‘self-discovery’ occurs is through teaching continuity and change, as instigated in the 1920s at Teachers College, Columbia, New York. Perhaps the central issue is not how history is taught but its short exposure to children in schools. James Holland, the co-founder of the Chalk Valley History Festival, thinks that lack of knowledge and understanding is because History is ‘one of the subjects that can be opted out of very early on.’ History should be made compulsory to 16, asserts Linda Colley, as ‘it is in many European countries.’ A continuation to GCSE level allows not only more time for students to become enthused by the subject but also for topics to be returned to in more detail. David Cannadine, professor at Princeton University, in the Telegraph November 2011 said the current curriculum lacks time to look a ‘the big picture’ and that Sir Keith Joseph and Kenneth Baker wanted history to be studied until the age of 16 in their School Curriculum of 1981.

The intentions of the new approach of the curriculum are admirable but Gove’s chronological and British-based course may lead to introspection, says Tom Devine, professor at Edinburgh University. While it is important to ‘engage with those things that seem to be important but are not properly addressed’, as Paxman argues about British imperialism, our society is diverse and appreciation of African and Asian history is also important. Benjamin Zephaniah criticises Gove’s desire to focus on British history, as the Empire was oppressive and a British perspective only tells ‘half the story’. He thinks a wider understanding of events, and of different cultures is important in British education and continues to say ‘black history is not just for black people’.

Although debate over the nature and method of teaching history has been longstanding, criticism will continue in this country as teachers attempt to find the best way to educate, enthuse and impart the knowledge of the past to children. However, it is universally agreed that ‘you need to understand your past to make sense of what you’re doing now’ says James Holland. This cultural literacy allows people to participate in society, and perhaps Michael Gove’s new curriculum would be praised if it made History compulsory to 16.