Discussion Paper – Coronavirus Implications

A discussion paper, released some weeks ago by think-tank Koi Tū: Centre for Informed Futures was highlighted in an article on the Stuff website. Of particular interest to me was the section on education.

The report muses about implications for education:-

Does the pandemic change thinking around primary and secondary education? Will this experience irreversibly change the nature of learning – changes that were likely inevitable in future decades? There are opportunities here to shift more to teaching skills such as critical thinking and emotional self-regulation, move towards precision education and create leadership and export opportunities. Schools need to focus on transportable and generic skills so that pupils can later navigate a more fluid labour market. Is there a place for technology teaching streams as in Germany and Switzerland? Could this be a circuit breaker that allows for a substantial change in pedagogy?

A couple of comments.

Firstly, we should always be wary of the impulse to assume that an event will irreversibly change anything. Yes, events do have an impact on history and can cause change. But there are a number of fundamental things that never change. The nature of humans for instance. And because the nature of humans is immutable, the nature of learning is not likely to be something that changes. If our brains function in much the same way as they always have, any one event is not going to significantly alter the way humans learn.

This criticism applies to the common misconception that the 21st century changes everything. It doesn’t.

Secondly, the report suggests that we should focus on teaching skills that enable students to navigate a more fluid labour market. In recent posts, we have shown that this is a myth based on a misunderstanding of what skill is. What schools need to do, is provide students with a knowledge-rich education. This is a fundamental building block for skill.

Unfortunately, these two myths, that one event or time period changes learning completely, and that our modern world requires the teaching of skills are widely believed and foisted upon the educational landscape. But they are having an unfortunate effect on our young people. If you are a parent, I encourage you to look for a school that does not buy into these myths. Give your children the gift of a content-rich education. Skill and ability to navigate an ever-changing world will follow.

Tell the Coming Generations

It’s an odd thing that those who should be most concerned with education place so little emphasis on it. For the Christian parent, next to ensuring the salvation of their own soul, their next greatest priority is the spiritual welfare of their children. And yet the Western Christian, by and large, has not connected the dots.

Asaph in Psalm 78 does. He writes, “things….that our fathers have told us. We will not hide them from their children, but tell to the coming generation the glorious deeds of the Lord and his might, and the wonders that he has done.” In fact ‘telling’ the next generation is not just something for super-spiritual Christian parents. No, it is the command of God for us all. Asaph continues, “He established a testimony in Jacob and appointed a law in Israel which he commanded our fathers to teach to their children.” It’s not a small thing to fail to pass on our faith to our children. It is disobedience against the Almighty.

What is the expected result of following God’s commands in this aspect of life? It is a passing on of the faith. Asaph writes “that the next generation might know them [the laws of God], the children yet unborn and arise and tell them to their children.” We see a passing on of the knowledge of God’s law from one generation to the next to the next. But the ultimate result of all this is “so that they should set their hope in God and not forget the works of God, but keep his commandments; and that they should not be like their fathers, a stubborn and rebellious generation, a generation whose heart was not steadfast, whose spirit was not faithful to God.” The command is designed to produce a people faithful to God.

It seems to me that Asaph’s general expectation is that as we teach the next generation the law of God, then that generation should set its hope in God and avoid the sin of willful rebellion against him.

What do we see today in God’s church in the West? We see successive generations of the church being smaller. Many leave the faith as they hit adulthood, and never come back. The church seems weak. Congregations are often ageing, and even those churches which are youthful are often filled with people who could be accused of being more in love with the social norms of the day than the law of God. A generalization to be sure but accurate.

Could it be that families are failing in their duty to teach their children? Could it be that Sunday school once a week, prayers before meals, the odd short devotional after dinner combined with the fun party atmosphere of youth group on Fridays cannot withstand the daily assault they are suffering from the secularists who run our education system? Might we be suffering the just rebuke of God for our idolatrous worship of the state and the handing over to Caesar what rightly belongs to God?

Seven Myths About Education – Part 7

Over the last month or so we have been slowly reviewing Daisy Christodoulou’s Seven Myths About Education. A note that has sounded time and again is the importance of knowledge. We see this again today as we investigate the final myth she highlights: that teaching knowledge is indoctrination.

Teaching Knowledge is Indoctrination?

This myth seems to arise from postmodernism. In the 1960s and 1970s, a number  of theorists claimed that what we often think of as objective facts cannot be agreed to exist. Rather, they argued, we construct reality as societies and cultures. These ‘realities’ are buttressed by institutional power, which preserves these facts. Thus, according to these theorists, teaching knowledge is not neutral, but can be a form of oppression by those who hold societal power, and therefore undemocratic. These theorists argue that the traditional curriculum “reproduces hegemonic values and therefore reproduces social and class inequalities.” Therefore, this approach should be abandoned.

So the response of some educational theorists is to avoid the imposition of external content on pupils, and instead work with the knowledge and experiences that they already have. We see this all over the educational landscape today. One example from recent times is a New Zealand educational leader suggesting a boy in the deep south of our country is better off knowing about muttonbirds than how many continents we have. Indeed, our New Zealand Curriculum is deliberately broad and eschews set knowledge so local communities can ensure their particular needs are addressed and themes relevant to students’ experience can be explored.

Why is this a myth?

So what is wrong with this? Surely Christodoulou is not supporting inequality and oppression? Of course not, but she points out that if we are concerned about democracy and equality, we should be concerned about the teaching of knowledge in schools. If we do not provide a knowledge-rich education in schools we will further exacerbate the undemocratic and unequal features of our society. Why? By only teaching pupils using the knowledge they bring to the classroom, and focussing on their experiences, we automatically disadvantage those who bring less to the classroom. These are the children of those who are not highly educated themselves.

In fact, a good democracy requires that every citizen “have knowledge and understanding of the world beyond their immediate experience, equality requires that there should be no great gaps in the understanding between people or social classes.” Teaching knowledge is not elitist. It’s not classist, and it’s not racist. As Robert Tressel (a trade unionist) said, “What we call civilisation – the accumulation of knowledge…is the fruit of thousands of years of human thought and toil…not the result of the labour of the ancestors of any separate class of people…and therefore it is by right the common heritage of all.” So let’s not leave any child to their own limited local knowledge and experience. Let’s give them the gift of this heritage.

Seven Myths About Education – Part 6

This is my penultimate post on Daisy Christodoulou’s book, Seven Myths About Education. In the previous post, we highlighted the myth that teachers should be teaching transferable skills. Today Christodoulou slaughters another sacred cow in myth 6.

Myth 6: Projects and Activities are the Best Way to Learn

There is a movement in education which frowns upon the compartmentalization of knowledge into subjects and a consequent push for more project-based learning. This has lead to what is called enquiry pedagogy. The goal is to produce more autonomous learners, and the means is project-based learning where ‘real-life’ type projects are given to students. Sounds great. Students are given opportunities to play experts in role play.

Why is this a myth?

First of all, there is a huge difference between experts and novices. Experts have a huge body of background knowledge that is stored in long-term memory. This is available to be called upon when necessary as we have discussed in earlier posts. This body of knowledge in an expert leads to a qualitative difference in thinking between experts and novices. Children do not have this extensive background knowledge, so functioning as an expert in a ‘real-life’ project is an unattainable goal. Christodoulou strongly argues that it is not even a realistic or legitimate aim for secondary school to produce experts, and it is a mistake to look at what experts do and think that is how we produce experts.

So does this mean we don’t believe education is about producing problem-solvers? Of course not. We do want to produce children who are able to solve real-world problems. But how we go about doing this is the key question. Does project-based learning or activities facilitate or hinder our goal? Again, for Christodoulou, the answer is rich knowledge-based instruction. We don’t produce experts by getting them to act as problem-solving experts by doing real-world projects. We set children on the way to being experts by giving them the gift of knowledge.

Christodoulou uses the analogy of training in football to help the reader understand her point. One does not chuck children into 11 a side games. Yes, children play soccer games, but in training, the whole game is broken down into smaller activities like dribbling and tackling, which are practised. This transfers over to the realm of say English. More practice controlling sentences leads to better writing.

An example of what not to do is given in the chapter. Christodoulou mentions the vital importance of getting pupils thinking about the right things. So, for instance, if a teacher were to teach a unit on the Underground Railroad, an activity of backing cookies (perhaps a type of food eaten on the Underground Railroad) would be a failure as a lesson, as it is not an effective way of getting deeper thinking about the Underground Railroad.

The Poison in this Myth

The most iniquitous aspect of this myth is the way it further disadvantages the already disadvantaged. Projects require background knowledge. “Pupils who will do the least badly at such projects are those who have gained background knowledge elsewhere.” This will typically be children from wealthier backgrounds. If we care about aiding students from ‘disadvantaged backgrounds’, the best action we can take, is to give them the requisite knowledge they need.