Final Panel Discussion
Extracts From The Final Panel Discussion
Discussion chaired by Bernice McCabe (BMC), with Eric Anderson (EA), Gareth Mills (GM), Kate Pretty (KP), and Ralph Tabberer (RT); and the Teacher Leaders: in English, Gareth Davies (GD) and Stephen Miles (SM); in History, Scott Baker (SB) and Barbara Hibbert (BH); in Science, Paul Kearley (PK) and Alastair Cuthbertson (AC).
BMC: If the syllabus content of subjects is being steadily cut down in order to make them more accessible, and the levels of difficulty are being reduced in the interests of making them more ‘fun’, is there a danger that pupils will be deprived of the excitement of mastering challenging material, and teachers given less opportunity for inspirational teaching?
KP: As University teachers, our job is to carry on with the inspirational teaching that you have been giving to your pupils; and the more subject knowledge a pupil has, the more progress in Higher Education there is likely to be. But it is difficult for us if we don’t know what the pupils have learnt. This is an argument for some kind of canon at school level, particularly as we often find that the pupils who come on to us lack even the most basic knowledge of their cultural and historical past.
GD: We really don’t want a canon imposed from above. A good and passionate teacher will see to it that the pupils are exposed to what is important.
RT: Any canon will only be partial, but that doesn’t mean that it is dangerous to try and draw one up. The point of making reductions in the specified curriculum is to provide more space for flexibility and enrichment in the role of the individual teacher.
SB: In History, we have had a good dialogue with QCA and have as a result achieved far greater autonomy in what we choose to teach, under general topic headings, at KS3. The trouble is that this approach is not consistently used across the Key Stages; and, worse, History is less and less being taught as a discrete subject.
EA: If there is to be more space in the curriculum of the future, we teachers ought to use this to stimulate our pupils’ imaginations and raise their aspirations by putting greatness in front of them, whether in the form of books, or individuals, or events, or scientific phenomena. Greatness is not an everyday attribute, and the teacher’s job is to identify and share these uncommon experiences.
BMC: Should not the professionalism of teachers be recognized by giving them greater autonomy in determining what they teach and how they teach it and how they assess it?
RT: I have been aware of a shift occurring in the relationship between the teaching profession and the Government. The profession is increasingly recovering its former authority. But bilateral discussions are not enough. There is also a public voice to be heard, that of the parents for instance.
EA: The Report of the Clarendon Commissioners (1864), who carried out the first systematic inspection of the great Public Schools, contained, besides much that was critical, this important observation: “The best schoolmasters are those that are interfered with least”. Is it too much to hope that the new Government will take this message to heart?
RT: The Government has shown that it is prepared to intervene less. But if teachers think that they have their hands tied, they should also see that they can do a lot to untie themselves.
GM: The curriculum reflects our aspirations for the nation’s children. But there are many other stake-holders whose interests need to be consulted – parents and employers for instance; not just teachers. As for the request for greater freedom to follow new initiatives, we find that in fact nearly all such ‘innovations’ are permissible within the curriculum anyway.
BMC: The QCA’s Curriculum Director is quoted as saying: “The challenge for schools is to create a nourishing and appetising feast that will sustain learners and meet their needs”. How well is this likely to be achieved by concentrating on “themes such as creativity and cultural diversity”, as he suggests, rather than by teaching particular subjects?
AC: Our school has rejected the theme-based approach for fear of losing the benefit of the rich scientific framework we have created.
RT: It is obviously possible to study some subjects thematically, in History for instance. It is harder when themes, like global warming, cut across different subjects and disciplines; but that does not make the study of them any less worthwhile. There are of course also themes that are trivial for all their supposed ‘relevance’.
GM: The new curriculum recognises there is a strong place for subjects (in fact the statutory elements are largely described through subjects). At the same time there is also a place for developing skills and connecting learning to the major challenges that face society, such as sustainability and globalisation. The curriculum needs to embrace all these things and it is unhelpful to see them as mutually exclusive.
KP: Knowledge is being taken forward in interdisciplinary contexts; but it’s very difficult to bring together all the separate bits of the knowledge base needed. Failure to achieve this informed synthesis is what leads to superficiality and mediocrity. It’s because we’re being asked to run before we can toddle.
BMC: The teachers here are fully aware of the need for assessment; but if they are a representative cross-section of their profession, then there is a general feeling that the present scheme of testing is excessive and does little to encourage good teaching and learning. Do you agree with them, and what would you propose?
GM: This is an important matter for national debate. Assessment needs to function at different levels and for different purposes. The most important is Assessment for Learning, and the new curriculum will give more room for this.
Simon Lebus (Chairman of OCR): It is important to realise that the assessors themselves, such as OCR, are also over-regulated, and this generates many of the frustrating constraints.
Oliver Blond: In my experience, the effect of the current assessment framework is to raise standards in what is tested in SATs, but not to bring about improvements in anything else.
Science delegate: The constraints occur not in the National Curriculum itself, a slim and helpful document, but in the very detailed specifications drawn up to satisfy the general requirements.
SM: I would love to be able to feel the freedom that I am told we have. The reality is that excessive assessment requirements do get in the way of inspirational teaching. Let us at least have an unequivocal statement from the Department saying that teaching for tests isn’t enough for a good education, and that the best CPD is subject-based.