I watched a programme last night on TV. I'd seen the trailer for it - 'The Classroom Experiment' - and I thought it sounded interesting. And it was, but perhaps for some of the wrong reasons. The deputy director of the Institute for Education, Dylan Wiliam (left), tries out some 'radical' new ideas in a comprehensive school in Borehamwood. The school was described as typical and, no doubt, it's pupils are typical too.
I like radical and new and I'm interested in the way children are educated. So I settled down in front the of the TV ready to see these 'radical' techniques in action. I have to say, I was pretty disappointed. This guy from the Institute of Education, who is undoubtedly paid large sums to come up with new and radical ideas, tried to introduce the 'no hands up' idea to a group of 12 and 13 year olds. His theory being that teachers tend to ask the same old pupils over and over again to answer questions and the shyer pupils lose interest. Makes sense so far.
But hey, hang on a minute - radical? I don't think so. As far as I'm aware that sort of technique has been used since Victorian times to engage the whole class and try and prevent some pupils being left behind. I remember teachers addressing questions to individual pupils back in my school days as well as the 'raise your hands' method. It's hardly new. Our Dylan's ideas departed from the old in one sense. Lolly sticks in a jam jar with each child's name on it to be picked at random by the teacher.
And as for the exercise before lessons - a 10 minute mini PE lesson before school as a radical idea - I remember seeing old black and white footage from way back where kids were waving arms around madly dressed in their ordinary clothes, standing next to their desks in the classroom. I think it was called 'Drill'. Same sort of principle was espoused by the boy scouts. Healthy body, healthy mind and all that.
Then we have the 'radical' white boards - children in the 'experiment' write answers on a mini white board and wave it about so that everyone is joining in and the teacher can quickly scan the boards, presumably to check if the kids are keeping up. Erm... a bit like slates each school pupil had 150 years ago, so the teacher could, er, check to see if..... you get the picture
Now here's the thing. This guy is getting paid shed loads of money, and getting his 15 minutes of fame simply by re-introducing ideas that were old-hat even when I was in school back in the 60s and 70s. Not bad work if you can get it.
Don't misunderstand. It's not that I object to him as an individual making a few quid out of a set of re-jigged but nonetheless old ideas, or that I think, in principle that they don't work. I think for the average pupil they probably do. Statistics are a funny thing -they can show a picture, but, I'd like to bet, not always the whole picture. The head teacher of the school where the 'experiment' was carried out seems pleased as punch that his pupils are learning more quickly and effectively - the statistics appear to bear this out. But here's my question. How about the bright pupils, the ones who are getting to engage with the teacher on fewer occasions than they were before.
I think our Dylan made his position clear when he stated 'People don't start smart they get smart'. Well get you, Mr Wiliam. Very politically correct. I'm sure there are subtleties in his position which weren't covered in the programme, and I must say that in essence I agree with him. Better education surely leads to more knowledgeable students. But I also agree with the sentiments often voiced by my wise old Nana - 'You can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear'.
I felt sorry for the obviously bright kids highlighted in the programme. They wanted to race ahead, they were naturally engaged in the lessons without the need for lolly sticks, white boards and drill and yet they had to hold back and wait for other kids to catch up. The ethos of our education system is currently 'no child left behind' - a very good and worthy aim for sure. But how about 'no child held back'?
So now it's time for me to start sounding like a middle-aged reactionary. Grammar Schools! Why are we so afraid of hot-housing children. The UK is fast falling behind, in educational terms, when compared to other '1st world' countries. I'm not an expert. Just an ex-child. I knew some kids were brighter than me and also some were thicker than me. I knew that I would never, ever be picked for a school sports team - I was absolutely hopeless at PE. I also know for sure that the grammar school I went to enabled me to have an education my parents would never have been able to afford to buy. But nowadays, with the exception of the few grammar schools remaining, the only kids who are guaranteed to get a good education are those whose parents can afford to pay for it.
So comprehensive education means an equal opportunity for all, except if you're parents are minted, in which case you get lots of advantages.
If Dylan Wiliam has no problem bringing back old ideas into the classroom to improve the education of British children couldn't he just go the whole hog, recognise the elephant in the room, and suggest we bring back grammar schools too.
No comments:
Post a Comment