Friday, 19 September 2008
Michele Ledda asks: with friends like these, who needs censors?
In the current controversy over Duffy’s poem Education for Leisure, censored by the same bureaucrats who had chosen it, it is hard to tell which is worse: the argument of the censors and their (few) supporters that discussing the poem could lead pupils to dangerous copycat behaviour; or that of its defenders, such as Michael Rosen, Francis Gilbert and Mark Lawson, that the poem is a wonderful opportunity to get kids to discuss such a topical issue as knife crime.
The ill-advised and panicked reaction of the examination board AQA to just three complaints - leading them to censor a poem that has been read for years by most GCSE students without controversy - is likely to backfire and show the country what kind of philistines are entrusted with the important task of shaping the English curriculum. Yet the arguments put forward by the defenders of the poem essentially mirror AQA’s reasons for banning it. Both represent a diminished, instrumental view of poetry and education.
AQA justified its decision with the need to strike a ‘difficult balance between encouraging young people to think critically about difficult but important topics and the need to do this in a way which is sensitive to social issues and public concern’. In other words, we must use poetry to discuss social issues, but we must ensure that the message is right for our easily-led and vulnerable teenagers and that the discussion is handled with extreme care by their guardians in the classroom. AQA clearly has a low opinion of the average pupil and teacher.
However, those who defend the poem only disagree with the censor about its message. Their implicit argument is that if the poem had been ‘dangerous’, AQA would have been right in banning it. Worse still, they think the poem should not be studied for its intrinsic merits, but used for an external purpose.
‘Of course we want children to be talking about knife crime, and poems like these are a terrific way of helping that happen,’ says Michael Rosen, the Children Laureate, while English teacher Francis Gilbert finds the poem ‘a marvellous springboard for a wider discussion about the causes of violent crime.’
Mark Lawson concedes that fiction is dangerous, as ‘any text can be lethally misunderstood’ if read outside the classroom, away from the watchful gaze of the teacher, but he thinks it can be a useful tool if the teacher, by challenging any ‘perverse interpretation,’ ensures that only the right message reaches her students.
Even Duffy’s literary agent, Peter Strauss was unable to say that ‘Education for Leisure’ is a great literary achievement, preferring to state that it carries the correct political message: ‘This poem is pro-education and anti-violence. It is not glorifying violence in any way,’ he told BBC Radio 4's iPM programme.
While the belief that poetry will instigate children to commit crimes is paranoid, its mirror image, that through the correct political message it will reform disaffected teenagers, is delusional. More importantly, this instrumental view of literature, which unfortunately is widespread in policymaking and educational circles, seriously demeans literature and education. In this discussion we seem to have forgotten what literature lessons should be about: literature.
Students of poetry should be free to discuss all sorts of issues and the socio-historical context, so that they can understand the meaning of the text. If they concentrate on studying poetry as something worth knowing for its own sake, children will indeed learn about the world, refine their moral sense, sharpen their analytical and linguistic skills, and expand their imagination, because this is the very stuff of poetry and education.
Wednesday, 16 July 2008
Education Forum Podcast No. 4
Download mp3 (15:56) (128kb)
Thursday, 26 June 2008
NY Salon event: 'You can't say that!'
Watch Dennis Hayes, Education Forum convenor and founder of Academics for Academic Freedom, speaking on academic freedom in New York:
Reviews of The Dangerous Rise of Therapeutic Education, by Katherine Ecclestone & Dennis Hayes
Schools' therapy culture leaves children unable to cope, Laura Clout, The Daily Telegraph, 12 June 2008
Emphasis on emotions creates 'can't do' students, Alexandra Frean, The Times, 12 June 2008
Class therapy 'harming children', BBC News, 12 June 2008
Infantilised students unable to cope with life, book claims, Anthea Lipsett, Education Guardian, 12 June 2008
Childish recruits: Are we infantilising our children?, Personnel Today, 12 June 2008
The lessons in happiness that are making pupils miserable, London Lite, 12 June 2008
Are we breeding a new generation of infantilised students?, My Child, 12 June 2008
Lessons in happiness making children unhappy, Laura Clark, Daily Mail, 11 June 2008
The Dangerous Rise of Therapeutic Education, by Kathryn Ecclestone & Dennis Hayes is published on 14 July 2008. Routledge, £18.99p
Adults, not metal detectors, are what schools need, says Nicki Mason
Carrying a knife is never a good idea when not on a camping trip. Most children learn this easily at an early age outside school and often without discussing it. Circumstances lead them to discover it is good to be alive, and they begin to value their own and others’ lives. For the majority of schools therefore, knife crime is absolutely not a problem, and knives feature only on the long list of items not allowed in school, along with drugs, alcohol, fireworks, chewing gum and dangly earrings.
Not all children hear the message, however, and a small minority of schools do have to deal with incidents involving knives and the circumstances surrounding them. In my experience the young person who carries a weapon does it for their own 'protection' because they feel threatened. Few have given any consideration to the most likely outcome of a confrontation - that a person or group of people bigger and stronger than them take it and use it against them. Once this is brought to their attention by an adult it is often enough to change their behaviour on the spot.
Children are capable of reason. Introducing metal detectors is to abandon reason and to send the wrong messages:
- A metal detector at the school gate says it is acceptable to carry a knife on the street.
- A metal detector at the classroom door says it is acceptable to carry one in the corridor.
They do not teach that carrying a knife is never a good idea, and is likely to lead to crime or death. Metal detectors do not change behaviour. Inspirational and passionate teaching of subjects, together with consistent enforcement of clearly expressed rules and discussion of reason, does. Young people are guided by the adults around them. They are inspired by adults who take a genuine interest in their lives and opinions. Every young person needs at least one adult to take a genuine interest and give sensible advice. Many find that adult in a school.
An account of the June 2008 Education Forum discussion, School knife crime ‘overplayed’, by Hannah Richardson, is available on the BBC News website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7457616.stm
Wednesday, 28 May 2008
Education Forum Podcast No. 3
Download mp3 (26:29) (128kb)
Tuesday, 27 May 2008
Education is not sustainable according to a new book reviewed here by Dennis Hayes
Austin Williams, director of the Future Cities Project, architect, illustrator, author, and host of the innovative and entertaining ‘Bookshop Barnies’ is something of a renaissance man. His latest book, The Enemies of Progress: The Dangers of Sustainability,* provides a defence of reason, truth and progress that the early humanists would be proud of; but it is no return to tradition. It is an almost unique attempt to reconstruct the drive for a new enlightenment in the twenty-first century. Its style is witty and ironic. Williams does irony very well. One academic described his book as a ‘polemic’. Intended as faint praise, it backfires. ‘Polemical’ books are the thing that academia fears most: books produced by intellectuals outside of universities that have something interesting to say rather than the unreadable research academics produce for the Research Assessment Exercise.
Williams, according to Philippe Legrain, has a ‘gift for lobbing well directed grenades’ and readers will enjoy his ironic explosion of the puffed-up and doom-mongering ideas of the irrational and hysterical individuals who issue quasi-religious edicts about how mankind is an excrescence on the planet, but won’t argue their case.
The enemies of progress that are intellectually coalescing around the reactionary, backward-looking notion of ‘sustainability’ are not just irrational individuals. The enemies of progress are ideas: localism, nihilism, pessimism, primitivism and misanthropy. These ideas spread self-doubt, confusion and fear. In Chapter 4 ‘The Indoctrinators’, Williams uses example after example to show how education about sustainability has become a matter of manipulating children’s minds by scaring them with stories of environmental devastation and destruction that cannot be questioned. The consequence is that ‘critical thinking has been redefined…around the ‘givens’ of sustainability and environmentalism’ (p 74). He agrees with Mick Hume in the claim that Education, Education, Education has been redefined as Indoctrination, Indoctrination, Indoctrination. Because of the sustainability agenda teachers are being transformed into indoctrinators, teaching truths that cannot be questioned.
No sooner was Williams’ book on the shelves than Ofsted issued a report on Schools and Sustainability** calling for all schools to be ‘sustainable’ by 2020. They bemoaned the fact that ‘Work on sustainability tended to be piecemeal and uncoordinated….rather than being an essential part of the curriculum.’ What was needed was a ‘whole-school approach’. There is no question here of a critical – that is educational - approach. Ofsted’s chief inspector, Christine Gilbert, has an entirely instrumental attitude to the question, praising teachers who use ‘stimulating discussion and activities to engage pupils in issues relating to sustainable development’. No more critical thinking then. Gilbert is right though, too many teachers are more concerned with giving children some subject knowledge and teaching them how to think critically and don’t see their job as brainwashing future generations. They remain, for the moment, educators.
Where Williams is wrong is in seeing the transformation of education into indoctrination as ‘underhand’. If this is ‘underhand’, it is hard see what an open-handed approach would be.
In summary, Williams is in favour of the car, roads, cities, planes, travelling as far as you want on holiday, eating food flown in from all over the world and enjoying it out of season (so **** off, Gordon Ramsey). He is for allowing the unqualified development of China, India and the Third World. He wants us to reach for the stars rather than the recycling bin.
Engaging children in stimulating and critical discussion about the human potential these things express would be a start on really defending standards in education. A copy of this book should be sent to every school in the UK. What about that, Christine?
*Austin Williams’s The Enemies of Progress: The Dangers of Sustainability, is published by Societas/imprint academic, Price £8.95, May 2008
**Ofsted’s Report Schools and Sustainability: A Climate for Change, was published on 21 May 2008