The very idea of having any sort of curriculum or plan of studies is anathema for autonomous educators. It is seen as robbing the whole educational process of all spontaneity and joy. After all, formal qualifications and university are not the be-all and end-all of education are they? All this is true enough as far as it goes. I want to think a little about the advantages of working to a very broad curriculum and looking at the advantages of this quite apart from gaining GCSEs or A levels or passing this or that test.
In order to illustrate the points I am making, I shall restrict what I am saying to science, although most of it is equally applicable to history, geography, music, English or any other subject. To begin with I want to consider three topics that many people discuss passionately and which regularly crop up in the newspapers and on the television; GM foods, Global warming and renewable energy.
Let us begin with GM foods, something about which many people feel very strongly. Here is a simple question. What is a gene? In other words, before we even start to discuss genetically modified foods, it is necessary to be able to give a succinct answer to the question, "What do we mean by a gene?" Shockingly, almost all the people to whom I have spoken about this, despite having extremely strong views on the subject of GM foods and genetic engineering, are completely unable to explain what a gene is! they thus fall at the first fence, as it were. To be brutally frank, they have no right to hold any sort of opinion on anything to do with genetics at all. Asking very basic questions about the Greenhouse Effect similarly demonstrates an appalling level of ignorance about this subject, with many people convinced that the Greenhouse Effect is a bad thing in itself, rather than being a vital mechanism which make the Earth habitable. Renewable energy? Try asking anybody who has an opinion about this, to explain how a nuclear power station works and to outline the advantages and disadvantages of this method of generating electricity.
None of this is meant to be any sort of argument in favour of traditional schooling. Indeed, almost all those of whom I have asked the above questions attended school and emerged at the end of the process deficient in many important areas. It is however a powerful argument in favour of some species of systematic instruction of children and young people. Without a rudimentary knowledge of genetics, electricity generation and the electromagnetic spectrum, nobody will be able to talk intelligently or even understand some of the most important problems facing the world today.
It is of course perfectly possible for a young person to read up on genetics and study science without being directed to do so. In other words, autonomous education is certainly not impossible. Without some sort of structure though, it would be very difficult for a child to know where to begin. The field of human knowledge is so vast, that the possibility of simply stumbling across the relevant facts about genetics and climatology by chance are vanishingly small. What of those also, whose interests lie not in science but in the arts and humanities? They may be so busy reading about Shakespeare and philosophy that they will just not get round to finding out about the re-emission of electromagnetic energy as infra red radiation and the role of CO2 and water vapour in preventing the escape into space of these rays. If they do not study this, they will never know what all the fuss about global warming amounts to.
What I am saying is that in order to take part in political debate in this country, to understand the news, hold a conversation on the subject of the environment or even read many popular books, it is vital to have a certain amount of background information. Without these basic facts, the world simply does not make sense. All that we would be able to do if we lacked this foundation of knowledge, would be to parrot the views of others or to repeat slogans such as "Nuclear Power, No Thanks!" or "Save the Polar Bears!". Without knowing what a gene actually is, the only honest option would be to remain silent while others were agonising over the implications of human cloning or genetic engineering. We would certainly not be able to express any preference for or against the cultivation of GM crops in the UK.
We cannot realistically expect children to devise their own curriculum. How could they know which aspects of science will be crucial to understanding the modern world and which all but irrelevant? At the very least, they will need a rough plan to which they can work. There is no particular reason why they need to cover World Way II when they are this age or that, or to study the Periodic Table only when they reach their fourteenth birthday. But they do need to be told what they need to know by the time they reach sixteen or seventeen. If we fail to do that, we are short changing them and leaving them liable to be left behind in the world. They will certainly not become full citizens, able to take an intelligent interest in the serious issues of the day.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Simon says,
ReplyDelete"But they do need to be told what they need to know by the time they reach sixteen or seventeen."
Because at sixteen or seventeen they will suddenly be unable to learn any more? Is there a cut-off date? Or, is it because you think we're all in race. I guess it is, because you think children might "be left behind in the world".
Personally, I learn all the time and what directs me is a mixture of motivation to learn more about things I love and a desire to know more about "the serious issues of the day". Then, of course, there's the things I need to learn for my job - a world that is always changing.
I don't know what my children will need to know in seven years. I do know that they will need to know how to learn and be confident that they can. I think that is the most vital skill in a changing world.
No Allie, of course it isn't a race and we none of us stop learning throughout the whole course of our lives. I have however met many young people aged seventeen ot eighteen who feel passionate about nuclear power, global warming and genetically modified food. Unfortunately, not one of the young people to whom I have spoken have known any facts about these things. All they are able to do is mouth empty platitudes. I consider this a tragedy. They deperately want to be concerned about the state of the world, but do not have enough solid information even to hold the flimisiest opinion. I simply cannot see why this should be a good thing? To have an ignorant electorate might suit cynical politicians and unscrupulous scientists, but I don't think that it is at all a wonderful thing. The only hope at all for the future of humanity is if today's children become better informed and more well informed than the bunch of idiots who have been running the planet up until now. I simply cannot see the advantages of ignorance.
ReplyDeleteBut each person can't know everything about everything. Agreed? You either have to have one group of people deciding which particular slice of everything everyone should know, or you allow each individual to CHOOSE which slice of everything he or she is most interested in.
ReplyDeleteYou do this by exposing people to as wide a range of 'everything' as possible and waiting to see what triggers their curiosity. It's not rocket science. (Unless they want it to be!)
I disagree with you here Simon. When a subject such as GM foods come up, an autonomous family will probably cover what a gene is in the conversation surrounding GM foods.
ReplyDeleteDeeper information necessary to understanding can be introduced as and when a chance topic is being discussed.
We have found many topics have been covered that way without systematic instruction.
I'm not arguing for ignorance! Of course not. I am arguing for self-directed learning. People are simply more engaged with what they choose to learn about than what someone else tells them they "need to know".
ReplyDeleteYou never seem to answer this point. Do you not agree?
The problem being here Gisela, that if the people discussing the topic don't know very much about it then nobody will be any the wiser or better informed at the end of the talking! I have certainly had many conversations like that with my daughter, but unless you follow this up with studying the subject in an authoritative textbook, the half truths and misconceptions will remain. Often after such a conversation, Simone and I have studied the subjecy under discussion and discovered that we were both wrong! I am quite happy to talk about the pros and cons of genetic engineering, but my views are completely worthless when compared with somebody who really knows about the subjetc.
ReplyDeleteYou are quite right, Allie. I'm sorry if I seemed not to be anwering this point. Obviously, when my daughter was obsessed with birdwatching, she learned far more quickly and eagerly about the different types of birds than when I ecpected her to study th Haber Process for manufacturing Ammonia. Hoewver, the two activities, learning for fun and learning because one needs to know something, are not mutually exclusive. Of course my daughter taught herself all sorts of useful things, but this was not instead of a curriculum, it was in addition to it. The reason for this is that as an adult, the knowledge of industrial processes and their impliations for the planet, the study of the extraction of mmmmminerals from the Earth and the uses to which they can be put, is of great importance to a politically aware and ative person. The ability to distinguish between the call of the wagtail and the robin is perhaps of less use. So you are right, that children will learn more reasily what they are keen on, but I do not see that as any reason to ditch a curriculum of study of those things that they will need to become full and well informed citizens.
ReplyDeleteSo do you know everything, Simon? What about global warming and sea levels? Do you know what physical process links sea levels with the Global Mean Surface Temperature, for instance?
ReplyDeleteNo, indeed I do not know everything! That is precisely my point and I am grateful to you for drawing attention to it. It is the very fact that, like most parents, my opinions are a mishmash of half truths, misconceptions and prejudices, all mixed together with a lot of knowledge which is about thirty years out of date, that makes me such an unreliable teacher. That is why it is dangerous to rely upon informal learning mediated by a parent and why we should instead follow a proper curriculum devised by those who know more about science, history, geography, religion, music and mathematics than we do ourselves. That is exactly the point that I am making.
ReplyDeleteDid you perhaps imagine me strutting up and down imparting my wisdom to my daughter with utter confidence? That is why I said above that after a conversation, when my daughter and I consulted a proper book on the subject, we would often find that we were both wrong!
If AE depended on what the parent knows you might have a point but it doesn't, any more than your form of education does.
ReplyDeleteSo presumably you didn't consult a proper book on the subject of global warming and sea level increases. Why did you decide to exclude this from her curriculum?
I'm sorry, we seem to be talking at cross purpose. I didn't exclude global warming and sea level increases from the curriculum at all. What made you think that? She has read extensively on the subject, and we keep up to date with current thinking through the New Scientist and Scientifi American. She has also read more sceptical views of the matter, books by people like Nigel Lawson and so on.
ReplyDeleteSo do you know what physical process links sea levels with the Global Mean Surface Temperature?
ReplyDeleteNot offhand, but I dare say that I could find the information in a book! What I was really talking about was the disadvantages of adopting a haphazard approach to the acquisition of knowledge by a child; simply waiting for various topics to come up in casual conversation. The other way of doing things is to have some idea in mind of what you wish to cover. Then one can have the necessary books ready at hand for the inevitable questions and to make sure that we were prepared. That is all there is to a curriculum; it need be no more complicated than that.
ReplyDeleteTell me Anonymous, I suppose that you are referring to something more than the fairly obvious here? My daughter and I did some simple experiments around sea levels, but I feel sure that you are thinking of something far more complicated than that! Of course, water expands as it warms. Much of the projected rise in sea levels due to global warming is expected to be caused by the expansion of the water, rather than the melting of ice. This can be demonstrated in the kitchen by filling a glass with water which has just boiled. If we mark the water level and cover the glass to prevent evaporation, we will discover that the water level falls as the water in the glass cools. One can also place some ice cubes in a glass of water, mark the level and then watch as the level remains the same when the ice melts.
ReplyDeleteAs I say, I can't think that you have in mind anything as basic as, "Water levels will rise in direct proportion to the mean temperature of the oceans"! Go on, I'll buy it. What are you referring to?
Don't know, really. I can see (and can recognise practical examples of) the value of self directed learning - so my fanatically computer interested son taught himself lots of early programming skills on his own.... and now 15 years later makes a good living out of those skills. Yet as someone who spends a lot of time teaching maths to others, I also know that children who haven't used a curriculum of some sort find it difficult to pass their GCSE without some serious effort. But I suppose to the totally non-directed school of thought, the GCSE in itself wouldn't seem a reasonable goal in the first place. I also think that actual ability levels have something to do with it too... a really able child probably can grasp maths rapidly and without much effort; but many children who are less naturally able do better with a consistent approach that knows what areas the cuurciulum needs and covers them systematically.
ReplyDeletePersonally I always used some sort of curriculum - either self made or constructed by others (eg the exam syallabus!). I am not sure though that my "curriculum" was neccessarily as balanced as some - because I know my daughters strengths and weaknesses we deliberately didn't do a MFL, and we did spend a long time on somethings, just because we could - eg a whole year on Tudors, and another one on Victorians. Didn't Badman say to the Select comm something about wanting every secondary child to know something about oriental history? Hmm, failed there then.
Yes, I noticed Badman going on about oriental history and carbon sequestration; neither of which have been top of my curriculum! I am trying to track down the two page, broad curriculum which he mentioned that the Royal Society had something to do with. (Dreadful sentence, sorry). My daughter was pretty sharp on the maths front, but in order to pass the GCSE she still needed to work fairly closely to the specification. We also spent ages on the Victorians. Plenty of places in London to visit of course for that. That really is a good thing about home education, being able to linger over stuff that the kids enjoy, rather than rushing on to the next section.
ReplyDelete"But I suppose to the totally non-directed school of thought, the GCSE in itself wouldn't seem a reasonable goal in the first place."
ReplyDeleteNo reason why not. My 14yo AE son has self-directed himself to study for GCSE maths because he needs it for his career choice. AE children do have a curriculum, it's one that develops over time and fits in with their interests as they grow and change (so it's a personalised curriculum, something the state system is supposed to be aiming for). Looking at the supposedly 'critical' topics mentioned here and elsewhere, I think he has produced as good a curriculum as any I've seen.
"Not offhand, but I dare say that I could find the information in a book!"
ReplyDeleteExactly. So what's more important, a random set of facts (a curriculum can be little else as there are so many facts to choose from) or the ability to research and evaluate sources? Obviously a mixture of both is best (so you have some idea of how much you don't know), but you've not said anything to convince me that your random facts are better for my son's future than the random facts he has compiled through his own choice.
Except of course, some random facts are more important than others; there is a hierarchy of random facts. The random facts such as the heights of the main mountains in Peru is one thing, the random fact that there are three main political parties in this country is something else again. Nobody could operate as a full citizen without knowing the facts about the policies of the main political parties, most of us could gt by without knowing how high the Peruvian mountains are. When I talk of a curriculum, I mean a broad outline of themes. The facts related to those thmes could be entirely the child's choice. I was not meaning to suggested a detailed syllabus, where every last fact needed was set out in stone!
ReplyDeleteAnonymous who was raving on about Global Mean Surface Temperatures, you're such a tease! Having got us all worked up and excited about the subject, I do think you owe it to everybody to explain what you were talking about. Otherwise, I shall begin to suspect that you were only referring to the expansion of water as a factor in rising sea levels.
ReplyDelete"Otherwise, I shall begin to suspect that you were only referring to the expansion of water as a factor in rising sea levels."
ReplyDeleteThat was partially the point. The main point was that despite mentioning covering this area of study with your daughter, you had to look the answer up.
"Not offhand, but I dare say that I could find the information in a book!"
Neatly demonstrating the strength of AE. I can't think of any essential facts (or knowledge of their existence) that would not be picked up by someone growing up in this country. Unless the child is completely cut off from the internet, newspapers, TV, books, and other people they cannot avoid meeting them.
Well, to be fair to myself, I didn't actually have to look this up; I did it with my daughter in detail two years ago. I thought that your question had a little more to it. But I do take your point.
ReplyDelete