This blog is by Amelia Peterson FRSA, one of the authors of RSA’s report on the future of spiritual, moral, social and cultural education, which is being published next week.
In a speech to mark National Apprenticeship week, Michael Gove yesterday asserted that to survive in business young people need “not just impressive academic qualifications but attractive personal qualities”. He listed eight or so desirable qualities, including being “responsive and respectful towards others, resourceful under pressure, tenacious and self motivating”. This list is not so far from that featured in the Roy Anderson report last month, or that has previously been produced by the CBI. Clearly, Gove realises he cannot ignore calls from our captains of industry for long.
If we want those outcomes, we have to design for them. The structures, environments and cultures of our schools need to be reshaped to promote the social and personal development of all young people, not treat them as dots in a system, acquiring points and qualifications.
In other systems and schools around the world, this transformation is already underway. At the end of his speech, Gove lists the components with which his government is creating “a long-term plan for all children”. Among them are “changes inspired by what’s happening in the nations with the highest-performing educational institutions” and “changes to make the curriculum more modern”. For anyone who follows education developments internationally, the combination of these statements is confusing. Around the world, leading education jurisdictions are indeed making their national curricula more ‘modern’, but their end products look rather different from what is coming in England in September of this year.
English-speaking jurisdictions like Australia, New Zealand, and Scotland – and even Gove favourites like Singapore – have all re-oriented their curricula in recent years to focus more on the competencies that young people need to thrive in an increasingly complex world. These countries recognize that as inter- and intra- personal skills become ever more vital for success and stability, their development cannot be left to a mish-mash of extra-curricular activities.
Gove would do well to look to British Columbia, the highest performing English-speaking jurisdiction in PISA, which achieves scores close to the Singapores of this world but with a multicultural, socioeconomically diverse population. In B.C., it is taken for granted that education in an intensely personal and emotional process; everyone speaks the language of personalisation and whole children development, and the curriculum is in the process of being comprehensively redesigned to focus on three core competencies labelled thinking, communication, and personal and social.
So what can we in England hold on to? How can we find space in our system to justify the time and resources that we so desperately need to commit to supporting young people’s social and personal development? We have a sentence, at the start of our )old and new) National Curriculum. It reads:
Every state-funded school must offer a curriculum which is balanced and broadly based, and which:
- promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils at the school and of society, and
- prepares pupils at the school for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of later life.
This isn’t much, and the second sentence in particular is too broad and vague to carry much weight. However, the lines do achieve some traction in our National Ofsted framework, where inspectors have to make a judgment as to the extent to which schools are promoting the “spiritual, moral, social, and cultural development” of their pupils. When you dig down into that phrase, it gets to the heart of what schools have always been about – and to the heart of what will really equip people to thrive in what Gove himself yesterday dubbed the “second machine age”.
Because of this, the RSA has spent the last few months investigating how schools and society could better support the spiritual, moral, social and cultural (SMSC) development of all children. The report – following an international and historical literature review; a systematic review of Ofsted data; a series of case studies of schools; and convenings of an expert group – will be published next week.
This investigation is needed more than ever to counteract the seductive but simplistic idea that ‘SMSC’ and character development are all about behaviour. The prioritisation of behaviour in Ofsted measures has made it a key focus for schools, and Gove did nothing to remedy that yesterday when he stated the “The first step to ensuring students have … character virtues is enforcing effective discipline and behaviour policies in all our schools”.
Aligning discipline with the development of good character wipes out in a stroke fifty years of progress in research, taking us back to the ideas of behaviourists who saw correct action as the result of repeated enforcement and reinforcement. Behaviourism is now largely defunct in the field of psychology. In its place, thanks to the work of generations of Nobel Prize winners like Daniel Kahneman, is a much more complex picture of what determines our actions: how we are effected by our environment; how we develop and act on biases; and the interaction of emotion and cognition in influencing our choices.
In a connected world, where young people are faced constantly with examples of adult duplicity and contradictory behaviour, we cannot expect our schools to be enclosed islands that can set and manage behaviour according to their own rules. It is important that young people have the opportunity to develop a vocabulary and the reasoning skills to reflect on their own and others behaviour; to make sense of choices; and to develop a positive identity and strong moral self (one of the most significant factors in determining moral behaviour).
We also have to think about what personal qualities pupils are learning from the way schools are currently set up. Rather than self-responsibility and care for others, the dominant forces in our system teach children to use fear as a means of control; to focus on the end rather than the means; and that what is expected of you is based on your prior performance. Ours is not a system that really believes in self-management or the capacity for change.
Unlike Singapore, we cannot ordain a new focus on Character from the centre, but we can learn something from them – that character is worth prioritising, and that it takes real commitment from both the centre and schools, that translates into careful thought, time and resources.
We already benefit from a richer conception of character in this country held in the concepts of spiritual, moral, social and cultural development. But the phrase has also been a stumbling block in that some of the terms are too opaque and seem too far from the ‘everyday’ business of schools. As we will detail in the report next week, schools need real time to think about what these terms means for their context and their pupils. For our new curriculum to approach something ‘modern’ schools must be given serious space to integrate and see through its guiding principles.
Amelia Peterson is a researcher at the Innovation Unit.
Filed under: Design and Society, Education Matters
Some good news for a Friday morning: Despite our Kickstarter campaign to raise money for the Pupil Design Awards pilot falling just short of target (we had £8,000+ pledged), our Academies have agreed to support this pilot project using their own resources, meaning we are able to go ahead! We have begun working with teachers to transform three RSA Student Design Award briefs, and work with pupils will begin in April.
Mollie Courtenay, who was shortlisted for the RSA Student Design Awards in 2013, is one of our alumni who is keen to get involved. Mollie studied graphic design at Kingston University and graduated with a first in 2013. She has recently taken the new position of Junior Designer in the Design Council Challenges team who use design to tackle big social issues, working on a variety of projects including the Knee High Design Challenge. Here she reflects on her own experience of the RSA Student Design Awards, and why introducing social design thinking into schools will inspire pupils to think beyond the classroom…
“Yes Miss! I believe introducing the RSA Pupil Design Awards to schools would offer a practical method of inspiring pupils to think beyond the classroom. How incredible would it be if young people began to build and use their skills and imagination to tackle real social issues?
My personal reflection of school, is that it could often make me feel like one of many others; year by year I was in the same class, in the same uniform, answering the same exam questions. Even when it came to Design and Technology, the end product was always prescribed; each of us designing perfume packaging or a place mat.
The Pupil Design Award project briefs would offer an opportunity for pupils to embark on an individual journey, to create a project that provides unique insight, and to design an innovative solution to a challenging question. There is no single correct answer with these briefs, which is often why they exist and why they are so exciting.
I took on a RSA Student Design Awards brief at University, as I was motivated by the realness of the issue I was designing for (encouraging safer driving among young drivers). At one point I remember I had covered a whole wall in my flat with my research. When my flatmate got home, he looked at me as if to say- ‘er, are you alright..?’ I was great – I had found something that I was interested in, and discovered the issue I wanted to solve through design.
I am currently working on a project that focuses on the development of children in their early years, up to the age of five. When working in this environment you can’t think about design in a way that produces shiny, perfect and one off things.
One of the most important factors when designing for society is to really understand the issue or problem you are trying to solve, whilst building empathy for people and situations you are working with. It is unlikely that this can be done without spending time with people where they are. This means getting out and about, learning from many sources, observing, monitoring, questioning, recording and interpreting. Having an agenda and going out to fulfill it.
Giving pupils an opportunity to take responsibility for their own project is a fantastic way of encouraging individuality and creativity. Unlike some school subjects, these design projects allow for mistakes; and that’s where the really interesting learning happens. It’s so important to continually look back and challenge your own thinking and not rely on your own assumptions.
I am super excited for the launch of this project and hope that schools can see the value in adding it to their existing curriculum.”
If, like Mollie, you want to get involved in the Pupil Design Awards, there are plenty of ways to do so!
- Become a mentor or judge We are looking for a handful of designers to help mentor the pupils through the briefs.
- Donate a prize This could be an industry placement or some design-related goodies – we’re open to suggestions!
- Help take the project UK-wide We are already looking for other schools and especially sponsors to take this project beyond our Academies.
If you would like to get involved, or receive project updates, please get in touch – email@example.com
As Chief Executive of RSA Academies I travel regularly to the West Midlands to work with our four RSA Academies, in Coventry (Whitley Academy), Redditch (Arrow Vale RSA Academy and Ipsley CE RSA Academy) and Tipton (RSA Academy). Yesterday I ventured even further north, to speak at the Academies Conference in Manchester.
In a programme that included some essential but somewhat dry topics such as governance structures and admissions arrangements, I was delighted (and not a little relieved!) to have been asked to talk about an area that lies at the heart of RSA Academies’ work: preparing students for life beyond the school gate. The talk was a timely one, with yet another survey published this week showing that the vast majority of young people don’t feel they received enough information about post-secondary education and careers. If there is a crumb of comfort to be found in the survey, it is that UK students are not alone – the survey found a consistent pattern across Europe, with the possible exception of Germany.
So, what are we doing in the RSA Family to ensure that young people in our schools are informed about and prepared for the world beyond the school gate?
Well, firstly we’re recognising that Universities and employers are looking for more than just good qualifications, and so we’re helping our pupils to develop a range of skills and competences. One essential component is the development of leadership skills. Our annual student leadership conference at the RSA in London are a high point of the school year, and the students themselves are setting the agenda for the year’s work, which has included a series of student voice podcasts, and a student led peer review of the schools in the Family. Students at Whitley Academy recently participated in a debating competition, and this clip of the winning entry shows just how far they have come. Our next step is to increase the number of opportunities for younger children by introducing a Family-wide year 8 leadership programme, which will be targeted at children from disadvantaged backgrounds and those who may be lacking in confidence, to develop their skills in this area.
We are also developing a strong partnership with Warwick University, building on their existing widening participation programmes, to increase the number of applicants from lower income families or those who would be the first in their family to go on to higher education. The programme has been informed by children themselves, including those at Ipsley CE RSA Academy. These pupils convinced the partnership of the need to start working with children when they’re young, and so it will give children from Year 7 upwards the opportunity to meet lecturers and students from different faculties, and to visit Warwick, giving them the confidence to believe that a University education really is for people like them.
And we continue to benefit from the generosity of our Fellows and Royal Designers for Industry who give their time and expertise in various ways to bring new experiences to our students. The RSA Academy in Tipton have just had their first student provisionally accepted into Oxbridge following coaching and support from Bill Good FRSA who was on hand to support students at a Post 16 evening before the winter break. Other recent examples include a project with Ben Kelly who has encouraged students from Arrow Vale RSA Academy to think differently about the school’s entrance hall. The students successfully pitched to the Governors for funding to realise their designs with Ben coming back to school in the coming months to support the conclusion.
For 2014/15 we want to make it even easier to enable Fellows to connect with our Academies, by developing a menu of things that they might offer e.g. a work-place visit, a careers talk, to be a mentor for a sixth form student. If you have ideas about how this might work, or would like to make an offer, please do let me know.
There is so much to say about Ofsted right now that this blog may just be my starter. I am increasingly convinced that my idea for our education system to take a gap year from inspection, academisation, and new policies is worth considering for 2015. Before that happens (as if?), time to deal with the changing current realities of school inspections.
Bruised by various mutterings from think tanks (to which the best response might be the old playground comeback ‘don’t give it unless you can take it’), Sir Michael Wilshaw last week wrote to all inspectors to reinforce the fact that ‘Ofsted is not prescriptive about the way that teaching is delivered and does not recommend a suite of preferred teaching styles.’
The letter is a helpful guide to what inspectors should no longer look for and comment on. However, it also gives examples of “what could be said about teaching without infringing the professional judgement of teachers to decide the most appropriate style of teaching to get the best out of their students.”
Teacher bloggers Andrew Old and @cazzypot have both analysed all these examples in detail. Most seem uncontroversial, if a little vague (I’ve listed these at the bottom of this blog). But here are my thoughts from beyond the chalkface of those worthy of further analysis.
- Are low expectations resulting in worksheets being used rather than textbooks?
This assumes that worksheets lower expectations, and textbooks raise them. I could find plenty of textbooks to counter this view. Is there evidence to justify this opinion?
- Are children expected to take books home to do their homework and return them the following day?
Leaving aside the mixed evidence on the impact of homework, why is Ofsted stipulating that homework needs to be returned ‘the following day’?
- Do lessons start promptly?
What does ‘start’ mean? When I was teaching in primary schools, I abandoned the time-wasting tradition of morning registration, and simply expected pupils to come in and finish uncompleted work for 10 minutes. It is of course crucial that no time is wasted dealing with behaviour issues at the start of a lesson, and that one hour’s lesson is one hour’s learning. But there are many routes to this goal. Will Ofsted now take against the idea of more fluid ways to start lessons, or will “start” mean something more traditional?
- Is the structure of the lesson promoting good learning and are children given sufficient time to practise and reinforce what is being taught?
This seems to be at odds with Ofsted’s new guidance to inspectors published in December, that “inspectors should not focus on lesson structure at the expense of its content or the wide range of other evidence about how well children are learning in the school.” Practice and reinforcement clearly needs to happen during any unit of work, but why does every single lesson need to give children sufficient time to do this?
- Does the school have a robust professional development programme which is improving the quality of teaching by disseminating good practice across the school or college?
The hypothesis here is that robust professional development programmes are built upon ‘disseminating good practice across the school’. The evidence, brilliantly synthesised by the Teacher Development Trust, consistently counters this traditional ‘cascade model. Shouldn’t Ofsted judge the quality of a school’s CPD approach in terms of outcomes, rather than methods?
As the SSAT’s Bill Watkin argued in his blog, Ofsted’s position is that “the new orthodoxy at Ofsted is that there is no orthodoxy.” Reading this letter, it feels like one orthodoxy might just be replacing another. But let’s keep optimistic, and, regardless of our differing views about pedagogy, hold Ofsted to account on Sir Michael’s final plea:
“Please, please, please think carefully before criticising a lesson because it doesn’t conform to a particular view of how children should be taught.”
Joe Hallgarten Director of Education @joehallg
Other examples in the letter:
- Are children focused and attentive because the teaching is stimulating?
- Is the pace of the lesson good because the teacher is proactive and dynamic in the classroom?
- Is homework regularly given?
- Is literacy a key component of lessons across the curriculum?
- Do teachers use display and technology to support teaching?
- Are the most able children provided with work which stretches them and allows them to fulfil their true potential?
- Does marking give a clear indication of what the children have to do to improve and are clear targets being set?
- Do teachers have sufficient expertise to be able to impart to students the necessary knowledge and skills to succeed?
- Are teaching assistants supporting teaching effectively or are they simply ‘floating about’?
When was the last time you read a good literary book? Or recommended one? Though a staple for some, reading a good novel increasingly feels like a luxury not all of us can afford in the midst of busy schedules and digital distraction. Additionally, in a time where literary novel sales are declining and libraries are closing, it’s clear that our appreciation for the literary masterpiece is waning. It also seems as if children are beginning to mirror our increasing disengagement with literature; according to the National Literary Trust, only 40% of children aged 8-16 read daily in 2005, a figure which dropped to 30% in 2011 and by a further 2% in 2012.
However, a study in Science journal connects reading literary fiction with Theory of Mind; the ability to emphasise, imagine and understand the mental states of others. As part of the study, one group were given excerpts of literary fiction, while other groups read popular fiction and non-fiction. When finished, participants were asked to take a test to assess and understand other people’s thoughts and emotions. Interestingly, there were stark differences between those who had read literary fiction and those who had read non-fiction. Those who read the literary fiction excerpts exhibited increased levels of empathy, social perception and emotional intelligence. Participants who had read excerpts of popular fiction were also deemed less able to connect empathically.
The differences between literary fiction and popular fiction stir a series of old rivalries between ‘highbrow’ and ‘lowbrow’ interpretations of literature, but I think what is most important is the potential for literature to enable a person to think and feel creatively. Good literature gives space and time for the reader to delve more creatively into the psyche of their protagonist and to explore human complexities and behaviours. But as we become increasingly embroiled within the world of social media, everyday communication is often whittled down to 140 characters and appreciation in the form of ‘likes’ and retweets has become a normalised endeavour. Our thoughts are increasingly becoming condensed and immediate for social media consumption as are our reactions. Though clearly beneficial in certain respects, the world of social media often provides a somewhat one dimensional approach to communication, often bereft of emotionally sensibilities.
Reading literature, it seems, is fast becoming the equivalent of ‘slow’ food – wholesome and most probably good for you but without the immediate gratification and universal appeal of faster alternatives. Tellingly, on speaking on Radio 4’s Front Row earlier this month, writer Ruth Rendell connects the belated literary success of John Williams’ novel Stoner, a novel in which a young farm man falls in love with literature, with our literary nostalgia and claims the novel reminds us of a love of literature that we as a society seem to be gradually forgetting. But in thinking more widely about this loss, we need to consider and examine the detrimental effects of the increasing absence of literature, particularly when considering its role in the development of empathy and emotional intellect.
In contemplating the RSA’s current discussions on ‘the power to create’, it’s clear that reading fiction is certainly not the only way to delve deeper into what creativity at the heart of RSA might look like (if only!). But it’s interesting and important to consider our collective levels of empathy and emotional intelligence when thinking about channels of power and creativity. And while recent debates are still at the forefront of the RSA psyche, maybe reading literature is not a bad start…
Despite no formal announcement of Tristram Hunt’s ‘licenced to teach’ idea, the concept has already been constructed and deconstructed by the edurati, with especially useful contributions from David Weston, our own Louise Bamfield, and Charlotte Leslie MP, who argues with the easy conviction of a backbencher that:
“Any relicencing scheme that is the brainchild of a politician and born out of Whitehall is doomed to fail, and become just another stick with which to beat a demoralised, worn-out workforce.”
Given that almost everyone who has commented on licencing has used the ‘devil in the detail’ cliché, I’ll say that the angel could be in the bigger picture. Although I blogged in this week’s New Statesman that our school system should in 2015 have a ‘gap year’ from any new policies, I still believe that the licencing idea deserves air, time and hopefully support from the wide range of people who could together guarantee success. Here are five thoughts that might help.
1) Licencing is an ineffective way to remove bad teachers
If my child is being taught by anybody who is not up to it, I want him or her given immediate support to improve, with rapid removal if this fails to happen. Waiting five or even seven years is too long, and may create a further disincentive to do the right thing at the right time. Putting teachers into Capability, and finally removing them, is difficult, and always will be, but brave, assertive school leaders are finding ways through, and recent chagnes to regulations have made the process easier. This may be one area where academies and chains have been more effective and ruthless than local authorities, often if not always with positive outcomes. Setting up licencing as the magic bullet to remove poor teachers is setting it up for failure.
2) Licencing could reduce teacher bureaucracy
Of course, the process to gain and regain a licence is just that, a process, so will therefore come with some bureaucratic burdens. However, any licence worth the paper its written on should be a licence to be trusted – that your professional judgement is valued, and professional autonomy revered. Armed with a licence, most teachers should be able to resist some of the more mindless soul-numbing paperwork that senior management teams, often falsely in the name of Ofsted, request of their teachers: The over-detailed lesson and termly planning documents; the written justification for every individual assessment decision; the word-hungry performance management papers. “Back off and trust me, my licence is up to date’ could be a useful bulwark against the creeping growth of petty paperwork demands.
3) A licencing system should be carefully created by a new Royal College of Teaching
Tristram Hunt has suggested that the College enforces and administers the licence. I think that the College needs to design and create the thing. This means that we would need to create a college in advance of the introduction of any licencing scheme. If this slows down progress, then that might be beneficial. Despite Hunt’s rush to announce the idea, any follow-through should be slow and cautious, understanding the impact on teacher retention and the teacher labour market.
I’ll declare a potential interest here in that, although the Prince’s Teaching Institute and others have done some fantastic development of the idea over the past few months, I think that RSA could be perfectly placed to make the College happen. We have a good history of incubating new ideas and institutions, are prepared to bash the heads that need bashing, and would also work to learn from the mistakes of the General Teaching Council of England. The GTCE was an example of New Labour policy implementation at its worst – a kind of half-hearted, ADHD-riven dirigisme which built the weakest of institutions. I am sure that the RSA could build an alliance that could do this better, and not just because we have a ‘Royal’ in our name too. Pitch over.
4) Licencing should be built around the concept of ‘clinical practice’
This builds usefully on the BERA/RSA Inquiry into teacher education and research. We launched our interim report this week. Here, we defined clinical practice in education as
“the need to bring together knowledge and evidence from different sources through a carefully sequenced programme which is deliberately designed to integrate teachers’ experiential learning at the ‘chalk face’ with research-based knowledge and insights from academic study and scholarship. Inspired by the medical model, the goal is to reﬁne particular skills and deepen practitioners’ knowledge and understanding, by integrating practical and academic (or research-based) knowledge, and to interrogate each in light of the other.”
This is more complex, nuanced and developmental than any crude aim to ensure that teachers’ practices more ‘evidence-based’. But the idea of clinical practice, also powerfully articulated by the US National Council for Accreditation in Education’s ‘ten design principles for clinically-based preparation’ could provide a powerful foundation from which to build a licencing scheme which would improve, engage and motivate teachers.
5) Licencing should offer teachers the ‘power to create’
I haven’t joined the fray of my colleagues’ blogs about creativity, although I love RSA’s confidence to have these discussions in the open. I’m not yet ready to give my view on RSA’s possible overall approach to creativity in education – my five years of leading Creative Partnerships has rendered me cautious, if far from speechless. However, there is a genuine linkage between the philosophy emerging from the non-ivory second floor of John Adam Street and the teacher licensing scheme. David Weston’s blog neatly sums up teacher effectiveness as a combination of “subject knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, behavioural knowledge and interpersonal skills”. This isn’t enough. Teachers need the motivation, skills, and sense of self-efficacy to develop their own pedagogies and practices that can lead to the best possible outcomes for their pupils. Of course, innovation should be built on evidence, and all teachers need to adopt and adapt existing successful practices as well as develop their own. Although only a few teachers may ever create genuinely new knowledge, ‘little C’ creativity, the ability to generate and develop ideas that are original to you, and valuable in your context, should be at the heart of any licence – not just a right but a duty for all teachers.
Joe Hallgarten Director of Education @joehallg
Tristram Hunt’s proposal for relicensing teachers every five or more years has sparked much debate, from initial rebukes to more considered engagement. One aspect of the proposal that deserves greater attention is the opportunity to give teachers more explicit encouragement to engage in more active enquiry and robust evaluation, whilst continuing to raise the quality and relevance of research.
Teachers only rarely receive the time, support, recognition and reward they need to develop research-related skills and deepen their research-based knowledge.
There are plenty of reasons to proceed with caution, not least because the appropriate body to develop and take forward such any licensing system – an autonomous, teacher-led professional body in the form of a new College of Teaching, Royal or otherwise – does not yet exist. (On this, there is still much to do to resolve the current sticking points and allow such a body to establish itself as a trusted, independent institution, free from government interference or political agenda. But these intricacies shouldn’t prevent other ideas from at least being explored in the meantime. The crucial point is that all parties must be willing to accept the autonomy of the College as and when it is established: in the future, politicians may continue to make proposals of this kind, but the power to decide what is developed and ultimately implemented must reside with the College in consultation with its members, not dictated by Ministers).
Furthermore, as David Weston usefully spells out, there are some key issues to resolve in developing such a scheme, most obviously around how assessment for licensing would actually take place, there being problems with relying on either peer observation or value added scores from pupil performance data as a method for assessing teacher quality, as both have been shown to be unreliable (though training in how to observe would at least improve the former, as well as exploring other options such as using in combination with pupil feedback etc.)
Nevertheless, the proposal for a re-licensing scheme touches on something hugely important, which it would be unfortunate and even damaging for the profession to miss. This is the chance to consider what is needed to motivate, equip and engage teachers in the use of evidence and enquiry from the beginning of their training and how to sustain that engagement and commitment throughout their professional career.
For any (re-)licensing scheme to be successful, it needs to start with the profession deciding for itself, at least in outline form, the professional skillset and body of knowledge that all teachers must be able to demonstrate at different stages of their career. General agreement on this would help make progress towards a second key goal: namely, how to transform the culture of professional learning within English schools, so that it became a normal and established part of teachers’ education and career development to draw on the latest research and evidence, extending their capacity to enquire into what is working and not working in their own schools and classrooms.
Now, teachers could say, with some justification, that they don’t need a system of licensing and relicensing to prompt them to update and refresh their skills and knowledge. Indeed, far from inspiring this type of positive developmental activity, a poorly developed scheme or one implemented in haste could have precisely the opposite effect, in terms of dampening their motivation, trampling over morale and incentivising shallow forms of box-ticking behaviour.
But we know from research and experience that teachers only rarely receive the time, support, recognition and reward they need to develop these research-related skills and deepen their research-based knowledge.
As the BERA-RSA interim report shows, the UK lacks a coherent and systematic approach to teacher education
The interim report of the BERA-RSA Inquiry, launched this week, compares the situation across the four nations of the UK with provision for teacher education and professional learning in some of the highest performing education systems world-wide. One of the striking conclusions is the extent to which those high performing systems promote a culture of evidence-based enquiry and robust evaluation of classroom practice. By contrast, the UK lacks a coherent and systematic approach to teacher education, which means that teachers are still not being equipped with the necessary skills for enquiry and evaluation. Read more
South West Fellows recently organised a debate in Plymouth focused on creativity in education, particularly in a time of austerity. It links into the plethora of blogs coming out of the RSA around creativity, lead by Adam Lent’s blog Why is creativity the most important political concept of the 21st Century?. The debate was organised by Fellows in partnership with Fotonow, who create new opportunities in photography and facilitate socially motivated projects exploring visual culture across the South West of England.
The turnout of about 50 Fellows and interested others, in the week before Christmas during a howling gale, showed what an important debate question this was, and many in the audience participated with questions and comments to make it a vibrant discussion event, based around taking ideas forward.
Plymouth has a diverse landscape of educational provision and was a perfect place to hold a debate, the Plymouth School of Creative Arts opened for primary intake in September 2013, its mission to be “a centre of excellence for learning, living well and the creative arts for children from all walks of life and the wider community they form”. The panel was made up of Andrew Brewerton (Principal, Plymouth College of Art), Steve Baker (Principal of Lipson Co-operative Academy), Dave Strudwick (Headteacher, Plymouth School of Creative Arts), Joe Hallgarten, (RSA’s Director of Education), Jonathan Clitheroe (Education consultant, Real Ideas Organisation), Steve Butts (Associate Dean Teaching and Learning, Plymouth University) who all responded to the debates question and then opened up for general discussion.
Some of the key points made by the panel are listed below, fuller transcript can be viewed here
- What kind of creativity depends on affluence? More important to think about sustainability.
- Should see austerity as an opportunity – austerity breeds innovation…makes people more creative
- Don’t talk enough about creativity, talk more about the challenges, creativity should always be considered as an approach to education
- There are advantages about having less in a time of austerity – amazing what the response can be to having less
- In times of austerity challenge is key to look at a different model of thinking, diversity and having better well-being
- If/when austerity hits it will be a good opportunity to focus on what only schools can do
- Biggest challenge to keep alive is how to manage creativity in this world
- Need creativity to break connections – students are taught to bring this together
Question from audience – when we use ‘tick box assessment’ how can we mark creativity? Would a minimalist music composition ever score high
— Eleanor Bernardes (@Nor_edu) December 12, 2013
One of my favourite comments was a quote on how creativity in education showed be viewed taken from Pina Bausch the German choreographer, who said I’m “not really interested in how my dancers move…I’m interested in what moves them”.
The debate ended after a couple of hours, and informal discussion carried on afterwards. The overarching question that seemed to come out of the debate is what how can we ensure creativity remains vitally important in education. We hope that we may be able to hold a day’s action workshop on this subject for the whole of the South West in 2014, if you are interested in being involved, please get in touch.
If you are interested in the RSA’s work in education, keep an eye on the blog site, the Learning, Cognition and Creativity page on the RSA’s website. Finally, you can support the RSA’s latest project on Pupil Design Awards on kickstarter where the team are seeking the crowds support to launch the pilot for an innovative design project for pupils of secondary school age.
Lou Matter is the Programme Manager for West and South West. You can follow her @loumatter
I have been working at the RSA for six months and as my time here is coming to an end, I have recently taken to a. reflecting upon what I have learnt and how it can be used in a future role and b. panicking about finding a job. One thing that I have certainly learnt about myself and being an intern however is that I should at no point refer to myself as ‘just an intern.’ I’m sure that some internships require very little of interns, but this is not the case at the RSA (thankfully). We are definitely being paid for a reason. I have been given the opportunity to play an important role in a research project for the RSA Warwick partnership which involved conducting focus groups with pupils in the Academies, creating a questionnaire, and even speaking at the launch event (which was only slightly terrifying). I have also been given the opportunity to work on the Kickstarter project RSA Pupil Design Awards * which involved drafting the script and working with the Fellowship and Design teams. This definitely seems like the role of an employee to me, and I can honestly say that I’ve been made to feel like one throughout my time here.
Interning at the age of twenty seven is not for the faint hearted as there is nothing worse than feeling like you probably should have started your career when you were 21 years old. However, did I know that this was the area I would like to follow after graduating? No, I certainly did not. Did I feel prepared to stay in England after graduating? No again. I can honestly say that when choosing to apply for this internship within the education team at the RSA, I was passionate about working in this sector. Having completed a dissertation comparing the higher educational aspirations of pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds in both France and England, I wanted to feel as though I was part of a project which aimed to aid these pupils. I’m happy to say that I have achieved this and I will continue to follow the progress of many of these projects from afar.
I’m not sure what my next move will be, but rest assured that I will be using the skills I have developed throughout my time here. I will also never again refer to myself as merely an intern. Here’s hoping that future employers will appreciate this too…
*Please do check this project out and spread the word kck.st/pupildesign. We only have 7 more days to go!
Filed under: Adam Lent, Arts and Society, Education Matters
In Adam Lent’s recent blog ‘Why is creativity the most important political concept of the 21st century’ he outlines the broadest definition of creativity as being ‘an act that is unique to an individual’s own capacities or vision’.
Why is it then that you’ll frequently hear people recoil in trepidation asserting ‘oh, but I’m not creative’?
Is it fear that they’ll be asked to draw? Or worse still, sing? Is it that someone way back told them they were no good at something and it’s stuck? Is it an excuse to get out of doing something? You’re creative, you do it. Is it an underlying lack of confidence in themselves? Is it a lack of birth right or sense of status?
Lent goes on to explain that creativity is important for four reasons:
- It’s good for us
- It’s economically more important than ever
- It’s the only solution to long term austerity
- It is under threat.
Do read his blog for more on this, am oversimplifying here to provide context, with this in mind I’d like to add two different thoughts.
Firstly, and perhaps crucially, does it matter then that people claim not to be creative? And often vociferously so. Is it because they default to the narrow association of creativity = art? Who are these people? And what implications does this have for our growing mission of the ‘power to create’ and the broadest definition of creativity.
Secondly, and perhaps fundamentally, I have to throw into the concept driven mix that creativity is FUN! Don’t we all want to be more creative? Personally and professionally?
Creativity enables us to solve problems, to meet people, to feel more human, to relax, to use our hands, to express ourselves, to experiment, to get dirty, to learn a new skill, to be brave, to get something wrong, to have a laugh, to feel fulfilled, to innovate, to feel a sense of achievement, to take a risk, to grow inside, to allow us to think a bit bigger.
But in case you were wondering , think you are not creative? Oh yes you are. It is in us all, it is innate. Embrace it. Follow it. See where you go.