Lord Blunkett’s Learning and Skills report for the Labour Party has certainly provoked a reaction from the education sector, dividing opinion and sparking the formation of two different groups. Those of us who found fault with the report have, at times, been criticised for overreacting and imagining monsters lurking in it which are simply not there. Blunkett himself has argued that those who disagreed with his recommendations must have misinterpreted them.
Is this true? It is certainly the case that the remit of the report was skills throughout education and employment, not just schooling, and the content reflects this, which might support claims of an overreaction. Furthermore, the authors seek to allay fears that Labour might undo curricular work carried out by teachers, claiming that ‘there should be no conflict between a knowledge rich curriculum’ and the vision set out in the report.
After my own, initially critical, reaction, I have reflected on whether I was being unreasonable. I can certainly see plenty to praise in the report, such as the focus on childcare, adult education and teacher retention, and I welcome the attempt to offer reassurance about a knowledge-rich curriculum. However, I cannot accept the argument that there is no threat to the quality of education in schools. I would single out three recommendations in particular, which cause me concern.
Firstly, the report calls for ‘multimodal assessments so that young people’s progress is no longer measured solely through written exams.’ I would be very worried about an increase in the amount of non-examination assessment from its current level, both because there is well-documented evidence of unintentional bias from teachers, and because it threatens a broad curriculum. It would eat up learning time, cause teaching to narrow around the assessment requirements, and encourage leaders to demand a diet of coursework interventions, diverting teachers’ attention from quality in the classroom for every student.
Another concern arises because the report recommends that schools should teach generic skills ‘such as teamwork, problem-solving and resilience,’ whilst avoiding the awkward questions about whether these skills are indeed generic. Cognitive psychologists like Daniel Willingham tell us that they are, in fact, rooted within domains of expertise. Every teacher I know wants students to get better at solving problems and the like, but they can best do so within the authentic scope of each subject (writing an essay involves both problem-solving and creativity, for example). If teachers are made to bolt skills on and attempt to measure them as something discrete, important curricular content will be crowded out and I very much doubt employers will end up any happier with the quality of applicants for jobs.
Finally, the report proposes that the curriculum should ‘incorporate digital literacy across all subjects.’ Once again, nobody is opposed to digital skills per se, but many of us have painful memories of filling in boxes on schemes of work and lesson plans about how IT skills would be delivered through learning about nineteenth century imperialism, practising the French perfect tense or whatever. It is not unreasonable for us to be worried that our subjects will, once again, be treated as mere vehicles for the delivery of skills which do not naturally fit, rather than as valuable objects of study in their own right.
Why has the report fallen into these traps, giving teachers legitimate cause for concern? One reason could be that the group which produced it did not include anyone working in schools. Perhaps as a result, it has caricatured a knowledge-rich curriculum and overlooked the progressive argument in its favour. I welcome Labour turning its attention to education policy, but it must recognise and draw on the curricular expertise which has flourished within the teaching profession since the party was last in power. For example, Lord Blunkett might be surprised to learn that none of us are arguing ‘that we’ve reached the zenith of our body of knowledge.’ Instead there is much passionate advocacy of a constantly evolving curriculum, richer and deeper in knowledge than anything envisaged by Michael Gove, and practitioners grapple with what it should include and how to implement it, frequently updating our own views as we do so. A knowledge-rich education is not stuck in the past, but offers an empowering, intellectually stimulating entitlement for all, and Labour should stand for it proudly.
Occam's Hairdryer 