The Importance Of Relevant Education.

In order to examine the importance of an education that fulfils the specific interests of pupils and in a wider sense, society as a whole, it is prudent to firstly examine the fundamental necessity to educate.

A blunt, superficial or cynical respondent might suggest the receiving of exam results that'll manifest in a safe passage to further education and ultimately, employability. A more measured and holistic analysis might consider the importance of social skills, democratic thinking and well-being.

In defining 'well-being' it's important to distinguish between a materialistic notion of 'standard of living' and that of a 'quality of life' fostered by a happy and engaged existence. We might argue that standard of living is the more obvious end-result of tangible A-C passes facilitating entry into prestigious universities or corporations whilst quality of life is consequent of a fundamental happiness that money cannot buy.

In Overschooled but undereducated (2010), John Abbot argues life quality is more important and criticises a UK curriculum that stresses societal values of status rather than one that looks at all-encompassing issues such as the environment.

I concur with John Abbot and will look to develop this argument throughout this essay, my hypothesis being that it is critical that education is immediately and obviously relevant to the interests of society.

An apt starting point for the development of this argument is The Nuffield Review of 14-19 Education and Training, England and Wales. The report, the largest of its kind since the Crowther report in 1959, details a series of findings and recommendations and focuses on the key question:

What counts as an educated 19 year old in this day and age? (Nuffield Review, 2009, pg3).

It's prudent to examine the language used in this question, 'in this day and age' referring to huge sociological change in the years since the Crowther report. We must bear in mind that a 1959 student would have experienced a very different culture to that of a boy or girl in 2015.

Was the class of '59 sensitive to the needs of a multi-cultural society? Were fifties students ready for the demands of a competitive and aggressive work market?

I would suggest that as society evolves, our tolerance and comprehension of the increasing diversity of UK's society increases and develops. The above case cites the integration of ethnicity into our culture but we now are active in a journey towards equality amongst all minorities. It might be argued that, in terms of education, the journey is complete. As human beings, we know that any form of prejudice is not acceptable. This education must reach young minds and as a nation, the fundamental teaching of right and wrong must be prominent throughout our education.

The Nuffield Report approaches this in the first of its five over-arching demands:

'The re-assertion of a broader vision of education in which there is a profound respect for the whole person (not just the narrowly conceived 'intellectual excellence' or 'skills for economic prosperity'), irrespective of ability or cultural and social background, in which there is a broader vision of learning and in which the learning contributes to a more just and cohesive society.

We note from this that the Nuffield report veers away from what many might label as the intrinsic function of a school - the pursuit of academic excellence - favouring a vision that contributes to a 'better' society.

How can a school that single-mindedly and aggressively pursues a respectable league table position produce students that will as ably benefit our society than a school who favours the production of well-rounded individuals?

A counter-argument might moot that the top surgeons, lawyers, politicians and architects all boast 'intellectual excellence' manifested via a focus on exam results and information retention but this is a spurious line of argument as these industry leaders benefit from considerable inherent intelligence. Maybe more pertinently, a heart-surgeon doesn't learn how to perform a bypass in school but in later education - often many years after GCSEs and A Levels are sat.

A bright and capable student will not suffer as a consequence of a focus away on academic excellence unless competing against students who have been schooled that way.

This is central to the Nuffield Review's philosophy, recommendation number 17 states that the curriculum framework should introduce all young people to 'knowledge, skills and experience which are relevant to the wider community'.

Previous to this, the review argues for an understanding of education which would provide 'moral seriousness with which to shape future choices and relationships' and the provision of 'a sense of responsibility for the community.

The review progresses by stating that:

'Such knowledge, capability and qualities are potentially important for, and (in different degrees) accessible to, all young people, irrespective of social, religious and cultural background. All learners will have to become more rounded, resilient, creative and social,if they are to help shape an increasingly unpredictable and demanding world'.

The focus is on society, not the individual. This is repeated a multitude of times throughout the review and is the Nuffield Report's key and over-riding message.

In forming a measured analysis of the essay's key question, it's tempting to favour a modern and extensive review of education such as the Nuffield Report. Man has educated for thousands of years, so surely we benefit from knowledge and experience that underpins today's curriculum? Surely today's educators should all be in accord as to what is the 'best' method of educating a child?

Of course, we know this is not true. It's therefore important to look closely at the doctrines of a number of educational philosophers if I'm to assure a balanced and credible opinion.

Notably, one of the first recorded educational philosophers embraced education for the benefit of society. Plato (427-347BC) believed that the 'first objective of education must be to develop esprit de corps, that is , the sense or feeling of community life, for the state is superior to the individual. Every citizen must be trained to dedicate himself unreservedly to the state and to forgo private interests'[1]

This is very much in tune with the Nuffield Report's findings however a direct contradiction is evident in Plato's (dates) treatment of the 'productive classes':

In Plato's scheme of education the productive class is granted only primary education which implies, higher education is intended for soldiers and governing classes and the labour class has no need for such an education.

Citizens failing a universally administered test would be banished to a lower form of living. Plato favoured the interests of the society as an entity over the interests of the individual citizens within. The consequence of this being a society whose individuals would experience vastly different qualities of life as consequence of their inherent intelligence.

Was Plato's philosophy short sighted? Can any society prosper if the individual needs of the vastly differing citizens are not catered for?

"Ask in general what great benefit the state derives from the training by which it educates its citizens, and the reply will be perfectly straightforward. The good education they have received will make them good men." (Plato, Laws, 641b7-10)[2]

Did Plato assume that a 'good' man was a happy man?

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) had his doubts that men could be good men and simultaneously good citizens. Indeed whilst recognising Plato's philosophy, he counteracted with his notion that society is corrupt and decayed. Why educate a child to enhance and enrich a society if that same society if fundamentally failing?

Interestingly, in A Discourse of the Moral Effects of the Arts and Sciences, Rousseau argues that the arts and sciences have failed to benefit students as they arose not from authentic human needs, but as a result of pride and vanity. Moreover, the opportunities they create for idleness and luxury have contributed to the corruption of man[3].

Rousseau aggressively opposed the use of the curriculum in guiding a pupil's education as he believed that 'laws and customs thrust us back into infancy' (Rousseau, 1993; p.57).

If Rousseau's, somewhat controversial, doctrines were to be taken seriously into today's educational philosophy, it may be the case that civic education would hold preference over traditional academic subjects.

We must take into consideration the maverick nature of his views however. If we revert back to the natural progression of educational philosophy from Plato, it's evident that Aristotle (384-322BC), like his predecessor, was an advocator of education that conformed to the interests of society. One of his primary missions, perhaps its most important, was to produce good and virtuous citizens for the polis , 'all who have meditated on the art of governing mankind have been convinced that the fate of empires depends on the education of youth'[4]

John Dewey (1859-1952) was a key commenter in education's relevance to society.

In 'My Pedagogic Creed' Dewey 's "I believe that all education proceeds by the participation of the individual in the social consciousness of the race" (Dewey, 1897, para. 1) suggests society's needs as the platform for all education.

Dewey criticises education that doesn't reflect the needs of society and the child's necessity to be schooled in preparation for this:

"Education fails because it neglects this fundamental principle of the school as a form of community life. It conceives the school as a place where certain information is to be given, where certain lessons are to be learned, or where certain habits are to be formed" (Dewey, 1897, para. 17).

Might this be a criticism of learning for the sake of learning? Or a prolonged box-ticking exercise? Again, we must note performance table parallels and schools propensity to teach for quantifiable results ahead of enriched, morally sound students that are prepared for the demands of a competitive post-school environment.

Dewey pointed out that the authoritarian, strict, pre-ordained knowledge approach of modern traditional education was too concerned with delivering knowledge, and not enough with understanding students` actual experiences[5]

Dewey's analysis seems in accordance with the findings of the Nuffield Report and is indicative of the fact that education needs to be relevant to the interests of the pupils. We also note Dewey's progressive thinking with "the school curriculum should reflect the development of humans in society. The study of the core subjects (language, science, history) should be coupled with the study of cooking, sewing and manual training" (Dewey, 1897, para. 38).

Modern-day development dictates that sewing, cooking and manual training are partnered with digital marketing, IT skills and young enterprise amongst other disciplines.

Perhaps most relevant to the question posed in this essay is:

"I believe it is the business of every one interested in education to insist upon the school as the primary and most effective instrument of social progress and reform in order that society may be awakened to realize what the school stands for" (Dewey, 1897, para. 66).

In accordance with Sherrod, Flanagan, and Youniss' (2002) assertion that civic habits and values are relatively easily to influence and change while people are still young[6], Dewey recognises the importance in the school's role in shaping society.

The "formal relationship of citizenship" must be "interwoven" into the fabric of the social life of the school (Dewey, 1909, pp. 9-11). This is the end toward which schooling should be directed[7].

Dewey's philosophy materialised in September 2002 when citizenship education was introduced as a compulsory component of the National Curriculum (introduced at key stage 3). The Citizenship Foundation (CF) state that "We want young people to leave school or college with an understanding of the political, legal and economic functions of adult society, and with the social and moral awareness to thrive in it[8]

Posing the question 'Why teach citizenship' the CF state that "Democracies need active, informed and responsible citizens; citizens who are willing and able to take responsibility for themselves and their communities and contribute to the political process'[9].

Essentially mirroring much of Dewey's work, the CF stress the importance of empowering students not only for their own value, but for the benefit of a democratic society. Links are made to the traditional curriculum "There are elements of citizenship education in many subjects - such as English, history and maths". Notably however, the CF state that "But citizenship education is more than [English, history and maths]".

The CF, of course, are not dismissing the merit and value of traditional subjects, but merely emphasising citizenship education's (CE) importance as an integral part of the National Curriculum.

"It is not about trying to fit everyone into the same mould, or about creating `model` or `good` citizens[10]". It's hard not to make the parallel with traditionally academic subjects that attempt to teach students 'yes or no' answers - CE will bestow upon no two students the same message, merely a vision and a platform for credible onward development.

It's of my opinion that education immediately relevant to the interests of the pupils and life in society is critical. I have referenced the pertinent work of educational philosophers and used the findings of the Nuffield Review and the Citizenship Foundation to support my case however I feel it necessary to look at potential counter-arguments before I conclude.

As a starting point we must carefully consider the fundamental notion of what exactly does constitute good citizenship? And who decides what will form part of a curriculum that does cover it?

Is it inconceivable that a government overseeing a curriculum of citizenship will reflect its own needs and ultimate political agenda?

Whilst much of the subject matter might be considered (by the mass) free from subjectivity or controversy, our rapidly changing and increasing multi-ethnic society will inevitably manifest in issues that our, by their nature, subjective. Will the core topics /messages of CE change with new governments? Will a number of issues be deemed too controversial to teach? If this is the case, might it be argued that CE as a subject is flawed?

Issues of subjectively can only cloud the measurability of the subject. How can a teacher measure the quality of an essay on immigration issues if the content within is deemed inappropriate of politically incorrect?

This, of course, leads us to the issue of censorship within the school environment. If a fundamental premise of CE is the decision-making afforded by democracy, shouldn't the students themselves be more involved in this sense? Greenberg argues that the teaching of CE theory is ineffective as a consequence of the student's role in a school - essentially an undemocratic organisation "The simple fact is that children are not committed to democratic principles, or political freedom.because they themselves do not experience any of these lofty matters in their everyday lives, and in particular, in their schools" (Greenberg, 1992, p.103).

When considering the potentially contentious nature of CE, we must address the teaching of its core principles. Due to it's relatively new introduction onto the National Curriculum, CE will effectively be a subject without subject specialists. There is a real danger that a lack of structured training coupled with the potential whims and beliefs of a teacher will combine in the delivery of a course with questionable integrity and credibility.

Again, how can this be monitored in a democratic and rigorous fashion? It's an issue that is complicated beyond practicality. If concerns in the delivery of a citizenship course are highlighted, how can this be realistically addressed and remedied in the course of a school term? It's of my view that this is an issue way above the scope of a mentor, head of department or even headmaster.

Might CE be viewed as an, albeit subtle, vehicle of social control? Can we ensure that a syllabus is rigorous in its approach to promote expansive thinking rather than what society or the current government believes is a 'desirable' message? What can we do to ensure that this is not the case?

We must also look at the negative connotations associated with a student failing a citizenship GCSE. This problem may be exacerbated if an ethnic minority is the perpetrator of the fail. Might the pass/fail statistics of a CE course be too heavily reliant on the political ideologies of the person in charge of delivery? Or might apathy (pah, citizenship isn't a 'real' subject, is it?) manifest in half-hearted teaching?

I've asked a number of rhetorical questions in order to illustrate what I believe are key areas that the National Curriculum, the government, schools and deliverers of the CE course need to be mindful of in order to maintain the integrity of the subject. However I believe the potential merits for both the student and society are too numerous for it not to be a part of the United Kingdom's curriculum.

In conclusion, I believe that education relevant to the interests of the pupils and society is crucial. Via Plato and Aristotle, we have explored thinking that is almost three thousand years old, yet still relevant (in parts) today. It can be argued that today's competitive job market, changing attitudes and beliefs, the immediacy of social media and the concept of a 'global village' all further increase the need for tomorrow's future to be educated in accordance with the needs of the individual and society as an entity.

Failure to comprehensively address the needs of society through our curriculum in my view favours a method of schooling that is too reliant on intelligence testing and too skewed towards academically gifted students. Whilst it would be foolish to disregard a tangible/quantifiable method of determining a student's suitability for employability, a balance must be achieved between the teaching traditional academic subjects and a syllabus that benefits all students.