Learning Beyond the Objective in Primary Education

Philosophical Perspectives from Theory and Practice

Ruth Wills

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• eBook ISBN: 9780429574894
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Learning Beyond the Objective in Primary Education explores an existential perspective for pedagogy proposed in response to the current technocratic paradigm of education prevalent in many countries worldwide. This new perspective is termed 'Bildung's Repetition.' The book seeks to encourage policy makers and educational practitioners to consider the impact of education on children, over and above the meeting of set targets and objectives.

Located in a philosophical framework, this book considers how children might learn authentically in the light of their own personal contingency. A series of case studies reflecting the effectiveness of this perspective through the curriculum is provided, each illustrating how 'Bildung's Repetition' allows for personalized meaningful learning within current structures. Recommendations for practice are provided, encouraging all stakeholders in education to consider the value of this perspective, and effect a 'ten-degree shift' within educational thought.

This unique book fuses theory with practice, and will be of great interest to academics, researchers and students in the fields of primary education and teacher training. It will also be of interest to school leaders and practicing teachers.

1 An overview of educational policy and practice

Setting the scene: England

Earlier this decade, a new National Curriculum for England was published. When one considers its initial statement of aims, it is clear that this framework is knowledge based. The document that outlines the curriculum declares that participants in education will be introduced to ‘the best that has been thought and said.’¹ Learners will gain ‘knowledge, understanding and skills’ and are expected to develop competence and achieve (5). Since the National Curriculum became statutory in 2014, school leaders and teachers have needed to shift the emphasis in their teaching methods somewhat, with experiential learning, for example, taking a back seat. This has become evidenced now by some classrooms having children’s desks placed in rows. Practitioners have been required to develop a new set of information and skills in order to meet the prescribed criteria for learning; thus, children in primary schools now need to know the ‘language about language,’ such as the widely debated ‘fronted adverbial’² as well as understand more complex mathematical concepts including algebra and statistics (138; 141).

Most notably, teachers have been required to prepare primary school leavers for more rigorous tests. Subsequently, the main focus in the final year at least is attaining predetermined academic outcomes for learning, with other year groups having to negotiate more knowledge-based activities. For example, in science topics the statutory requirements expect children to observe, describe, label and compare, rather than experiment, predict and create. In music, the rhetoric of history, evaluation and notation is accompanied by terms such as ‘understand’ and ‘perform’ (see Endnote 1), rather than encouraging activities that facilitate children’s freedom of expression. In geography, learners should be able to demonstrate knowledge of place and location, and learning outcomes include their being able to describe and understand key geographical concepts (200). All must be assessed with evidence of ambitious targets, pupil attainment and progress ready to hand (8).

With the pressure to perform and demonstrate accountability, it seems that the self-fulfilment of learners is a lesser priority, giving rise to fears about the negative impact this might have on their well-being. Adams, Monahan and Wills suggest that such a means-to-end approach to education focuses the mind ‘only in its narrowest sense’ (citing Miller 2010, in Adams, Monahan and Wills 2015: 200). This approach might be identified as a hallmark of what the authors refer to as the ‘performativity discourse’ in which ‘teaching to the test can become the main objective’ (200). This discourse, or culture, reduces the opportunities for children to learn in a cross-curricular manner, and as Adams et al. point out, due to the increase in requirements to demonstrate progression in learning, holistic approaches to learning are being minimised (199).

Ironically, the National Curriculum also states:

The national curriculum is just one element in the education of every child. There is time and space in the school day and in each week, term and year to range beyond the national curriculum specifications. The national curriculum provides an outline of core knowledge around which teachers can develop exciting and stimulating lessons to promote the development of pupils’ knowledge, understanding and skills as part of the wider school curriculum.

(see Endnote 1)

Yet based on my own experience of working in a school, when one considers the significance placed on fulfilling the requirements of this curriculum, including delivering its full content and preparing children for tests, there actually is little time and space for the elements that ‘range beyond the national curriculum specifications.’ It is the conjecture of this book however that an extra dimension of learning might be accessed through the curriculum, but when a nuanced perspective on learning is applied. This then does not require more time or space – just a more open mind.

I posit here that the emphasis on progress and results potentially undermines the value of the curriculum areas (such as sport, music and art) that engender success for the more kinaesthetic learner, and places an unfair priority on the cognitive dimension of schooling. Means-to-end teaching also affects authenticity, with children being led to meet pre-determined outcomes rather than self-directing their learning. As such, the opportunities for the existential aspects of identity and meaning-making that are essential to inspiring a developing sense of self are reduced, which in turn raises concerns for the mental health of both teachers and learners.

Within the performativity discourse, and in addition to curriculum demands, it must be highlighted that the inspection framework for primary schools also raises concerns. In England and Wales, the inspection body is referred to as Ofsted (Office for Standard in Education), and since 1992, Ofsted inspectors have visited schools to examine practice and policies. Each visit evaluates a school’s effectiveness according to criteria set out in each framework document, with different frameworks (historically) having had different foci, ranging from assessing inclusion (2006), to evaluating school’s safeguarding practices (2013). Judgements range from ‘outstanding’ (2018: 41) at one end of the spectrum, through to ‘inadequate’ at the other (42). Schools in this latter category ‘require special measures’ (34) and become subsequently subject to external interventions and regular reviews in order to assure that they meet the required standards for success (35).

It is fair to say that the goalposts have changed somewhat over the past 25 years that the inspection body has been at large, with guidelines and criteria evolving and being adjusted in response to public opinion and sociocultural influences. For example, with inspection guidelines having previously placed a high priority on planning and marking, the 2018 inspection handbook emphasises that lesson plans, evidence of marking and the grading of lesson observations are not required. Photographs of children’s learning experiences and annotated verbal responses, the acquisition of which until recently seemed to dominate the contact time of teaching assistants, are similarly not to be sought out (2018: 13–16). This might be considered a good thing. Nonetheless, an emphasis on the professional practice and development of teachers no longer seems to be a priority; therefore, the progress from good to outstanding teaching is not so prominent, and classroom practice is not evaluated to the same extent as it was in previous years (for example, in 2015). One might then consider the role of both the teacher and the learning environment to be devalued, whilst the acquisition of data and evidence of progress takes centre stage.

It is worth acknowledging as intimated here that since some of the more demanding elements of accountability have now been minimised, energies potentially can be better applied to creating quality teaching experiences. Yet, as the evidence required for inspections includes published performance data, in-year results and progress monitoring (NEU 2018: 14–15), it might be argued that what happens existentially in classrooms becomes secondary to the requirement to meet the demands placed on schools from external bodies. The priority then is placed on delivering the educational areas or subjects that can quantify success.

In addition, the publication of results and subsequent placing of schools on league tables emphasises the shift described above. In the ‘performativity discourse,’ what is deemed significant in school life is that which is measurable. As a result, the quality teaching and learning experiences that many teachers enjoy, but which cannot be monitored, become devalued. Arts-based subjects provide pertinent examples of this. This scenario is summed up in the protests of a group of parents in Southern England, who were concerned that due to shifts in Government priorities, the ‘curiosity, confidence building …. and embracing creativity’ that they valued in their local schools would ‘be forced to change’ (NEU 2018: 10). In the light of such a scenario, Layla Moran MP, referring to schools as ‘exam factories,’ has suggested that inspections and the testing of 11-year-old children should be abandoned (9). Layla Moran is a member of Parliament for the Liberal Democrat Party in England.

Noted by a national teaching union as ‘harmful,’ the emphasis on data and results in England has changed the dynamic of the classroom. A blog post from a teaching-focused online publication (September 2018) argues that inspection reports and gradings, as well as local and national league tables, have incited negative competition between schools, which in turn has de-skilled teachers and disempowered school leaders.³ Such rhetoric is underlined in the observations made by Professor David Hopkins at the British Education Studies Association (BESA) conference held in 2018. Here, he outlined that the ‘wrong drivers’ are now being applied to educational experience within the primary school. Instead of valuing group dynamics and identity, the current paradigm prioritises individual success. Instead of developing children’s capacity for learning, teaching now requires stricter accountability, and instead of considering, debating and exploring pedagogy, teachers are now limited by what can be presented or measured by technology (Hopkins 2018). The points raised here, as will be outlined in due course, reflect a global as well as an English concern.

In an article published in 2017, researcher Amanda Keddie, who undertook studies in five English primary schools, evaluates the impact on headteachers and teachers of ‘external accountability demands.’ Citing standardisation, targets, judgements and comparisons as examples, she expresses a worry that what counts as success in schools is externally driven. She also raises concerns that education is equated with productivity and this she argues, incites ‘ontological insecurity’ (2017: 1246). This maxim, drawn from the writing of Stephen Ball (2003: 220), highlights that the ‘creativity, autonomy and intellectuality’ of teachers are undermined as their professional existence serves to meet government demands (Keddie 2017: 1246). The various responses of the school leaders involved in Keddie’s research illustrate this insecurity, which is often accompanied by fear, inauthenticity and an ‘underlying sense of anxiety’ (1245). For example, in the article, all participants indicate that judgements on what is valuable or effective in education is now controlled by the inspection body (1250), and that in the move away from teaching creatively, practitioners become limited in their own abilities to be creative or critical, instead, complying to the prescribed regime (1251).

It is important to note that neither Hopkins, Keddie or myself suggest that achievement is not important. I do advocate that it is vital that standards remain constant and upheld; therefore, having a National Curriculum and inspection body ensure that all children have the same access to a good quality educational provision. Indeed, in Keddie’s research it is indicated that the school leaders welcomed external accountability as a significant element of what enabled them to keep on track and make progress. What they objected to, akin to Hopkins’ assertion, was that as the imposed external drivers are not necessarily educationally value-laden, but laden with performative criteria, they bear no relation to the individuals, the community or the range of experiences that are at the heart of a primary school. Keddie states: ‘for these teachers, measures such as Ofsted distort the reality of their school in not accurately capturing what the school is about’ (2017: 1251). As such, any ‘authentic’ learning experiences, or those that might pertain to the existential, communal or even spiritual dimension of education remain at the fringes of school life.

As the National Education Union in the UK notes, the focus on data and results is ‘taking the joy out of teaching and learning’ (NEU 2018).⁴ At time of writing, an announcement made by the Chief Inspector for Education in England, Amanda Spielman, indicates that from September 2019, a more balanced method of judging schools in inspections will be adopted. She writes:

The proposed ‘quality of education’ judgement therefore brings together the essential ingredients of education: the curriculum; the teaching, and the assessment that provides the feedback loop; and the resulting outcomes. This judgement is intended to restore curriculum – largely ‘missing in action’ from inspection for more than a decade – to its proper place, as an important component of the quality of education.

(Ofsted 2019)

It remains to be seen what this will look like in practice and it will become evident in due course what extra demands it might place on school leaders, subject leaders and classroom teachers. Nevertheless, the concern of this book is not to critique the National Curriculum or inspection body specifically, but to highlight how practitioners might address the issues that arise as a result of the performativity culture in schools. One way of rethinking these issues is by considering the learning that takes place ‘beyond the objective.’ I am pleased to point out that this approach does not require anything more of teachers or staff in primary schools; it just requires a change in perspective.

As the continuing discussion will reveal, recognising the learning that goes beyond the objective allows teachers and learners to explore the space between the given external structure of education and the actions, reflections and meanings of children. This space might be quite uneven; it might incite taking a risk, possibly to the point of re-thinking who the teacher might be. But it is also proposed that as individual and collaborative agents, children might respond to their learning in a way that is authentic to them. As a result, they might experience transformation and in turn inspire local and global change.

It is suggested here that the performative culture in England is mostly pertinent to the school experience of children in Key Stage One (age 5–7 years) and Key Stage Two (7–11 years). Interestingly, the curriculum for children in the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) is much more holistic, directed towards the individuality of the learner, with open-ended learning, creativity and play forming key features of pedagogy. This is illustrated in the requirements for Early Years education which include assertions such as ‘practitioners must consider the individual needs, interests, and stage of development of each child’ (Department for Education 2014: 9), let ‘children investigate and experience things – and have a go’ (10), as well as ‘learning and development must be implemented through planned, purposeful play and through a mix of adult-led and child-initiated activity’ (9).

Critical educators would suggest that the EYFS framework is not entirely child-centred due to the rigorous expectations placed on teachers to monitor and evidence children’s progress (Department for Education 2014: 13). Practitioners also need to scaffold children’s educational experiences according to the set early learning goals which include communication and language, physical development, mathematics and understanding the world (7–8). Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged that children in Early Years settings are certainly provided with a range of opportunities for self-development and self-directed learning. The four principles of EYFS, The Unique Child, Positive Relationships, Enabling Environments and Learning and Developing (6), each value child participation with respect for self and others. Furthermore, active learning such as play and exploration, creativity and critical thinking are much more of a priority here than in the later years of school.

Whilst being both encouraging and hopeful of a less performative learning culture, the final months of the EYFS, however, involve children transitioning to more formal learning situations which then become fully implemented at Key Stage One. The difference between the two stages of schooling are ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• 1 An overview of educational policy and practice
• 2 Being and other
• 3 Bildung’s Repetition
• 4 An existential perspective for the curriculum
• 5 Recommendations for policy and practice
• Index