dysTalk The Debate Over The Future Of Schools - Talks - dysTalk

Having trouble viewing? Hit pause and let it upload for a moment before pressing play again.

About this talk: Matthew Taylor outlines the current debate over schooling in the UK.

About the speaker: Matthew Taylor became Chief executive of the RSA in November 2006. Prior to this appointment, he was Chief Adviser on Political Strategy to the Prime Minister, Tony Blair.

Talk Topics - General Advice / Other

Further information about this Talk

Read Matthew Taylor's blog.

Key Points Covered in This Talk:

• The Future of Schools: There's quite a big divide now in conversations about the future of schools. This is because there have been a series of assumptions that we've worked with for a number of years which are now coming under pressure. The assumption that more spending leads to better outcomes is being questioned. Not only because outcomes in England have not improved at the pace with which resources have increased but also that other countries that spend less seem to achieve more. Finland spends a great deal less per child than England does. While in Finland teachers start from a much better perspective: much lower levels of poverty and a much more homogeneous society there is still no simple correlation between expenditure and outcomes. Beyond this there is a sense that the intensification of the learning process is not necessarily leading to higher outcomes, there is a questioning of the relationship between exam performance and underlying standards, and a continued questioning of the relevance of what goes on in education and schools to what children are going to have for the rest of their lives. There seem now to be emerging two very different answers to that question.
  • In the one corner there is the view (articulated by Michael Gove) which argues for the reassertion of academic rigor. Within Michael Gove's argument there is the idea that there is something problematic about trying to make education relevant to children; the canon is inherently relevant if it is well taught. Furthermore there is a suspicion of "soft subjects" like media studies. Implicitly there is hostility to the idea that education should be about getting more children to achieve more so that more children get onto the next stage and get into higher education and the questioning of that. In summary it is a focus on traditions, the assertion that there is one best way to teach and that that's a traditional way of teaching and also a suspicion of the idea that schools should be in the business of attending to the wider needs of children (their emotional needs and wellbeing).
  • On the other hand there is a very different view which comes out of the "running into the sand" of the invest and regulate model that we've had for the last decade. This is the view (that the RSA subscribes to much more) that we need to remove many of the boundaries that we've built around school, whether the boundary between academic and vocational attainment, the boundary between schools and communities or the boundary between the idea of traditional academic learning and the wider development of children. In that context the starting point for what might lazily be called the progressive perspective, is an idea of citizenship, the idea of preparing young people to be full citizens which sees subject knowledge and academic attainment as an important part of that, but only a part. It also attends to a wider account of what young people need to feel about themselves and their capacities in relation to the world. In that context progressives emphasise relevance and see relevance as a very important thing because it forms a bridge between what goes on in the school and what happens in other parts of children's lives. The traditionalist views sees schools as an oasis, a place where children who may not have structure or not be driven in other parts of their lives come to the school and this is a point for them to be inspired by the great bits of our history, the great thinkers, the great writers and the great scientists. The alternative view  says that actually schools should be catalysts for trying to create a wider culture of learning in society. This is all about connections between schools and communities and between the pupil's life in the school and the pupil's life outside the school.
• This debate is really interestingly poised at the moment. Matthew Taylor does not question the vision of Michael Gove, he just does not see it as very practical given the way young people are today. It will be very interesting to see what will happen if the conservatives win the election, between on the one hand a very clear view from them about what they think constitutes good teaching and a good school and on the other hand an argument which says you should devolve power to parents and to schools. This is going to be a difficult balancing act. The important thing now is that we should be having this debate. There is certainly really high quality traditional practice and there are schools that have been turned round from being disasters by a good old-fashioned mix of discipline and very ambitious teachers teaching in traditional ways. However, overall the direction that is being taken in schools which is a response to the world that exists and young people today, is a direction which is focusing more on the child and the idea of schools being intelligent communities.