part0020

A passionate belief in something is not only relevant to commercial exploitation of products in the marketplace, but also the subject of a wide range of vocational pursuits. One such subject is education in, for example, secondary schools. Wasn’t it Tony Blair who said he had three priorities – education, education, and education? He may have been right about this since we are talking about sending the next generation forward with the skills needed to complete in such sectors as high-tech information technology – which is becoming more complex, fast moving, and competitive by the day, on an international basis. This is why I am concerned that the march of the managers seems to currently be impacting schools in the UK. To summarise, schools need to employ teachers; consequently, we need positions such as headmasters to be filled by teachers who are effective at both leading their schools forward and teaching. We do not need head teachers to be managers who are more interested in making an impression and introducing a ‘corporate’ approach, than the finer points of the prerequisite skills for effective teaching. Unfortunately, I have seen this management approach in schools and must say that its application does not tend to end well. Rather, it can often lead to terrible consequences such as a drop in staff and student morale, discipline, and engagement issues, and a reduction in the long-term performance of the school, particularly in relation to important measures such as the GCSE and A level grades of the students and the percentage of them entering university. And yet the manager-teachers concerned don’t seem to acknowledge this and tend to carry on looking good with their ‘corporate style’ as though nothing were wrong. Even when parents say to them that they are unhappy with the school/department performance, they don’t seem particularly concerned. All I can say is that some teachers/managers do appear to have a very thick skin. In my view, there is much more that can be said about schools in relation to the modern fashions they seem to be falling victim to and the likely consequences for us all. And since this book is principally concerned with the influence societal factors can have on scientific and technological accomplishment, I feel that it is worth examining what is going on in our schools and what its implications may be for both science and society.

While much of this kind of socio-political mumbo-jumbo has, in certain sections of the media, received the derision it deserves (which is perhaps one of Piers Morgan’s more useful functions as a journalist), I am more concerned with the subtler manifestations of fashion in education. There is, for example, in many levels of education, a worrying tendency towards multiple choice questions; again originating, I fancy, from that great republic on the other side of the pond (I need hardy point out that while our American cousins have spread one or two fashions/ideas that we could do without, they have also, like the UK, given the world a multitude of useful things – far too many to start listing here). The proponents of this pedagogic abomination claim that it tests the more subtle nuances of the student’s understanding. In reality, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that it is popular because it means the marker/examiner does not have to think – all they have to do is apply a ‘stencil’ to see how many questions were answered correctly. There are, in my view, many reasons why multiple-choice questions are a bad fashion. The principal factor is the apparent dumbing down of education that they constitute. Firstly, it is hard to see what represents insufficient (or indeed impressive) knowledge in a system where just marking random answers down would result on average in a student scoring 25% (if there were four potential answers). Secondly, multiple choice goes against the aspirations we have, or should have, to be creative and inspirational in education. By telling a student that the correct answer is there, and you just must select it is immediately limiting them – preventing the student from thinking just because the marker themselves can’t be bothered to. Thirdly, presenting a set of answers that are similar to the ‘correct’ one but yet not actually deemed correct may be a recipe for confusion. Multiple choice questions are a shortcut to thinking (as Jim Morrison used to say – but I think he was talking about people likening him to a Barbie doll - fair enough). To summarize, the multiple-choice approach does seem to be emerging as a student appraisal tool in pedagogy, but perhaps not for the right reasons. But are there problems with other new approaches/fashionable methods? The answer, I fear, is yes. Teaching is an estimable profession, and it’s great that teachers devote their lives to helping others (and understand that in doing so they are themselves benefitting), in return for what can only be described as modest remuneration. There are many inspirational teachers – I know because I have met many of them. Teaching is definitely a profession that requires intellect; but at the same time, it has to be admitted that, if you will excuse me for saying so, there can be something of an issue with some teachers confusing their role with that of an intellectual (with a definition for the latter from the web being: “An individual who is deeply involved in abstract erudite ideas and theories.”) A desire to fulfil this role is, I believe, the root cause of much of the over-complication of, for example, A level curricula in many subjects. It may be that there is a tendency towards delusions of grandeur (something that is discussed in more detail below), that compels some teachers to wish to adopt the role of an intellectual. Thereby, in maths, for example, focussing heavily on calculus, and in science on quantum theory and methodological reductionism. In my view, it would be more valuable to teach students about basic theories and commonly employed approaches for quantitative problem-solving, with a generous provision of illuminating examples of their application, rather than trying to immerse them in mathematical complexity or scientific minutiae. Or to put it another way, we need a back to basics campaign in maths and science (which will have nothing, I hasten to add, in common with John Major’s lamentable back to basics political campaign in the 1990s!) In pre-GCE O level maths lessons, I remember being taught about topology and set theory, but I don’t remember being taught about algebra. Likewise, in English lessons we covered The Old Wives’ Tale in all of its over-the-top minutiae (if you will excuse a slight digression, when someone was asked to read aloud from this book to our class, they made a mistake when reading the following passage from chapter 3: “She knew him simply as an organism on a bed” – there was general laughter!); but I don’t remember being taught about spelling or grammar. Perhaps there was an assumption that we already knew it? At the levels taught in schools, the rules of maths and English have not changed for many years and it is perfectly correct (if you will excuse a possible pluralism – that, by the way, is something they may have taught us, along with the alleged incorrectness of the split infinitive…), to teach the basics – we don’t always have to endeavour to appear clever. Science (and English) has, and will always have, a critical role to play in society; and so, due to its nature , it remains highly relevant through the years – there is no need for us to try to big it up – it already has more than enough gravitas.