The Danger of Defining Education – The Great Educational Balls up – Part 6

This blog is an archive only version, the content has been moved to http://wightweirdos.co.uk/ww/2009/07/the-great-educational-balls-up-series-overview/

Please visit the new site for the latest content and comments or to post a comment.

The Badman review calls for a new definition of what constitutes a suitable and efficient education:

“Recommendation 2 That the DCSF review the current statutory definition of what constitutes a “suitable” and “efficient” education in the light of the Rose review of the primary curriculum, and other changes to curriculum assessment and definition throughout statutory school age. Such a review should take account of the five Every Child Matters outcomes determined by the 2004 Children Act, should not be overly prescriptive but be sufficiently defined to secure a broad, balanced, relevant and differentiated curriculum that would allow children and young people educated at home to have sufficient information to enable them to expand their talents and make choices about likely careers. The outcome of this review should further inform guidance on registration.”

Some might think that’s quite innocuous, even positive. I think it’s anything but.

I believe that education has traditionally been defined in legislation and case law as broadly as possible for good reason (and it has been consistently so drawn). The reason is that government views on what is suitable change with the wind. They move from more prescription to less, and back again. They move from this to that method being the “right” one. This recommendation suggests the definition is changed based on the latest review of the primary curriculum. In effect, Badman is recommending that we nail down a definition of education based on current government policy. This assumes that current government policy is right. It also assumes that people should have no option but to accept this policy. The whole recommendation is framed in terms that relate more appropriately to a school based environment. If the recommendation is accepted and carried forward we will see a new definition of education which will rule out alternative ideas of education. Are these alternative forms really unsuitable and inefficient?

A few interesting terms are used in the recommendation as though they are automatically necessary for a suitable and efficient education:

Curriculum. I don’t know many home educators who follow a curriculum. Most follow their children’s needs, lead and interests. A curriculum is perhaps of use in an institution where a degree of consistency is required, but in home education it is an irrelevance, unless you choose to follow a particularly structured approach. The effectiveness of education outside a curriculum has been well demonstrated. A narrower definition could outlaw this.

Broad and Balanced. Does an education need to be broad and balanced? How broad? How balanced? Do we need to include astronomy? Geography? Environmental Studies? Geology? Algebra? Quantum Theory? How much of each of these is in balance? Is there an easy answer to this? Has government cracked it, or do they keep moving the goalposts on the state system? If the latter how can they possible define it for those outside of the state’s provision?

Differentiated. Eh? We’re talking about individualised learning! Differentiation is a classroom issue. Has he really thought this through?

Badman also talks about “benchmarking”. I guess we are talking benchmarking against a “standard” child. I expect home educators will be expected to perform to some school-oriented benchmark, using assessment criteria which don’t really fit a totally different model of education. Of course they will be looking for every child to reach that benchmark, and home educating parents will be deemed to fail if they don’t. Do all school children meet government benchmarks?

This narrowing of a long-standing definition of education is dangerous and short sighted. It is also rather big-headed to determine that any person or group of people can define something as widely and hotly debated as education based on one government’s set of priorities determined at one point in time.