English education policy is based on a nasty little theory
Underlying education policies in England is the misguided idea that only a few children are clever and that the rest are less valuable, argues Prof Danny Dorling.
• Danny Dorling is professor of human geography at the University of Sheffield. In September he takes up the Halford Mackinder Chair at the University of Oxford. His latest book, Population Ten Billion, is published by Constable
First thing first: What is “the nasty little assumption” At the very core of the latest version of the national curriculum for maintained schools in England? See below.
“At the very core of the latest version of the national curriculum for maintained schools in England is a nasty little assumption. It is an assumption that has been harboured by a few for many decades, and one that often rises to the fore during hard times. It is what underlies the current government's approach to education. This assumption first gained popularity following the popularisation of Darwin and Wallace's discovery of evolution. The assumption is that children vary greatly in what they might be able to achieve, that some have far greater potential to do well than others, but all have only a fixed potential.”…
But, more to the point, if you are searching for the truth, it is well known that “For as long as the nasty little theory has existed, it has been debunked”. See below:
“For as long as the nasty little theory has existed, it has been debunked. As co-the discoverer of the theory of evolution, Alfred Russel Wallace explained to the Royal Geographical Society exactly 150 years ago this year that "future ages will certainly look back upon us as a people so immersed in the pursuit of wealth as to be blind to higher considerations". I believe that one day soon he will be proved right – a future generation will come that will reject the nasty theory. A national curriculum that lauds Victorian ethics will be discarded in place of higher considerations.
Across Europe, this economic approach of pulling ourselves up by our collective bootstraps to win in the mythical "global race" has resulted in more young adults today being deemed to be economically useless, unemployed and socially discarded than at any point in European history. A disproportionately high number of these discarded young people live in England, where youth unemployment is especially high. Many of them were labelled as "gifted and talented" when at school. Where did that labelling get us, how has it benefited them?
The nasty little theory is easy to spot in education policy, but it extends across all areas of government. Non-quality people are seen as less valuable. Researchers writing in the British Medical Journal, just as the new curriculum was unveiled, explained that the largest cuts to local services since 2010 had occurred in areas with the highest premature mortality rates. I have heard it explained that these are the least important people in society, and we (the quality people) can no longer afford to carry them.
The nasty little theory continues by suggesting that most taxpayers' money comes from "quality" people. It implies that the future of the country depends most on how well their "quality" children perform, augmented by a few gifted and talented others plucked from the masses. It is a theory that comes from the age and prejudices of Empire and it is a comfort to those who wish they were back in those times. For the English child of the future it will be the theory they learn that explains why they were treated at school as they were. I expect they'll be disappointed, but I hope they'll understand."
Read the whole article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2013/jul/22/education-policy-childrens-potential
For further reading:
Towards an Education Worth Believing In
http://www.gcgi.info/news/133-towards-an-education-worth-believing-in