This article from BBC is discussing a statement recently made by Chris Woodhead, the former Chief Inspector of Education in England. Woodhead had remarked to the Times magazine that the school leaving age should be cut to 14. In his opinion, by cutting the leaving school age, students who are not as successful in academics a better chance to succeed. By allowing the children to leave school earlier, they are able to work as apprentices, or pursue further education learning to give them an advantage for future professional careers. Woodhead went further in describing the current education system as Utopian. According to him, making vocational schools “quasi-academic” is a big mistake, stating that "It just seems to me the triumph of ideological hope over reality.
The question that this article brings up is whether some areas of knowledge should be valued more than others. According to the current British education system there is a definite emphasis on certain areas of knowledge, such as mathematics and the English language. According to Woodhead, these areas of knowledge are not useful or suitable for all children. Forcing all children to trudge through these subjects until they are eighteen would be unfair for them, if these skills will not be utilized in their future careers. By putting the students through subjects that they will not succeed in, is just setting them up for failure. Woodhead’s proposal suggests that not all children are meant for education, and belong in the manual field of work. Considering the way modern society functions and how the amount of people with higher education is increasing exponentially, academic subjects are becoming the key to success. The current school leaving age of 18 is beneficial to the students in that it gives every child an equal opportunity to retrieve this “key to the future”. Another benefit having the legal leaving school age at 18 is that it forces those students who are from financially disadvantaged families to pursue an education. A child from a poor family may be pressured into starting an early professional career by his/her family in order to help the family’s financial situation. However, studies have shown that people with high education make much higher salaries than those who only have high school diplomas. Now try to imagine the career options of those who only have a middle school education. This also raises the issue whether a child at fourteen years of age has the capability of assessing whether he/she needs to pursue education further. I would imagine many of us would have liked to stop going to school when we were 14, but would have regretted this decision later on in life. Although Woodhead’s economic motives behind this proposal is clear, it is highly problematic in that it is risking creating a generation that will lag behind modern society.
The article raises the issue an issue of what constitutes as knowledge itself. What areas of knowledge fit into the definition of being intelligent and learned. There is a debate as to what constitutes as being educated. Society today puts a great emphasis on academics, subjects such as mathematics, science, and language. For the majority of people this is what constitutes as necessary knowledge needed to survive in society. However, most of the skills needed in a professional career do not fit into those categories. A very large percentage of the population relies on manual labor to generate their income. Does this in turn mean that these people must focus on the same areas of knowledge? There is also the question of whether or not the lack of academic knowledge becomes in obstacle in a person’s life. There are many different areas of knowledge and each is useful in specific situations. What constitutes as knowledge changes constantly throughout history in order to suit people’s needs in order to succeed in society. As modern society is leaning towards an academic sense of knowledge, and the literacy rates are increasing, it seems that manual labor is not so useful anymore. There is always going to be debate on whether or not these skills should be preserved.
These problems with knowledge can be traced back to colonial times in North America. The colonists considered learning literature, mathematics and sciences as a true education. The native Americans however had no need for that and considered it all frivolous. Necessary skills to survive in their society would be the ability to Hunt, Fish or build shelters. The colonists thought they were doing the Natives a favor when they offered to educated some native young men. These young men were given the standard Western education. When they returned to their tribes, they were ill-adapted for the challenges that they faced in their society. Later the Natives refused further offers from the colonists, but extended an offer to educate young colonists in their ways. The colonists were appalled. This goes to show, what constitutes as knowledge varies greatly depending on what are the necessary skills to survive in ones society.
Charlie,
ReplyDeleteInteresting article and discussion. You raise quite a few issues and take them into Step 3 although not fully developed as your Step 4 is not really that significantly removed from the current case. The question of what does it mean to be educated is a great question to draw out of this: "What constitutes as knowledge changes constantly throughout history in order to suit people’s needs in order to succeed in society." This is key as whoever gets to define this has power over those who are thus defined. Each society determines what it means to be educated, the question then becomes whose definition is the correct one? And, as you rightly ask, is education for everyone? Do people all have equal talents and therefore deserve equal access? Or are some people destined to do menial work? This goes to the core of what one thinks about human potential; do we have innate attributes and limitations? Is Woodhead just suggesting that some people can't make it beyond 14 in an academic setting? What are the implications for this train of thought?
Larry Summers, former US Treasury Secretary, was forced to resign as President of Harvard University in 2006 after claiming "women might lack an intrinsic aptitude for math and science" To what extent do some British 14 year-olds just not have the "right stuff" to succeed academically? Does this not stem from the same thinking that leads to reinforcing of prejudice and sexism? I think there are strong arguments for and against this position.
Try in your next post to bring in the voices of anyone who might be opposing this type of a move. You need not create the opposition, I am sure in a topic like this there are many many Brits who are seriously opposed to Woodhead's proposal. You should see what the opposition has to say rather than have to reconstitute their argument on your own.
This is a very interesting and certainly controversial topic. You mention in your analysis that Woodhead’s proposal suggests that not all children are meant for education. I think from the start you need to make a clear distinction between education and the general public education focused on academic achievements. Education itself simply refers to the enrichment of the mind. A child can be educated in school or while completing manual labors.
ReplyDeleteGillian Lynne's life story is a supporting example for former Chief Inspector's proposal. Gillian Lynne is a famous dancer who choreographed all the steps for Cats and Phantom of the Opera. Lynne was underperforming at school, and the teachers told her mother that she may have a mental disability. So her mother took her to the doctors and explained about the fidgeting and lack of focus. The doctor told the mother that she does not have a learning disability, but she is simply born to be a dancer. And so her mother took her to a dance school, and there her life began. Although general education attempts stimulate children to develop their potentials, as you mentioned it is certainly geared towards math and science. Gillian Lynne's story illustrates that different individuals perhaps do have different potential that general education cannot cultivate. In which case, perhaps the School Leaving Age for general education should be cut to 14. Britain can consider either diversifying the subjects covered in general education, or consider developing more pre-professional schools for children to consider instead of going through with general education until 18 years old.