A very old bun fight. Education philosophy and current debates in New Zealand education.

If you have been following education news in New Zealand lately, then you know that debate is in the air. Perhaps you have seen the PPTA’s article called Curriculum wars: coming to Aotearoa? Or maybe you have read Elizabeth Rata's article The basic flaw in our education system. You may also have read the report from (newcomer?) Briar Lipson and the work she was involved in with the New Zealand Initiative Think Tank.

Rata is talking codswallop. Trying to assert hegemonic control through the academy by deculturing literature is a move more familiar to Tories... #unhelpful

— martin henry (@martinallenh) April 17, 2018

You may even have been part of the discussions on Twitter. However, before the debates get too heated, I wanted to take a moment to point out the redundancy of this supposed 'curriculum war'. You might be saying whoah! Redundancy? That’s a bold claim! Well actually...

Any ideas when the quote above was written? Or who wrote it? It seems to capture the current debates about knowledge vs skills vs competencies vs other-edu-jargon quite well don’t you think? The OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) might suggest that students should learn things that will be useful in life, things that will give them jobs so that students are able to contribute to a stable economy. The United Nations might argue that a focus on virtue and character of the soul is critical if we are to maintain world peace in the face of climate change, radical inequality and the ever-increasing impact of automation. I would hazard a guess that Elizabeth Rata would be more interested in developing intellect than virtue. I suspect that Jane Gilbert possibly would have a different argument altogether. Where do you think Francis Valentine might fall? Or what about Michael Absolum and John Hattie? What about Aristotle? After all, he is the author of this quote. The very same Aristotle from 384 BC. It seems the progressives vs traditionalist bun fight stretches back a very, very long time.

With so many opinions in the air, it is easy for debates to become polarising (especially when they are made out to be 'wars'). The cognitive dissonance sets in and before you know it, nobody is learning anything because we are too busy defending our position. And at the end of the day, the heart of the matter remains unaddressed - the fact that we cannot seem to agree what should be learnt at school.

To understand why we are plagued with this never-ending debate, one needs to understand the three philosophical purposes of education, socialisation, qualification and subjectification. (See a more detailed infographic here, or my post, Education's great wicked problem for more in-depth explanations about these).

While most of us can find some agreement with each of the three purposes of education, philosophically these ideas are “fundamentally irresolvable” (Biesta, 2009; Egan, 2001). This means that our entire education system is built on conflicting ideas that are constantly in the midst of a tug of war. This means that debates about the success of the education system are incapable of reaching a consensus, as different parties inevitably prioritise different purposes of education (Kieran Egan does a marvellous job of explaining these ideological conflicts).

Despite these conflicting ideas underpinning most, if not all debates about educational success, they are rarely acknowledged, and so the bun fight has continued for literally centuries. You will possibly recognise these debates in your context too, play (socialisation) vs literacy and numeracy (qualification, or exams (qualification) vs inquiry-based learning (subjectification), etc.



So if the debate about what we should be teaching our students is old and philosophically unresolvable, then what is the point of debating this at all?!

I don't have a whole lot of answers to offer you. Instead, I will conclude with a few questions that I would like to see debated...

• How useful is it to publish articles titled curriculum wars in these debates about the future of our schools? Does calling it a war (rather than a debate or discussion) polarise, and thereby fuel the bun fight?
• What does helpful debate and discussion look like (as compared to unhelpful, polarising debate)?
• How can one school or one teacher serve our super diverse communities when each of us cuts the socialisation/subjectification/qualification pie so differently?
• Should socialisation, subjectification and qualification all be the responsibility of school? And if yes/no, what should we do about it?
• How different might our debates in education be if we were all more explicit about which purpose we align ourselves with?
• If we developed an alternate purpose for education, what would it be?
• What if the 'educational experience' was completely redesigned, from the bottom up? What if we changed the time, the place, the content, the funding, the ratios, the jobs, everything? And where would one even begin?
• Would our schools and classrooms be any different if all teachers and school leaders had a richer understanding of philosophy? 

B is for Back to the future and C for Change is afoot

Over the past few weeks I have been spending a significant amount of time focussing on the ideologies that our education system in the past, and largely still in the present was founded on. You may have even read my post, Education's great wicked problem where I explore some of these ideas. However there is always more to the story...

Our ideologies are the things that we think with rather than about. It is how we think rather than what we think. There are examples of this everywhere. What we think about any given thing, a government proposal, gay marriage and even whether you recycle, is driven by your underlying ideologies. What we value drives our choices. Hence, if I value the earth and the future generations who will have to deal with the problems created by current generations (environmental degradation, over population, global warming etc.), I might be more inclined to actively promote and participate in ideas and actions around sustainability. Equally, if I value honesty, I will be more inclined to be honest. Although in both cases I might actively think about the fact that I value sustainability, or that I value honesty. What I am less likely to think about is what caused me to value it. What experiences shaped my world view, my perceptions to value those things? And further, what experiences has shaped others to think about the world and all that happens therein, differently? And without actively stopping and thinking how and why did I come to think in a certain way, I am likely to simply think about the what, e.g. recycling, asset sales, education reform and then find the evidence to support my argument. Most likely, and without meaning to, I would probably be employing some selection bias to bolster whatever I was thinking about.

It seems that everyone has an opinion about education, and rightly so since everyone has experience of it. Perhaps, what we spend less time on is thinking about what shaped our underlying view of what an education system might be. For example, most people would agree that education is a means of addressing inequality. However, have you stopped to think about what shaped that view? If you were going to cite some facts and figures now about how education has allowed some to break the cycles of poverty, I might remind you of my previous comment about selection bias. Again, what we think is that education should address inequality. But how we think is a whole other ball game. How have you come to believe your views? 

The above seems very philosophical, and you might wonder what it has to do with you. Remember those arguments you have with colleagues when you are taking risks, trying to be more future focussed? And it seems that they just can not get on board? Chances are, the way you think about the world is different. Although what you think about is the same, students, pastoral care, assessment, developing thinking, how you think about it is probably different. Given the breakdown of the ages of teachers in New Zealand, the types of thinking and socialisation that each generation would have encountered is likely to be different. 

Currently falling in the under 25 to 29 category, it is very likely that I think of the world as a constantly changing place. In fact, it is what I expect of the world, that it does constantly change. Perhaps some things stay the same, like human nature. Many other things are not the same. Society, the way it works, what we value, what our goals are, has changed. Once upon a time it may have been the case that you could go to university so that you get a good job, and then you can buy a house. You might have gone to work and spent time with your friends and family on the weekend or the evening. Some might even have travelled to other cities and countries for work. What are the chances that many if not most of the 59% of the teachers over the age of 40, currently in our education system still has a world view that resembles this? Many of those in their 30s and below will also have this world view. Go to university to get a good job. 

However, Is this a likely future for the students currently in our schools? Or are they more likely to work with many individuals, in many countries, possibly without ever needing to leave their home? I know that already I regularly Skype people from across the country and across the world, working alongside on a range of projects. I also know that the current success in my career can not be solely attributed to a university degree. It is only one brick in the wall, it is not the foundation. It is a ticket to a big party in town, with many many other guests. So I am nothing special having this ticket, but not having it just makes things a lot more challenging. Last night I attended the TEDx Auckland launch party. Of the range of people approximately my age that I spoke to, not a single one of them went to work, and then went home at the end of the night, only to repeat it the next day. They all collaborated on projects outside their 'main' job. They use social media, and any other resource available to make connections. They carve out niches for themselves, not ones that are predefined roles. And there are many people like this.Think Michelle Dickinson, Jade Leung, Oscar Ellison, Emma Winder, Claire Amos. These people don't just have a day job. The manage a portfolio of projects.

People often cite that old pearl "there is nothing new under the sun". But that is just not true anymore. Do you realise, that the question "where are you?" is a new question? Because before mobile phones, email, internet, you could only contact someone if you knew where they were.

The way we communicate, they way we network, the way we build relationships, the way we run companies, the way we organise events have all changed. Children working abroad don't get occasional letters from their family or friends that they left behind. They can Skype them, see them, interact with them, on a daily basis. Talking to an employee at Spark's Lightbox (TV programme streaming service), she commented on the distinctive difference between viewing habits of those above and below 30. If you ask my 14 year olds at school how they would go about learning something new, they would say Youtube and Google, usually in that order. We are never going to go back to the local library being the place for information. It is not just book publishers and journals that are publishing and creating knowledge. They key difference to note here is that although anyone might recognise that trends come and go, what everyone does not recognise is that they way the world works is fundamentally shifting. Where things might have stayed largely the same with a few trends changing around the peripheries, we are moving to and already largely living in a world where things are constantly changing and a few things are staying the same around the peripheries. 

You might recognise some other events in history that caused fundamental changes in the way the world works and how people view it. Namely, world war one and world war two. You can imagine the massive paradigm shifts that people experienced when women all of a sudden had to work. You can imagine the personal conflicts that many would have experienced, debating whether some individuals were taking too many risks, letting their daughters go to work! Can you imagine the outrage. Yet, compare that with how we view woman in the workplace today. Can you imagine the personal conflict, the emotional lashing out against those who challenged world views? 

Granted, and thankfully, we are not experiencing another world war. But we are experiencing another fundamental change in the way the world works, in how people view and create their identities in the word. We are experiencing fundamental changes in how and where people work. We are experiencing changes in the skills needed to do our jobs. An example being a conversation I have heard time and time again, "I was hired to be a teacher, not to build a website" - this is in reference to adding resources onto a student learning system for learners to access. Where one used to be hired to do a job, chances are, you are now hired in an 'evolving' role. To prove my point, use a job search website and search for the word 'evolving'...  Does evolving really just mean that we can not guarantee that your job is going to stay the same, because the world is changing? Given that there were literally hundreds of search results for this...

These screenshots were taken from Seek.co.nz today...

Change is the new normal. No wait, break neck, constant, large scale change is the new normal. In other words, the way the world functions is and has changed. Hence, when we still maintain our old paradigms about how the world works, it is likely that we will struggle to embrace change. It is likely that our organisations and companies will struggle. But also, if we do embrace change, unless we realise that the way we view the world is different, it is likely that we will encounter dissonance with our ideas. Our new New Zealand curriculum states "New Zealand needs its young people to be skilled and educated, able to contribute fully to its well-being, and able to meet the changing needs of the workplace and the economy." Has the way you view the world meant that you assumed that the world is changing and students need be prepared for this 'new world', or, has it meant that you assumed that every job that a student will do, will constantly evolve? Even check out operators at supermarkets work differently nowadays... 

Education's great wicked problem

image source

I hear the arguments for student-centred pedagogy. I hear the teachers who love their subject, who are passionate about the rich knowledge that it provides. They argue for the infinitely valuable lessons that a subject like history can teach us, or the applications of calculus, or the beautiful and complex story telling of Shakespeare. I hear the arguments for play in the classroom, the time and the chance to explore. I hear the the arguments for rigour, complexity, reasoning and depth of understanding. I hear the arguments for modern learning environments. I hear the arguments for teaching dispositions and I hear the concerns for a loss of knowledge. I hear the arguments for ensuring that every students is literature and numerate. I hear the arguments against National Standards. I hear the arguments for better support of teachers, for better access to quality professional development. I hear arguments against EDUCANZ (Independent Statutory Professional Body for Teachers and Education Leaders). I hear quality teachers argue with themselves about leaving education due to limited financial and career prospects. I hear arguments against IES (Investing in Educational Success).

The reality is, that with any system that serves a diverse, free thinking public, we will come up against different opinions. This is the very definition of a wicked problem: "A wicked problem is a social or cultural problem that is difficult or impossible to solve for as many as four reasons: incomplete or contradictory knowledge, the number of people and opinions involved, the large economic burden, and the interconnected nature of these problems with other problems. Definition from wickedproblems.com " So you see, of course there is debate about education, it contains all four of the reasons listed above!

To start with, we are constantly dealing with incomplete knowledge as we endeavour to meet the needs of a future work force. Although we have many clues that might help us prepare, we can not be sure of the way that our complex human society will shift. For example, the rise of the machine, the increased role that automation will play on our, and the world's economy. Think of this as the industrial revolution of our century. Except that this time it is not just the manual labourers that are in trouble. It is expected that many blue and white collar jobs will be replaced. Of course, there is also the fact that I have access to the majority of humanity's knowledge through the phone in my pocket. People are patenting DNA, I can illegally download a fire arm any many other things my heart might desire. There is currently no official international code of ethics around artificial intelligence. I think it is safe to say that we have incomplete knowledge!

Additionally, we can see the evidence of contradictory knowledge in the ideologies that have shaped our education system. Whether you, the average classroom teacher cares to acknowledge it or not, your ideologies shape your practice. Some of us might think of education as a way to provide people with a rational view of reality. We might believe that by systematically exposing the human mind to increasingly complex ideas of knowledge, that we might lead our students to use abstract principles to organise human thinking and be able to reason independently. These are the ideas of Plato and form the basis of his Republic, an ideal society where society had a place for everyone, where the society was stable, secure, just and would bring happiness to everyone (For a crash course on Plato's republic, just watch or read Divergent, this is exactly what Plato's ideas were built on).

In contrast to this, our education system is also harbouring strong influences from Jean Jacques Rousseau (whose work strongly influenced John Dewey). Rousseau was an advocate for active learning, of a tutor providing learning experiences for students rather than imparting information, for the pursuit of individuality.

There is also of course the 'normalising' role of education. Schools have to ensure that students graduate with an understanding for their society, their place and possibilities within in so that they may hold to its values and commitments. Without this 'normalising' process, a student might feel increasingly alienated, and as we know, individuals who feel alienated and isolated from their societies are more likely to become involved in acts of terrorism. (For a light hearted summary of this, see Russell Brand's The Trews Episode 268.)

So if the very foundation of our education system is tugging in three different directions, and then we add to this the political parties that then tug the education system in further directions due to their own ideologies, what chance do we have of actually solving the wicked problem that is the best education for our young New Zealanders, but also the millions of children around the world?

Of course, the problem doesn't end there. As we saw above, wicked problems also arise as a result of the number of people and opinions involved. As a teacher, we know that everyone feels an expert because they too went to school. As a teacher, you feel that you are the professional. There are also the academics in education who feel that they are the experts. Yet, we question the validity of the academics' contributions due to the them being labelled as 'out of touch with the classroom".  All these opinions swirling about are often shaped by our own ideologies, as they are the things that we think with, rather than about.

The third dimension of a wicked problem is the idea of a large economic burden. In the 2013/2014 year, the total Crown expenditure for education was $13.1 billion dollars, the third largest expenditure behind number one, social welfare and number two, health. With an investment of that size, of course debate will be heated. As I mentioned above, our education system attempts to balance multiple different ideologies, so when we talk about where the $13.1 billions dollars might be invested, of course there will be arguments about where it should go and what it should try to achieve. Each group that subscribes to a different ideology will automatically assume that the logical choice for investment is their view of the world. Their ideology of course which is so ingrained, that most of society does not even know that we use it to think about our education system.

Finally, don't forget about the interconnected nature of wicked problems. Tied in ever so closely with educational success, is poverty, a wicked problem in its very own right. The internet, books and scholarly journals are littered with the interconnectedness of poverty and education. Again the hopes of what the education system should achieve, who it should serve, becomes connected with how we might invest. Education thus becomes a further tool to be yanked about about the ideologies of political parties, attempting to use education to reconcile for poverty (remember that Social Welfare was New Zealand's number on expenditure in 2013/2014).

So my question to you is this, what now? How might we reconcile the different ideologies that our education system harbours in order to best serve the needs of our future New Zealanders? I don't know yet, but for now, I am reading, working hard at making sense of what it is that has shaped and influenced our education system. For the design thinkers out there, think of it as the empathising phase of design thinking. I invite you to join me on this empathising, problem finding journey. I invite you to unpack your own ideologies, those of the teachers around you, and those of your community. Take the time to ask them what they believe education is for and what schools are for. There answers might surprise you.

We can not truly solve a problem unless we really understand it. Lets work together to truly understand the problem, rather than blame the problem on someone or something. Are you with me?

The increasing role of philosophy in my day to day life

It seems that the past year has seen an increase in the role that philosophy plays in my day to day life. This has included introductions to relativism, realism, critical realism, egalitarianism, modernism and post modernism. Thanks to Grant Lichtman and The Falconer, there has even been some ‎Sun Tzu and the Art of War mixed in. Of course don't forget Plato, John Dewey, Kant, Popper and Foucault. If you asked me ten years ago whether philosophy might play such a critical role in my day to day life (yes, I did say day to day), I would never have guessed it. Perhaps you are wondering why I might be using philosophy on such a frequent basis...

The most obvious response is that in preparation to begin a research masters of education, one needs a bit of an introduction to these things. This is certainly the reason why I can now use big words like epistemology and ontology in a sentence and actually know what they mean. Although the serious introduction to philosophy came very much from university, I am increasingly finding uses for it outside of assignments and essays. 

Wikipedia explains philosophy as: 

"Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument." - source 

I work in one of the newest, most different secondary schools in the country. We do things significantly differently from most other schools I have ever taught in, and differently from the majority of schools in the area (with the exception of Albany Senior High School). Inevitably, this means a lot of time spent in the hypothetical. Although we firmly believe the model for schools in New Zealand needs to change, doing so, is more challenging and more uncomfortable than one might suppose from the outside. Even when you have an incredible team who all believe in the urgent need for change. However, what is it that has lead us to believe that this need for change is so important? Working in a school that is taking so many risks could potentially have a positive or a negative results on one's career. So why take the risk? I have increasingly found solace in understanding the philosophy that underpins our society, our education system, but also the philosophy that might underpin our work at Hobsonville Point Secondary School. 

#edchatNZ is also now more than two years old. As I seek to ensure that the #edchatNZ fortnightly chats remain warm and demanding, I am increasingly finding that I need to venture in unknown ground on behalf of others to ensure that we keep pushing at the boundaries of the teacher box. What better way is there to do this but through philosophy? Philosophy provides an examination of the fundamental ideas that underpin our society, the anachronisms but also the aspirations of our society. These all seem pretty relevant to education wouldn't you think?