Mr. Alex Moore: Politicians should encourage a co-education model
Why the educational policy of the future should focus on student collaboration and how school knowledge should be reconsidered
As decades of globalization have passed, it has become clear that many social threats, whether national or global, are best addressed by collective efforts. However, current school systems focus students on local issues, primarily related to extracting economic benefits for themselves and their country. Alex Moore, an education researcher and Professor at the University of London, suggests contrasting this logic with the co-educational model. In addition to encouraging group work – both between students and between parents, schools, and municipal/central authorities – it involves the reconsideration of the very nature of knowledge. Vlast talked with Mr. Moore about what the educational policy of the future should look like, what existing problems it would have to solve, and why it should not be tried to implement by the efforts of teachers and schools alone.
I suggest starting with a question about the changes that take place in education in connection with the coronavirus. Which of them seem to you the most significant?
In my opinion, the lockdown experience can have a huge impact on how students, parents, and educators think or will think about education in the digital age. However, I am not sure that it will have a comparable impact on politicians and policy makers, who often seem to suffer from tunnel thinking due to ongoing economic problems. This, for example, is indicated by the desperate attempts of the British government to get young people back to school at all costs, so that their parents can start working hard and start spending money, even if it is almost not directly mentioned. While the pandemic has left students with the need to take up learning with more independence and immersion. Due to the fact that classes are held on the Internet, teachers must prepare individual reviews of students' work, which temporarily replace their examination control. You need to add more advisory guidance of the class via Zoom, along with the involvement of parents and relatives in the educational process. I think this highlights the future role of information technology and focused independent learning more than ever. At the same time, it raises questions about the degree of technology accessibility and workplace safety for students outside of school. These issues need urgent consideration, and not just in the UK. If states are, as they say, genuinely concerned about the well-being of all children, and especially those whose social and economic situation is not good, then every young person should have easy access to a computer in a safe and convenient place, regardless of whether they are at home or outside it. For this to be possible, countries must finance education well.
Let's look at another issue for a moment. The pandemic has prompted many parents to reconsider their role in the educational process, as well as in their relationships with schools and teachers. We started long and structured discussions about teaching methods, forms of assessment, as well as the scope and nature of curricula. The depth of a parent's interest can be maintained even after the pandemic. Although it seems to me that as children return to school, we will not see much changes in the content and structure of curricula. But we may well see a return to the idea that home and school cannot co-participate in the education of students. If this is true, we will miss a huge opportunity.
It may also be a disappointing fact that all the experience gained during the pandemic will not significantly affect the content of the curriculum. From the very beginning of the crisis, it was obvious that, as a highly developed species, we were unusually – and some might say inexcusably – unprepared to respond to the circumstances. This is partly due to the novelty of the virus, its unexplored nature. But it is also important that we have played down its power for too long. In the age of "fast and flexible capital", we find ourselves overly focused on the present moment ("presentism"), especially in political terms. Well, or on the easily predictable near future, but, alas, not the long-term future. All this points to the need, at the very least, to include some of the knowledge and skills that we have acquired and that we will need during future pandemics in the general education system. However, it is certainly worth keeping in mind other global or national threats such as climate change and thus developing environmental education programmes for this purpose.
Unfortunately, the only major, and potentially long-term, change after students and teachers return to classes is likely to be tighter controls on student movement and contacts. Initially, social distancing was appropriate to stop the spread of the virus, but it may soon become a basic rule of our daily life and thus exacerbate various forms of inequality. The security measures that must be taken to prevent the virus will inevitably pose a threat to group work and co-education of children, although many countries have come to value this opportunity especially highly. Along with this, we can expect to miss several months of education and, consequently, a massive backlog of children from the curriculum. We have, of course, yet to find out the extent of this lag. And what is already clear for sure is the discrepancy in the educational opportunities available to students during the pandemic. Some schools were more effective in online learning. Some students had all opportunities to actively work with free online materials authored by organizations like the BBC. Someone all this time was diligently helped by parents or guardians. But there were many who were deprived of all this. However, this disparity can be eliminated by returning to classes. Though children will have to get used to the mass education, discipline, and control that they were not used to in isolation. Students with autism or other difficulties related to learning in crowded classrooms or study load are of particular concern.
Is it worth combining the range of problems you have identified with those that we have accumulated over the past 30 to 40 years of intensive globalization?
One of the most disturbing aspects of the coronavirus pandemic is that the number of deaths and cases in each individual nation-state, rather than in the global dimension as a whole, has become increasingly important. Countries have almost entered a contest for the effectiveness of infection control. Just as with poorly regulated business competition, this international "contest" has brought several extravagant and often false attitudes to claim as few cases of illness and deaths, and as much availability of personal protective equipment as possible. It is as if these variables are the key conditions for compliance with the international code of ethics, which is constantly changing and on which the survival of a country depends. This really has a direct connection with the problems of education that have arisen in the last 30 to 40 years. One of the curious features of globalization – as well as its underlying neoliberalism – is that, while it is associated with improved communications and easy movement of people between countries, globalization has also contributed to the widespread strengthening of nationalism. This is clearly evident in the attempts to impose national curricula on the whole world under the guise of a universal educational approach, even if they have a clearly national character. I believe that this is a retrograde form of development. Despite the fact that globalization facilitates cooperation between countries, mutual suspicion and paranoia are increasing rather than decreasing. As well as the self-interest of many national leaders, who were either reluctant or completely unwilling to share vital information and resources. And in some cases, they even tried to accumulate a surplus of vital medicines.
Where does this lead us in terms of public education? Ask any politician and they are likely to formulate their answer pragmatically and instrumentally in terms of their country's – essentially economic – needs in a globalizing world. For example, they will talk about investment in the development of information technology and the widespread study of foreign languages, as well as the importance of entrepreneurial skills, focused on the idea that individual citizens should contribute to the promotion of their nation. We, educators – as teachers and scientists – can start from a different set of goals based on a fundamentally different ideology and philosophy of education. Looking at the state of the environment on a global scale, for example, we can assume that curricula around the world should give priority to ecology, and that education policymakers would do well to talk to each other about this. This should be done at the international level. We could also ask what role education should play in developed countries in relation to global poverty and health issues. Do we need to balance the dominant neoliberal ideology that promotes self-interest at the expense of the common good with training that encourages the development of a sense of personal responsibility and respect for others? However, we could re-examine approaches to sex education at a time when young people are increasingly questioning their sexuality. They are changing their attitudes to homosexuality and transsexuality, but still face bullying and crimes on this basis. I could go on, but perhaps I will only mention the teaching of history at a time when the world map is being redrawn again, and historical crimes are increasingly appearing in the public consciousness and conscience. In some countries, established history curricula are actively exposed as biased, inaccurate, and often misleading because they are designed by the dominant segments of society to maintain their own superiority. This is often due to the events having the global significance or interventions of ordinary citizens in social networks. It will be interesting to see how much the current health crisis will force a radical revision of such training programmes.
To sum up your position, what should be the educational policy in the context of various types of inequality – economic, social, gender, ethnic, and others? And can we still talk about the need for a common educational policy in an environment where the idea of standardized mass education is criticized from different sides?
The point here is to form educational groups wherever we can and with as many children as possible in order to resist the processes that pit us against each other in often pointless competition. I think it is particularly important that schoolteachers continue to build relationships with parents and that through this connection they explain without offensive arrogance what they want to achieve and why they are promoting certain values. This is especially important in the context of a sharp confrontation between several educational paradigms – either state or teaching. My own experience shows that politicians listen to the claims of parents, not teachers in the vast majority of cases. This is partly because parents are harder to push away because they are a financial or electoral resource.
Previously, as far as I have noticed, you were trying to problematize the very concept of knowledge. Officials, as you have noticed, tend to design knowledge so that it is easily measured and yields benefit like an investment. What perspective on knowledge could be contrasted with this?
In fact, the question facing politicians, political consultants, and educational institutions is: do we want our education systems to use their knowledge to reproduce citizens who will dutifully accept the existing social and economic order? Or do we want to encourage young people to become interesting and creative? So that society – at the individual and collective levels – can develop, evolve, and improve. If we want to reproduce obedience, thereby stopping creative thinking, then the current education model that focuses on grades and exams serves this purpose well. But if we want to generate ideas and solutions to social problems through this education model, it is difficult to imagine how this could be possible. Implementing a more open, experimental type of training is, in the end, a matter for politicians. So it is unfair to ask teachers and schools how they are going to achieve this. But, of course, there are things that can be done under the current rather rigid system. It is important for us to communicate with the general public and explain to them why teachers talk to students about ecology, sexuality, and other important things. It is important to explain why these issues are an integral part of the broad outlook of modern man, and not to follow the vicious demand for "raising educational standards". Another part of the answer to your question is the principle of cooperation. Student collaboration, although not always valued in official policy, is still widely and successfully used in many schools. It is one of the ways to promote more open learning within the framework of standard criteria, based on the passive assimilation of knowledge and facts.
In your book Understanding the School Curriculum, you argue that today's students need to be equipped with the skills to understand social problems and find solutions to them. How can all this be integrated into current educational practices?
Many of the changes I propose are inevitably political in nature. They can just inevitably disappoint large groups of people. For example, let's look at your question in the context of the environmental problem. It is becoming increasingly clear that large-scale livestock and dairy production is the dominant driver of global climate change. They make a huge contribution to the destruction of many animal habitats and human communities. I think children need to know about this just because they will grow up on this planet. They should be informed of the impact their actions may have on the planet. There are already many schools in the world where teachers are willing to share such knowledge. However, politicians may have a problem with organizing this type of education. This is all to no small degree because many of them rely on agriculture to stay in power. Besides, it is also because their constituents consume beef and dairy products in large quantities, and value their freedom to do so.
This may be an extreme example, but in fact, its essence is simple. And it is again linked to the global politics and ideology of neoliberalism, which emphasize the value of individual freedoms and freedom of choice, along with the value of competition and market efficiency. National curricula were developed, which are essentially instrumental and functional, are based on these guidelines. Creativity and pleasure of learning in such curricula are often relegated to the background, as is any serious attempt at moral development. Subjects that can encourage students to address moral and ethical issues, even when posed in the context of climate change, are national languages, history, geography, social sciences, arts, drama and dance, food production technology, and design technology. That is, practically every school subject imaginable! But now teachers are forced to use ploys: the current curriculum does not leave room for these disciplines, and therefore teachers are looking for gaps to give students at least some extraneous material.
The curriculum I am thinking about could be based on a broader understanding of knowledge. Tell me, what can be stronger than knowing how to save a person from suffocation or drowning? Or what about a person who has had a heart attack, stroke, or epileptic seizure? Or how to organize a peaceful protest? Or understand how political and economic systems work? Such knowledge is acquired not only for the upward move in career, but also has the potential and, most importantly, the intention to serve the common good. They can lead our culture away from the excessive individualism that negatively affects societies around the world.
In your book, you also insist that the curriculum of the future should be dynamic and reflexive. How can we do this when the current political regimes are increasingly resisting democratic initiatives and are seeking not only to control many areas of public life, especially education, but also to prevent the dynamics and reflexivity that you are talking about?
My suggestions on how to set up curricula are mostly always addressed to politicians and political consultants. Teachers, in comparison, only have the potential to do a lot, but they are increasingly being told what decisions to make and what not to make. And sometimes they are even being told what they need to think and believe, without leaving much room for maneuver. Ideally, governments should involve teachers and other experts in a real discussion of the goals and practices of public education, rather than imposing their own ideology and political slogans. Of course, we can see many exceptions. It is worth remembering that the current level of state control over education varies from country to country and has not always been the same as it is now. In some countries, such as Finland, the central government does involve schools, parents, and communities in developing and implementing curricula at the local level. So there is a Finnish model – and a very successful one, if measured by the academic achievement – that other countries can adopt and adapt if they want to. Thirty years ago in England, before the introduction of the national curriculum, it was common to develop a school curriculum through the efforts of local communities. And in Malta, in the early 2000s, the government introduced a national curriculum, setting rather progressive goals and objectives for schools. They could be implemented using the collective knowledge and professionalism of teachers. But the teachers themselves have not been able to bring about cultural change, either alone or together. The limited strength of teachers is a problem in itself, especially as schools, as well as departments within schools, are increasingly competing with each other for students.
However, there are some important things that schools and teachers can do, although they will need to find ways to work together with parents, as I mentioned earlier. Teachers' competencies can be seriously developed by working together with other teachers in interdisciplinary programmes. This does not require abandoning the compulsory curriculum, but rather enriches and expands it by loosening the boundaries between subject areas since they are often built up already at the level of primary education. Working with experts outside of school and classes could also benefit educational systems. In the UK, we have seen a similar example relatively recently. The Secretary of State for Education tried to re-introduce the traditional history curriculum, which emphasized the acquisition of factual knowledge rather than critical analysis of sources. Well-known historians, exam boards, and scientists jointly presented the Secretary with a list of counterarguments so detailed that he had no choice but to give up. It is unlikely that he would have done so if the objections had come only from schools, or only from teachers.
Referring to the observations of teacher Mr. Charles Keck about modern school education, you distinguish two models of learning: passive listening to the teacher (as traditional) and active group work (as progressive). Based on this distinction, what do you think the teacher of the future should be? What skills should they have and what relationships should they build with their students?
Of course, there are times when it makes sense for students to listen to the teacher carefully and for a long time – when they are instructed on tasks, important information is clarified, or certain knowledge is exchanged within the framework of the curriculum. The logic here is to achieve economies of scale in the dissemination of knowledge, and here we need to be pragmatic. During lockdown, teachers learned that trying to mentor or communicate information to students on an individual basis requires much more effort and time than when it is possible to do it for the entire class at the same time. In fact, this individual approach proved to be poorly implemented in practice. It seems to me that today teachers need to structure the conditions and opportunities for research training and collaboration of students. They should also help young people plan their research, both with and without digital technology. Today, there are many advanced methods and materials that teachers can use. And they are all easily accessible. But there are many objections to all this, born of fear, especially in situations where teaching still relies on curricula based on memorization and operating with facts and using control systems in the form of tests and exams. Teachers are often concerned that if they do not pass on and instill in their students the knowledge and skills allowed by the curriculum or examination board, if they do not provide "correct answers" and properly help demonstrate their abilities, their students will not be able to do what they are asked to do. Therefore, it will be bad for everyone. In addition to the fear of letting students down, this, in turn, may have not the best effect on the reputation of the teachers themselves, and perhaps on the popularity of their schools among parents.
From my own research with London schools that have tried very hard to promote co-education, it is clear that it works best when these principles are shared by all staff. When schools develop special internal training and materials, and when parents and students are sufficiently informed about why the school focuses on co-education. In educational institutions that have opted for this model, there is a double positive effect. First, it helps to increase interest in learning among students; second, the results of examinations in the curriculum do improve. I suspect that co-education fails when teachers simply don't know how to organize the process best. Or they don't understand why this approach is important. Or it is not taken seriously by students, because the approach itself is used as something self-sufficient, and not part of a complex pedagogical practice. So there is an obvious need for the continuous professional development of teachers, either at the level of an individual school, or at the level of local educational authorities, or even at the level of the central government. But the interaction of the teacher with students when working together should not be perceived as an exclusively horizontal relationship. Teamwork does not mean that students always decide what they should do and take it into account. Their actions leave a specific and measurable end product: for example, in the form of a formal group presentation of their results to the rest of the class under the guidance of a teacher, or in the form of a written report on the results of each training session. And here we cannot do without a strong role of the teacher. By all means, managing a class where multiple groups can work and talk at the same time can be a difficult task. However, experience shows that it should not be overestimated if the students themselves are better informed about this method of work, fully understanding its value.
Vlast is preparing a series of interviews about the future of education in the framework of the Caravan of Knowledge project in cooperation with Chevron. The Caravan of Knowledge project is an initiative addressed to the research and discussion of the best educational practices with the involvement of leading Kazakhstani and international experts.