Dear Nicky Morgan,
We’ve not met, but I follow your words and actions carefully since you are the most senior policy-maker in the UK when it comes to education and inclusion - two things very dear to my heart and my professional life.
It is clear that you care about them too. And that you are keen not to be quite as reductive and needlessly adversarial in your deeds as your predecessor. Good stuff.
So, I had a bit of a head-in-my-hands moment over my crumpets this morning, when I read your comments about young people who choose to study arts or humanities subjects. Studying ideas that are not explicitly linked to science, technology, engineering and maths could "hold them back for the rest of their lives” you said, that these subjects could be useful “couldn’t be further from the truth”. You even seem to imply that anyone who studied such ridiculous and unimportant areas of inquiry in the past, such as English or history or fine art, had probably been conned.
I’m not going to defend the study of arts and humanities subjects. It has been done by people far more eloquent than I here, here, here and many other places. It also seems equivalent to arguing that human rights are simply a cultural luxury. Oh, wait...
Nicky, you see, the proposition that one area of thought, of the brain, of industry should have more value to a 14 year old choosing their GCSEs than others is morally contemptible when you are in such a position of influence. The STEM agenda is important, as is the drive to encourage more young people to study formula subjects - but only these? Really?
It is utterly anathema to cling to the myth that employers are purely looking for technical skills. Of course an A Level in maths would be a fantastic platform for anyone looking to make waves in life; but wouldn't it be even more exciting if more teenagers were choosing to also extend their critical thinking capacity, performance skills, engagement with ideas about human behaviour. Wouldn't it be fantastic for someone to have A Levels in maths, Spanish, drama and biology? - and not to think that they have to choose one thing or another, or that they have to be one thing or another. Nicky, you chose an event called 'Your Life' to suggest that it would be actually wrong to choose non-STEM subjects.
I would argue that how someone studies is infinitely more important than what they study, yet this has been radically ignored by politicians who have to be seen to be fixing 'failure'. There has been no qualified, or even remotely experienced, person in your post since 2002 which might play a part in this. I am also not a qualified teacher, but I have an ongoing professional interest in how learning works. Do you?
The best teaching, learning & assessment will include opportunities for students to develop technical skills whilst challenging the status quo, to collaborate with peers on projects, to know where to go to find out more. There are the skills with which to comprehend, process and apply technical methodology - but also the skills with which to critically analyse, to create, to fail properly, to share, to understand and tell the story of something. Why are only half of these skills something you value?
Your thesis is that to choose to study arts subjects at GCSE, A Level or degree level is to put a cap on ambition. Someone studying these will be of less practical use to the world, and by that we know you mean to the bottom line of the private sector.
I am biased because I have pursued creative learning all my life, and I have no formula maths or science credentials (on paper) beyond compulsory schooling. But I was careful about how I studied; I read around subjects, I understood the broader personal skills I was developing, I was disciplined. Because of what I studied, I chose to look carefully at how people interact, behave and how they construct themselves in times of crisis; it led me to want to get under the skin of how values are used in business and education and regeneration. I have a good career that has a social and economic return for the UK, but you would discourage anyone in the future from following suit?
As you’ll know, the creative industries are growing very, very fast. Current forecasts are that 1.2 million jobs in this sector will be created by 2020 in order to meet demand. DCMS data from January showed a consistent 3.9% growth in creative jobs since 1997 (compared to 0.6% growth in the whole economy). £76.9billion contribution to GDP. So, arts and humanities graduates are joining a sector with demand, are best equipped to transfer their skills to other sectors, and are also highly represented amongst self-employment and start-up enterprise figures - they are good at making their own work. But you’re worried that anyone choosing this route will be held back, disadvantaged. That’s a powerful and really mixed set of signals for your government to send.
A couple of days ago, I had the privilege of spending an afternoon advising and planning with a much-admired entrepreneur. He is the director of a couple of small businesses that turn over 7-figure sums between them, he provides employment for over 30 people each year and provides a rare service that travels around the whole UK and Ireland and is accessed by many hundreds of thousands of people. He is celebrating his 10th year of doing this. Oh, but his business is touring theatre and he studied drama, so really we should warn future students against this useless work, right?
The same day I attended the retirement party for a headteacher, celebrating her 38 years as a professional educator. She leaves on a high, having transformed 3 schools as head, bestowing an enormous legacy across the city in which she works. But she studied arts and humanities subjects, from which she has built over three decades of imaginative, creative curricula that have met the needs of every child in her care. I don’t think it is an accident that the school is winning awards nationally for its inclusion practice, and internationally for the way in which children’s attainment improves through collaborative working. Perhaps that’s by-the-by? Perhaps this isn’t as important as if the school was winning awards for technological innovation? Or perhaps there would be room for both?
I genuinely can’t see how your argument - even if well-intentioned - is useful or appropriate. You studied the law, your predecessor studied English. Most of your colleagues get into their roles studying philosophy and political theory. Is it that Oxbridge degrees are different? If you’re clever enough to get to the Russell group, then the concerns about what you study don’t matter so much? I'm genuinely curious, as I think it it is down to personal achievement and ambition.
What is clear to me is that higher-level vocational education should be equivalent to academic study. What is clear is that young people should think very carefully about what, how and where they focus their education and that they should listen to as wide a range of people as possible, weigh up the cost/value, do their homework and do something that makes them feel alive. What is also clear is that they probably shouldn’t just listen to you.
What is clear to me is that higher-level vocational education should be equivalent to academic study. What is clear is that young people should think very carefully about what, how and where they focus their education and that they should listen to as wide a range of people as possible, weigh up the cost/value, do their homework and do something that makes them feel alive. What is also clear is that they probably shouldn’t just listen to you.
If you're worried that employers don't yet see the value of creative study, then contact me at the address below and I'd love to work with you on changing that. I'd be there in a heartbeat.
Yours, with respect,
Richard Freeman
No comments:
Post a Comment