Education Reform: Le Resistance
In my long trawl through the history of educational reform, I've come across some interesting little strands. One of them is the incredible resistance to decentralisation in French education mounted by unions, entrenched interests, and other elements of the indigenous social fabric. Apparently, a central theme in this resistance is the French ideal of egalité — some people fear that if decentralisation takes hold, the universality of French education will be imperilled. Richer districts or more perspicacious authorities might very well start local systems which would be elitist (or elite) compared to others.
That's interesting, because a similar trend can be seen in the local discourse. Creating pseudo-, quasi- or semi-independent schools tends to raise hackles in the city in which I work. Calling them 'autonomous' seems to help, even though not many people can tell me the difference between independent and autonomous.
[Note: Actually, the word 'autonomous' is somewhat etymologically suspect, since it means 'with a law unto itself'. By contrast, 'independent', which means 'without support', seems positively limp (or is that negatively limp?) and generates odd responses of its own.]
Essentially, when you sell the people a bill of rights or a list of values, in the context of calling yourself a democratic state, you also implicitly support some kind of equality. Although this equality subsists only in the one-man one-vote ideal, it is assumed to support a whole bunch of other things — such as a level playing-field (whatever that means), equal opportunities (whatever those are), and stuff like that which will be endlessly debated.
Human societies being what they are, this is what normally happens: society creates and maintains a points system, people score points, the ones with most points win and are happy so they help to maintain the existing system. As for the ones who don't win, they normally deride the system and try to change it. Eventually, a new points system may emerge.
If the idea of egalité is strongly entrenched, then the idea is to make universal differences as imperceptible as possible. Unfortunately, in an age of globalisation, this is very difficult. A clever leader would try a different tack, such as 'equal opportunities, different talents, meritocracy for all'. This allows the system to look somewhat open to everyone, make the playing field so statistically large that small bumps would be unnoticed, and leave the definition of merit to the people who have already shown such merit.
Such a system works. The problem is that, as with all such systems, it can be gamed — and not to everyone's benefit. The gaming which all the 'players' indulge in is certain to take efficiency out of the system somewhere. If merit is based on academic achievement and brain power primarily, then cognitive coaching as a shadow industry must be huge. As the burden absorbed by this shadow industry gets larger, the overt education system will suffer since nobody knows how much it is really doing and hence how accountable it is for the overall education level. This may already be happening in some highly competitive meritocracies.
Essentially, I think, the idealist would say that since education is seen as a human right and a universal benefit, we ought to maximise its availability to everyone. The problem has always been twofold: how do we define education, and how much can each individual benefit from it? Market-force solutions may not be the best, but what is better?
That's interesting, because a similar trend can be seen in the local discourse. Creating pseudo-, quasi- or semi-independent schools tends to raise hackles in the city in which I work. Calling them 'autonomous' seems to help, even though not many people can tell me the difference between independent and autonomous.
[Note: Actually, the word 'autonomous' is somewhat etymologically suspect, since it means 'with a law unto itself'. By contrast, 'independent', which means 'without support', seems positively limp (or is that negatively limp?) and generates odd responses of its own.]
Essentially, when you sell the people a bill of rights or a list of values, in the context of calling yourself a democratic state, you also implicitly support some kind of equality. Although this equality subsists only in the one-man one-vote ideal, it is assumed to support a whole bunch of other things — such as a level playing-field (whatever that means), equal opportunities (whatever those are), and stuff like that which will be endlessly debated.
Human societies being what they are, this is what normally happens: society creates and maintains a points system, people score points, the ones with most points win and are happy so they help to maintain the existing system. As for the ones who don't win, they normally deride the system and try to change it. Eventually, a new points system may emerge.
If the idea of egalité is strongly entrenched, then the idea is to make universal differences as imperceptible as possible. Unfortunately, in an age of globalisation, this is very difficult. A clever leader would try a different tack, such as 'equal opportunities, different talents, meritocracy for all'. This allows the system to look somewhat open to everyone, make the playing field so statistically large that small bumps would be unnoticed, and leave the definition of merit to the people who have already shown such merit.
Such a system works. The problem is that, as with all such systems, it can be gamed — and not to everyone's benefit. The gaming which all the 'players' indulge in is certain to take efficiency out of the system somewhere. If merit is based on academic achievement and brain power primarily, then cognitive coaching as a shadow industry must be huge. As the burden absorbed by this shadow industry gets larger, the overt education system will suffer since nobody knows how much it is really doing and hence how accountable it is for the overall education level. This may already be happening in some highly competitive meritocracies.
Essentially, I think, the idealist would say that since education is seen as a human right and a universal benefit, we ought to maximise its availability to everyone. The problem has always been twofold: how do we define education, and how much can each individual benefit from it? Market-force solutions may not be the best, but what is better?
Labels: Education
etched with acid at 9:07:00 am
1 Comments:
It comes down to teachers educating students as individuals. I truly thank God that I had such teachers. They made all the difference to school and learning – not just book learning – when we didn't have a great principal.
Post a Comment
<< Home