| [ Home ] [ The series ] [ Yesterday and today ] [ Criticising education ] [ School report ] [ What it was like ] [ Find out more ] [ Graphical version of site ] |
The recent spats between British politicians and educationalists are simply a continuation of the sense of unease that has accompanied formal education since its emergence from religious institutions during the Middle Ages.
The issues under debate have remained more or less consistent since then, centring firstly on the nature of the curriculum.
The art of living
The tension between purely vocational education and a broader variety, involving the whole person, soon emerged during the Renaissance, as boys were educated in subjects other than religion - in particular, mathematics and the classics. Educators such as the French philosopher Michel de Montaigne (1533-92) criticised traditional education, holding that pupils should be taught the art of living.
This art was to be mastered by increasing the powers of observation and conversation and through travel. Reading should aid the forming of correct judgements and not be used just to improve the memory. Montaigne also insisted on rigorous physical training as part of the development of the whole person: mind and body.
Broad-brush approach
This was taken further during the Enlightenment by thinkers such as the English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704). He recommended a curriculum and method of education, including physical training, that was based on empiricism - examining demonstrable facts before reaching conclusions.
In Some Thoughts Concerning Education (1693), Locke advocated a number of reforms, including an emphasis on real objects instead of books, on learning through travel and on variety in subject matter. For instance, he advised students to study a tree rather than a book about trees and to go to France rather than read a book about France.
Locke was a major influence on the educational thinkers of the 18th and 19th centuries. However, this broad-brush approach was to come under fire from those who believed that children needed to learn some basic skills.
Fit for their station
Towards the middle of the 19th century, a second tension developed in Britain, this time concerning the role of the state in education. A speech by the Liberal MP, Robert Lowe, in the House of Commons in 1862 illustrates the dilemma:
We propose to give no grant for the attendance of children at school, unless they can read and write ... but we do not say they shall learn no more. We do not object to any amount of learning; the only question is, how much of that knowledge we ought to pay for … It must never be forgotten that for whom this system is designed are the children of the persons who are not able to pay for the teaching. We do not profess to give these children an education that will raise them above their station and business in life; that is not our object, but to give them an education that may fit them for that business.
This raised several related and difficult issues that remain only partially resolved today. Who should be taught? What should they learn? How much will it cost? Once the state became involved, it would have to answer these questions.