This paper was originally published in the Independent Newspaper.  © Dr Anthony Bynom.

ANOTHER BRICK IN THE WALL

by Dr Anthony Bynom, Ph.D., ESP Unit, UAE University

As many of you will recognise, the title of this article is based on a record by the Pink Floyd pop group called ‘Another Brick in the Wall’.  The lyrics of this song contain the words “We don’t need no education”, sung in a dirge-like tone.  The lyrics also contain the words, and these are almost shouted, “Teachers, leave those kids alone.”  This song is a product of the late twentieth century and seems to be a comment on education in the post-industrial age.

Where does education stand in the new millennium?  To answer that question, let us go back to the spring and early summer of 1999.

In the aftermath of the horrific shootings at St Columbine School in Colorado, many articles were written trying to tie down the cause, or causes of such horror.  One that caught my eye, and caused me to really think, was an article by a couple, Alvin and Heidi Toffler.  They are members of a company of futurists, Toffler Associates.  They examined some of the explanations put forward, such as exclusive cliques within schools.  Or maybe it was the soullessness of modern suburbia, or the Internet, or techno music.  On the other hand, school officials could be to blame, or parents, or teachers.  Perhaps it was a lack of religious guidance in the school.  In fact, as the Tofflers remind us, the people to blame were the perpetrators, the people who actually pulled the triggers. 

Nevertheless, as educationalists, we would do well to examine a question they posed:

Have we pondered sufficiently deeply on the system of mass education itself?

This is what caused me to stop, then think and then engage in a process of reassessment, especially on the question they then asked about mass education: 

Can a mass education system, designed during an industrial age, closely modelled on a factory system, be appropriate for this post-industrial age?

Of course, we, as professional educators, would point out that things have moved along since the Industrial Revolution.  Educational theory and practice are continuously being reassessed and reformed, but, and this is my question, are they?  If they are, how, and by what methods?  How can we ensure that this is happening? Can we honestly say that rote learning and repetitive classroom work are no longer used?  Aren’t we, as teachers, still using methods and styles of learning that are a preparation for the repetitive systems and mindless drudgery of factory work, even though many factories no longer exist?  In a society where innovation is more highly thought of and more financially rewarded than repetitive or rote work, can we justify sending millions of children through assembly-line classrooms? - classrooms where quite a few students probably know more about computers and the Internet than either their teachers or their parents. 

Yet historically mass education has always been the hand servant of industry.  Whenever mass education has tried to escape this bond, there has been a strong reaction both by industry and by the government, who themselves get leaned on by industry.  

I know that in the United Kingdom during the late sixties and on into the seventies many innovative activities were tried in schools.  Not all were successful and many were based on flawed theoretical premises.  Because of this, a perception grew, fostered and reinforced by the popular press, that all was not well with education. In the U.K. in 1973, there appeared a criticism of education known as ‘The Black Papers’.  In the US, a publication entitled ‘Why Johnny Can’t Read’ also criticised educational innovation.  James Callaghan, the then U.K. PM, in a speech at Ruskin College, Oxford, also criticised education by quoting what industry saw as its shortcomings, i.e. many students were not numerate and lacked literacy skills.  By the time Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister, mass education, especially innovative educational initiatives, really came under attack.  ‘Trendy teachers’ were seen at first as socialists, and then as robbers of children’s rights to a good (my italics) education.  What she meant by a good education was one that relied on ‘traditional values’ i.e. values, which were driven by the needs of industry.  But, as we said above, we are moving out of, or have moved out of an industry-driven society into a society driven by information technology. 

So what is the purpose of mass education now?  Ideally, should we move on to, or perhaps back to, the idea of education as a worthwhile goal in itself?  An ideal, which will give us well-educated populations?  Or do we once again surrender to the new IT industries?  Do we teachers still want to be industrial trainers?  In either case, is there still a need for compulsory education over a certain period of chronological time?  Remember that IT is making the workplace redundant.  The workplace is anywhere there is a computer, a telephone line and a modem.  People are moving away from working for a set number of hours on certain days of the week. Work is done when it needs to be done.  Increasing use is being made of specialist consultants who come in, do the job then leave.  If we are to continue as industrial trainers, surely we should be educating children to take advantage of this type of work environment - not one based on outdated ideas of industrial work and industrial workplaces. 

The scrapping of compulsory mass education would lead us, as teachers, to reassess our role.  After all, a great deal of education takes place outside the classroom anyway.  I am not talking about homework or any other formal project work, but about the education to which we are all subject every day of our lives.  We learn from peers, parents, priests, criminals, black sheep, white sheep, strangers, friends, etc. etc.  Students learn more from these life factors than in the formal and somewhat unreal settings of the classroom.  Yet if teachers try to move away from traditional educational practices and environments, they are jumped on. National Curricula are put in place.  League tables of ‘good schools’ v ‘bad schools’ appear.  Teacher ‘performance’ is continuously appraised, and the things which score the most points for all these criteria are based on traditional teaching methods.  Schools that ‘conform’ are rewarded with higher budgets, while schools which fall behind get ‘taken over’ by government appointees.  At least that’s what happens in the U.K. 

In the past, education has always been seen as a way forward, a means of upward mobility through work.  This is no longer strictly true in Western post-industrial societies.  Thus the motivation for staying in the compulsory system is no longer applicable.  In fact, because they are so demotivated, the British government even considered paying £40.00 per week to pupils to get them to stay on at school.  In societies where the perception of education as a way out is still in place, no such incentives have to be considered. 

As usual, in this type of article, more questions are asked than answers given.  If we are to reconsider the future of compulsory mass education, what can we put in its place?  What is the future of the teacher?  Can we put experienced role models in positive settings (the pilot, the doctor, the priest, and the nurse) and use them as IT uses experienced consultants?  Surely they have something to offer?  Should students be paid to attend (I won’t use the word school) education in its various forms? 

Can we reassess the role of compulsory mass education by restoring the worth of education for its own sake? Maybe taking the compulsion out of education will go some way towards this.  If we do, we may be on the way to preventing the horror headlines that we saw in the last year of the last millennium. 

REFERENCES

Pink Floyd.  Another Brick in the Wall.  Columbia Records

Extracts from James Callaghan’s speech at Ruskin College Oxford 18 October 1976 in Moon, B. Murphy, P. Raynor, J. (eds) 1989 Policies for the Curriculum, London, Hodder & Staughton.

Extracts from Margaret Thatcher’s speech to the Conservative Party Conference 1987 in Moon, B. Murphy, P.  Raynor, J.(eds) 1989 Policies for the Curriculum, London, Hodder & Staughton.

Toffler, A. Toffler, H. 1999 Is factory style classroom work the best way to educate youth?  Distributed by the Los Angeles Times Syndicate.

©Dr Anthony Bynom 2003. All rights reserved.