I’ve learned a little bit about why there are constant new government schemes all the time, and that’s because each new education minister that comes in is looking to make their mark and create a legacy for themselves by changing education radically during their time in office.
Continual improvement is great, and it is important because there are always new students and there are always new teachers. Changes to procedures and pedagogy are fine, but I don’t think it is recognised very widely that this only really happens in cycles (this is a separate point though).
However, excessive reform becomes unworkable, because it becomes impossible to keep up with. In order to comply with new procedures, less time is spent on actually teaching and helping students actually learn. There should be a legally binding limit on how much can change, in order to protect teacher’s work life balance and maximise the amount of time that is actually spent on teaching and learning.
It also becomes quite petty. I mean, does it really matter at what age a student moves from primary to secondary for example? Does it matter that a school is an academy or a state school, or does it matter more that the student is getting up every day and going somewhere to work very hard at their future?
Do you think any recent government changes have actually been for the better?
0 comments:
Post a Comment