The slow-school movement is poised to expand its sphere of influence, as the word spreads and our original group expands in size. We recognise that slow education calls for a different view of the teacher-student encounter, and one which is full of promise for deeper understanding. But what does this imply for the school curriculum? Inevitably, we shall need to extend our vision to deal with the implications of slow for the structure and character of the curriculum as a whole.
Scope will be determined by the result of the General Election in May. At the time of writing, it looks unlikely that the Tories will prevail unless they once again form a coalition with some other party. All we can say is that in these circumstances, there will be more of the same: continued expansion of academies and free schools, and pressure to form chains of these schools with private contractors. Some LEA schools that recklessly decided to become converter academies may be in for a nasty surprise when Tesco Education takes charge. Curriculum development will be static or retrograde, and slow education could be confined to primary schools in regions sympathetic to the concept. Our researches would continue but remain largely academic.
An outright Labour majority would be the most favourable outcome, and a Labour-led coalition with the LibDems or even the Greens is possible. On that assumption, I suggest some fields of inquiry that slow education adherents could profitably explore:
1. The Evils of Ofsted: The Office for Stress in Education casts a shadow over the whole system, and I doubt whether Labour politicians are fully aware of its insidious influence. But what would take its place? Since no other developed country has anything like it, there must be alternatives. We need to think about the form they could take and start a debate (see next item.)
2. Mixed-ability teaching : The National Curriculum ruled this out, but its influence is declining. Technically, though, students are required to be placed in ability sets. What does Ofsted permit? It’s time a forum was established to which schools would contribute their experiences. It could be called Cofsted (counter-ofsted,) and be a useful device for unveiling the mysteries about what is allowed and what isn’t. Cofsted could ultimately see off Ofsted. The key point is that slow education is ideally suited to mixed-ability classes. It’s the perfect way of raising all boats for everyone.
3. Teacher education: Pre-service teacher education, via university PGCE courses, needs a big expansion which Labour could deliver. Otherwise, slow education will become very difficult. It’s vital that teachers learn the techniques that make slow education work before they enter the classroom. Again, if the Tories win, all bets are off. It’s evident that they have no interest in pre-service education, or in any innovation that upsets the mistaken vision of the 1988 Act.
4. Process-driven school management: Here we enter Deming country (W.E. Deming - American statistician, management consultant and continual source of inspiration to Slow Education (ed.)), and this fits perfectly with slow education where layers of management are inappropriate and expensive. Currently, Ofsted encourages the formation of “senior management teams”, which often lead to bullying of junior staff (see various anonymous contributions to the Education Guardian.) There is no need for these interpolations in a school that focuses on teaching rather than seniority. Of course, staff who take on extra responsibilities are rewarded - which is not at all the same thing.
5. Assessment: Ofsted depends very heavily on the results of official tests taken at the various “key stages” (another stupid idea: students don’t run on clockwork, and do develop at different rates. The academy has much to answer for here, since it obligingly invented the stages.) The unreliability of these cheap multiple-choice tests needs to be emphasised, since they are the foundation of the whole Ofsted empire, and although better tests exist, they would be too costly. If a Labour government is formed, the elimination of Ofsted should be on the agenda and we can contribute to it.
6. Schools and their Community: Before Thatcher destroyed local education authorities, a school not only served its community of parents but also had links with neighbouring schools through the offices of the LEA. The assumption was that parents used the local school, but could express a choice, subject to places being available. The invention of academy and free schools, which may have only tenuous links to the neighbourhood and yet compete with its schools, was an act of folly. How can these different entities work together for the public good? Currently, the Blunkett-led Labour Party solution is to appoint Commissioners for a designated region: this does nothing to help schools help each other and construct an organisation that will examine and share new ideas - such as slow education. We should investigate possible alternatives.
7. Research: Slow education advocates are well placed to link with departments of education and investigate its effects. Joint research projects of this kind could be valuable, e.g. How does a mixed-ability maths class work best? Can English, history and geography be linked together and team-taught? Or music and drama?