Joyous distrust is a sign of health. Everything absolute belongs to pathology.
Nietzsche
Maybe those bored by debating the purpose of education feel the way they do because everyone keeps saying the same things over and over with the result that we all become a little more convinced of our own rightness. Perhaps this is because of the way the debate has been framed?
The Great Educational Debate has always been framed as being between Traditionalists and Progressives. While no one is ever happy with attempts to try to pin down these positions, they can be summarised thus:
Of course it’s possible to argue that you do ‘a bit of both’, but you can only really have one priority.
Having just read Kathryn Ecclestone and Dennis Hayes’s magnificent book, The Dangerous Rise of Therapeutic Education, I now think we might do better to reframe the debate as being between the aims of therapeutic and academic education.
The book was published way back in 2009 and I can only imagine the controversy with which it must have been met at the time. I would have probably been horrified if I’d read it then. This was the dying days of the New Labour project and, if you remember, we didn’t even have a Department for Education back then; it had been rebranded as the Department for Children, Schools and Families which tells you something of the priorities of the day. This was also the height of Christine Gilbert’s reign as the head of Ofsted, a time when the inspectorate was characterised as the ‘child-centered inquisition’, when inspectors really were enforcing progressive teaching orthodoxies.
Times have changed, and so have I.
Ecclestone and Hayes set out a compelling case. They aim to show how the sorts of activities which had become – and mostly still are – prevalent in schools, activities that “embed populist therapeutic assumptions, claims and process throughout education, signifying the idea that emotional well-being, emotional literacy and emotional competence are some of the most important outcomes of the educations system.” (page xi) All of this is predicated on the concept of a ‘diminished self’: the idea that we’re all damaged, vulnerable, emotionally fragile and suffering from low self-esteem.
They view this as damaging because, “therapeutic education [is] profoundly anti-educational” and “whatever good intentions lie behind it, the effect is to abandon the liberating project of education.” (p. xiii) In concentrating on what is immediately relevant, inclusive, engaging and reflects students ‘real needs’, a ‘curriculum of the self’ lowers expectation and aspiration, hollowing out and replacing the goals of an academic curriculum.
Maybe the differences between therapeutic and academic education could be characterised like this:
The book suggests that therapeutic education reflects the values of modern society. Therapy is all around us. What was once seen as a treatment for those who were disturbed or mentally ill is now embraced as nurturing for everybody. We are all damaged by our toxic childhoods and we all need to talk about the underlying causes for everything all the time.
I’m not all sure this is nearly as helpful as is usually assumed. Borton and Casey have shown that trying to suppress negative feelings actually makes you think about them more and, contrary to our intuitions, discussing our problems with someone else often makes them worse. There’s also Zech & Rimé‘s accusation that positive psychology tends to pathologise normal emotions and behaviour, labelling ordinary feelings of sadness or anxiety as ‘bad’, and underestimating their adaptive function (e.g. defensive pessimism – predicting negative events so that you can take action to avoid or prepare for them).
This is certainly borne out by my own experience. After some regrettable experiences in early adulthood , I was referred to various therapists and counsellors all of whom wanted to help me explore my past to get at why I was the way I was. Eventually, I began seeing a psychotherapist for 3 hours a week. After six months of navel-gazing and utter tedium I decided that I’d had all the therapy I could ever tolerate; if it had taught me nothing else I’d learned that I really didn’t need to rehash my childhood any more.
I’ve come to believe that, contrary to common assumptions, talking about our feelings can be problematic. For instance, whenever I’ve had a dispute, I’m always keen to clear the air and discuss exactly why the other person said what they said and why I did what I did. Really though we’ve no idea why we do and say what we do. When we articulate reasons for our actions we give them a compelling narrative power. Our post-hoc rationalisations become true as soon as we’ve spoken them aloud. Maybe the goals of therapy are self-defeating? As Ecclestone and Hayes put it, “the rituals associated with a populist version of ‘knowing yourself’ amount to no more than scripted forms of social training.” (p. 43)
Anyway, enough of the confessional. it’s enough to say that the case laid out in The Dangerous Rise… chimes with my experiences and my instincts. Our preoccupation with therapy and well-being makes the normal abnormal and far from teaching resilience, it seems to make us all more fragile and unhealthily aware of our vulnerability. It teaches us that we’re damaged and that we need professional help to undo this damage. It leads us to label certain families – particularly working class families – as unable to deal with children’s emotions and invites schools to intrude ever further into children’s lives.
The aims of therapeutic education appear antithetical to those of academic education. Interest in personalised learning, student voice, learning to learn and assessing transferable skills “erodes the belief that young people need subject knowledge.” (p. 47) This is never stated so clearly as by the ex-head of Wellington College, Anthony Seldon: “There is no more important objective for a school than to help teachers help its pupils find out who they are and how to lead happy and decent lives.” Well, that’s fair enough for highly privileged, privately educated students perhaps; maybe they don’t need a rigorous academic curriculum in order to be successful? But no. Seldon goes on: “The more deprived the area the more vital this version of schooling is.”
And if you think no one really thought or believed that therapeutic aims were in opposition to academic ones, never forget the sorry case of the ATL’s 2007 vision for education, Subject to Change. With no apparent irony, the authors state:
The major difference from previous curriculum models is that it should consider the needs of the whole person without assuming that the academic or intellectual aspects should have a higher status than the others. The first truly comprehensive curriculum should rebalance the academic, situated in the mind, against those parts of humanity situated in the body, the heart and the soul. Curricula may well be designed by people for whom the mind predominates, but those designers should see that the twenty-first century requires a population with higher levels of social, emotional and moral performance, and a regenerated capacity for doing and making. [my emphasis]
They went on to say, “We need a bit of honesty in this analysis. Most people are not intellectuals. Most people do not live their lives predominantly in the abstract.” As soon as we accept that most people are not intellectuals then it becomes easier to give them what they might want instead of what they might actually need in order to have chance of being an intellectual.
In this model “learning a body of worthwhile and inspiring knowledge, or learning to love particular subjects, or aspiring to excel in them, have become invisible as educational goals.” (p. 62) In 2009 it really did seem that “therapeutic education … jettisons and disdains the intellectual in favour of emotions.” Why does matter? Because therapeutic education does not “lift young people out of everyday problems, whether those problems are banal or serious. Instead [it] immerses young people in an introspective, instrumental curriculum of the self, and turns schools into vehicles for the latest political and popular fad to engineer the right sort of citizen.” (p 64)
I fervently hope that this is no longer the case and that changes in education policy since 2012 have started to reverse a little of the rot, but I fear we’ve a long way to go before we rebalance the intellectual with the emotional. As a case in point, read Tom Bennett’s blog on the current mental health ‘crisis’.
This book provides a new vocabulary and new conceptual framework for expressing some of the problems with contemporary education. Of particular interest is the final chapter in which the authors anticipate and counter all the likely objection you might have. Whatever your ideological stripe, whatever your preconceptions, I urge you to read it.
In other news, I’m delighted to hear that Kathryn Ecclestone will be speaking at the researchED National Conference in September.
Sorry to hear about your drug addiction phase. Glad you got help and came out of it. Just a thought, but I wonder if that was a good sign after a few years of psychotherapy that you didn’t want any more? That was a symptom of being well again perhaps?
There are so many difficult problems individuals go through. I think that as safeguarding professionals teachers are an important referral point for getting minors the help they need, and creating an approachable, mentoring environment within education where we can know minors well enough to be able to refer them on to experts when necessary.
Oh, I absolutely agree that teachers should refer troubled children to the relevant professionals, they just shouldn’t try to teach well-being instead of an academic curriculum.
And just, the realisation I didn’t need therapy was an excellent sign. It was sooooo tedious!
I want my students to learn maths to the best of their ability, I want them to become excellent mathematicians who pass exams with the highest grades and feel exhilarated by the subject, and by their understanding and knowledge of it.
I want this for two main reasons:
1. It is necessary for them to gain the best grades they can for their future
2. I think it is the best way to help the students overcome any difficulties they have
I would say that as teachers, our only expertise is in teaching. Therefore, whatever our goals for our students, the best one can do is aim to be the best teacher one can be, which implies that one’s students learn well and do well in exams.
I have written about a teacher who I particularly liked in my blog which I called ‘kindness’ (https://noeasyanswerseducation.wordpress.com/2015/12/29/kindness/).
This teacher did the best by me, by not accepting any excuses from me and constantly expecting me to be the best I could be.
In many ways, I think this teacher could have been described as Progressive, but then in the way she treated me in this sense, it aligns with non-therapeutic and perhaps Traditional. Perhaps the distinction is unimportant for this issue.
I would say I am ‘primarily child focused’ and I prioritise ‘academic knowledge within a clear subject discipline’.
Perhaps it is time to stop talking about Progressive vs Traditional education.
Thanks Rufus – that sounds about right
I can hardly believe this article! Resilience, problem solving, change management, communication skills and other so-called “soft skills” are exactly what employers want, more so than narrow exams the kids crammed for so their school could get a clutch of A’s or C’s. Furthermore they enhance real academic progress. For example, a learning objective based on the concept of resilience can apply to any challenging task, and will improve academic outcomes in that lesson. This applies across all these skills.
Yes, employers do want “Resilience, problem solving, change management, communication skills and other so-called “soft skills”. The problem is, therapeutic education actually seems to undermine these skills. Beyond assertions that “a learning objective based on the concept of resilience can apply to any challenging task, and will improve academic outcomes in that lesson” it actually seems that the reverse is true: improving academic outcomes results in increased resilience etc. See this study for a bit of meat on this bone: http://edexcellence.net/articles/testing-the-causal-links-between-school-climate-school-violence-and-school-academic
Actually Cathy, it is rarely what employers want.
When we have kids applying for apprenticeships the employers don’t ask “how is his communication skills?”. They ask — “Can he read instructions reliably and write coherently”.
They also want people who are on time, do what they are asked, are capable of following instructions, present well etc. Because my school is quite traditional, we find it easy to place our students, because the employers trust us to embed what they actually want — not some rebel with ideas that he will be in control from the first day, but a hard worker who will learn from those more experienced.
The requirement for “soft skills” is required by very few industries, and generally only the people at the top. I struggle to think of many jobs where it is an entry requirement.
“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy”.
For those of us who lead schools where resources are not considered a limiting factor, we don’t run an either/or regimen. I am currently assisting in the rebuilding locally a pupil respite care belief system, and this is to support those where anxiety and competitiveness are causing mental health issues. The students concerned don’t have issues with subject, are exhilarated by academe, but live real lives. One has been a carer for a mother with advancing disability for over 10 years; the child (Y10) can’t settle I’d mum is not up and about despite a night of torment. For another, early medication without psychiatric approval has missed both spectrum and anxiety issues. The vast majority of our children are in the best of shape, but these 2 are academically as good; we’ve had the time to understand, and not built our understanding of the issues around our own image. We have known the Bard’s view quoted as my lead for centuries, David, so be careful not sound too knowledgeable on the stuff that swirls – in education, every coin of worth has 2 sides.
I’ve never heard of a school where resources are not considered a limiting factor before. You’re in a very fortunate and enviable position. If you’ve found a way to prioritise academic education while still finding time to support students’ well-being, that’s wonderful. For those who lead schools where resources are a limiting factor, what would you suggest?
The trouble with quoting Hamlet at me is that the very same applies to you. What is it that you’ve not considered? What is it that you are unaware of? Everything I’ve said here is tentative. I’m always careful not to merely “sound too knowledgeable” (hence starting with the Nietzsche quote) but that is a very distant second to my striving to *be* more knowledgable.
This was a review. You might do well to read the book rather than assume you have the right of it. Then you’d be a little more knowledgeable too.
[…] above comment was a response to this blog post by David Didau. It expresses a viewpoint which I feel needs to be […]
[…] Joyous distrust is a sign of health. Everything absolute belongs to pathology. Nietzsche Maybe those bored by debating the purpose of education feel the way they do because everyone keeps saying the same things over and over with the result that we all become a little more convinced of our own rightness. Perhaps this is because […]
What are your views of: http://www.ibo.org/globalassets/digital-tookit/brochures/what-is-an-ib-education-en.pdf ?
I’ve never taught the IB but broadly I think it does a good job. Some of the detail is conceptually confused (For instance, they seem to confuse effect and cause with cause and effect) but I like that part of the curriculum allows students to earn credit for community work. It also seems to encourage the development of in-depth subject knowledge and also invite critique and dialectic when students are knowledgeable enough to have something worthwhile to say.
Like anything, the IB can be done badly or well, but where it’s done well it does seem to produce excellent academic outcomes. I’ve never seen any studies on whether any of the softer skills they seek to instil have any long-term effect on students and the stuff about making the planet a better place is mostly harmless.
The restorative approach has, for many years, seemed to me to embody the the point that the traditional v progressive debate is totally flawed and futile – http://www.iirp.edu/pdf/Defining-Restorative.pdf
In other words – a waste of time and energy pursued by folk who have way too much time on their hands and who have insincere ideologically driven agendas. Robots on the academic side and hippies on the other? I am neither jostick nor stick and I don’t believe, after 30 odd years working with extremely vulnerable children in special through to mainstream, that I’ve ever met a teacher who was, quite frankly. However, we are dealing with humans not computers so a balanced combination of humanity and instruction (teachers professional prerogative which sways their pedagogy according to the content) is required. Neither “side” will ever win the debate in any case.
It is absolutely right and proper though to critique each perspective for the flaws and for the “truthiness’ and “deepities” as you put it so adroitly in your piece; https://www.learningspy.co.uk/featured/seven-tools-thinking-7-beware-deepities/ . There is a lot out there at the moment which is flagrantly quoting from the same piece of research about the mental health tide (as Bennett pointed out) but that does not mean there is no problem. There is, it is not insignificant and, it’s not only young people but also includes teachers leaving in substantial numbers due to workload, stress, etc. Nor does it follow that working holistically in itself is unwise – it is rather about who does this work and knowing when to intervene in school and when to refer to, or invite in, outside agencies. It is also about knowing what requires intervention, how to track it effectively for outcome and, most importantly, when to stop so that young people apply their learning to self regulate.
I think the review is another useful thinking piece and provokes further very useful dialogue around some assumptions which have found their way into teaching through contemporary influencers in education writing and training on such subjects as resilience, mental health, mindset, nurture and many others. All of these ideas have relevance and resonance but that does not imply they are any more than ideas to consider, reflect upon and examine for claimed outcomes. Open minds and critical eyes.
Keep them coming David!
Your comment about the utter tedium of talking therapy is interesting. I once completed an activity designed with this in mind. It was during an intense ‘enlightenment’ course (yes…I know) and entailed telling your partner, sitting opposite, your story (ie your whine) again and again for seemingly an hour or more. The partner had to stay silent and just listen. The end result was not cathartic but, rather, utter boredom with your own whiny story. I developed an intense, and lasting, aversion to ‘my’ story and its debilitating impact.
Maybe that’s the point then. We have to have space to tell and keep telling our story until we are so sick of it we can move on.
Well, what I’ve found is that not creating a bogus narrative allows me to move on much quicker.
Yes Carole. At another point in this course, we were invited to participate in a spiritual (deliberately ironic take) exercise in which we go to a desert and at night tell the universe all our deepest feelings, thoughts, resentments etc. And then listen to the response of the universe. Nothing happens, of course which is a reflection of the significance of “our most precious stuff” (I quote the leader).
I would say, that you seem to be conflating pop psychology such as positive thinking with the serious professionalism of genuine psychologists and psychotherapists.
Should teachers be trying to be therapists? No, they should stick to teaching, but should teachers be intruding on the ground of another profession and saying it’s not useful? I would say that’s equally a no.
This is one of the criticism anticipated in chapter 8. 🙂
Would you like me to rehearse it for you?
ah, I’m happy to wait for your book
Thanks for the post – loads to chew over, and I’m looking forward to reading, which I’m sure will clear up some of my uncertainties…
I agree that there seems to be a false dichotomy between being ‘progressive’ and ‘traditionalist’, which might explain why so few teachers feel comfortable aligning themselves with just one of the other. Perhaps this is especially the case with the ‘traditionalist’ label, which seems a bit of a taboo term, perhaps because of its associations with conservatism and all the supremacist/nationalistic ‘ick’ that goes along with that…
I agree that teachers are not psychotherapists and should not try to be. In fact, the idea of teachers modelling themselves on this could surely be quite pernicious, albeit well-meaning. But surely what you call ‘therapy’ is not the only way to develop the aspects of self that ‘progressivists’ seem to be concerned with (which you identify as creativity, resilience, critical thinking etc.)
It seems to me that when we teach a ‘rigorous academic curriculum’, if it is indeed a rigorous curriculum and not a tokenistic one (ie. it goes further than requiring pupils to regurgitate facts and mimic a teacher’s skills, it also enlightens them about the value of these facts and leads to a deeper internalisation of these skills), then we are also implicitly teaching the features you identified as being ‘progressivist’.
To put it another way, if we teach pupils to read well so that they can approach a ‘rigorous academic text’ like Great Expectations and stick at it, then haven’t we succeeded in developing resilience? When, through modelling our thought processes in forming arguments/interpretations and supporting them, aren’t we teaching ‘critical thinking’ skills? When we teach pupils to interpret a war poem and give a personal response to what they’ve read are we not, implicitly, developing pupils’ ’empathy’?
As an (only just!) NQT with experience of teaching in only one school, I realise the limits of my perspective here, but surely there can be some way of acknowledging that most teachers who favour a ‘rigorous academic education’ believe that they are therein still supporting the wellbeing of their pupils and the development of their pupils’ sense of identity/ resilience etc.
I am an English teacher and so my focus needs to be on delivering lessons which ensure my pupils thrive in my subject area ie. that they are engaged by the subject and make academic progress because they are being made to think hard. Nonetheless, I like to think that this ‘academic flourishing’ is an important component in the child’s overall flourishing as a human being (sorry to go all Aristotelian!) I think if they learn an academic curriculum they can be empowered by this not just in terms of achieving extrinsic goals but empowered by the learning process itself – what Coetzee has called a ‘growing beyond yourself’ ( ‘The Good Story – Conversations in Truth, Fiction and Psychotherapy, Coetzee and Kurtz – v. interesting and perhaps an interesting counterpoint to the Ecclestone). Does this make me a progressivist or a traditionalist?
[…] Does this “kill off” fun? No, of course not. Children are as free as they ever were to go for walks when they’re not at school. Children will, I’m sure, continue playing Pokemon Go, watching Netflix and whatever else they enjoy regardless of the whims of either Justine Greening or Michael Rosen. The narrative that school should be about going for walks and other activities considered wholesome is just more evidence of the rot of therapeutic education. […]
[…] academic and therapeutic aims identified by Kathryn Ecclestone and Dennis Hayes in their book The Dangerous Rise of Therapeutic Education. In it they see therapeutic education as being predicated on the concept of a ‘diminished […]
I enjoyed reading this and it helped me reflect on the contribution I make to meeting pupil need. Each pupil is different and will need differing educational ‘diets’ to make a success of education. Some of our most traumatised children cannot learn and need a more therapeutic approach in order to cope with the challenges of the learning environment. Others who are affected by a short term issue may benefit from a quick chat (or two) from a nurturing adult and a swift opportunity to move on and get on with learning. The same applies to teachers and their wellbeing. What I take from this article is the need to keep a critical eye on what therapeutics can offer without being dismissive. At the same time, long term poor academic teaching can contribute to poor mental health. So it might be those teachers who have a good understanding of both academic learning and wellbeing who can identify what the actual issue is. Many thanks.