Teach Like a Thespian

My love of theatre can probably be traced back to Year 5 when I played Macbeth in front of a whole-school audience, the most dramatic moment coming as I thrusted my plastic devil’s fork into James Forrester’s bollocks. The painful scream which echoed around the dinner/ PE/ assembly hall marked not only the death of King Duncan but also my short-lived aspirations of becoming a thespian.  

Fast-forward 15 years (circa 2005)...

I didn’t take the decision to become a teacher lightly. Before starting Initial Teacher Training I spent a couple of years as a youth worker and school-based learning mentor, dipping my toe in the water before making the pedagogical plunge. It was during these years that I realised teaching was indeed for me. There are, I guess, tenuous similarities between acting and teaching; the classroom a stage, the lesson a performance and the pupils making up the audience. Though, admittedly, I am yet to receive a standing ovation for my endeavours. That aside, teaching is also very different from acting. For example, you have to respond in real-time to your audience, there is a great deal of ad-libbing and there is certainly no curtain call. Teaching is so much more than a script to be delivered; it involves human interaction which, from my experience, rarely goes as plans. Which is one of the many joys of teaching. 

And yet, there are some people in education who argue in favour of fully-scripted lessons. Yes, like one would expect an actor to deliver. For clarification, scripted lessons are not merely detailed lesson plans but rather step-by-step guides for content delivery. Below is an example from Bridge International Academies (BIA) whose schools educational model has been heavily criticised for using unqualified teachers and unsanitary working conditions. What's more worrying is that Lord Nash, the schools minister, recently invited representatives of BIA for talks regarding this low-cost model of teaching. 

Supporters would argue that they are a way of 'teacher-proofing' lessons and ensure that learning becomes more efficient and effective. However, I believe scripted lessons go against what teaching is (an art/ craft) and actually reduces learning to a robotic transmission of knowledge from adult to child. Which, in light of a some reductive educational discourse, should come as little surprise. For me, scripted lessons are but another step towards the automation of teaching. Something I believe is worth fighting against. 

Although scripted lessons are still largely uncommon in the United Kingdom, there has been an increase in scripted curricula in the States following the introduction of the No Child Left Behind agenda, resulting in a huge growth in commercialised lessons and programmes. Worryingly, as we have seen with the introduction of Chartered Schools and No Excuses behaviour policies, what happens in schools in America often finds its way across the pond.  In fact, a recent Secret Teacher article highlighted how scripted lessons had been introduced to a MAT with experienced teachers being told to 'stick to the script'. This concerns me for number of reasons:

1. Scripted lessons de-professionalises teaching. You don’t need a qualified teacher to deliver a script. You just need someone who can read from a piece of paper or a tablet. Not only that but they are an attack on practitioner creativity and autonomy. It eliminates the possibilities of using dialogic teaching which has been proven to enhance learning.  
2. Children deserve better. I say that as both a teacher and a parent. I want my children to be taught by someone who has a passion for teaching and learning and not some sort of iTeacher reading mechanically from a pre-paid script.
3. This is yet another example of inviting market forces into the educational landscape. There is a lot of money to be made out of scripted curricula. I’ve written quite an extensive piece on how neoliberalism permeates every aspect of educational policy and practice in the UK, this is another nail in the coffin for public education. 

Yes, I know these views are shaped by my own biases, however, some of the research around scripted lessons hardly fills one with a great deal of confidence. In a ten year study of effective reading instruction, Allington (2002) concluded that there are no ‘proven’ scripted programmes and actually the most effective schools are those that invested time and money into developing teachers’ expertise.

Dresser (2012, p. 83) found that scripted learning programmes actually had both a negative impact on teachers and students and concluded that a 'better option to scripted instruction is to prepare teachers with the necessary knowledge, dispositions and skills to succeed'. Yes, just as Allington (2002) discovered, schools need to train teachers properly if they are to have a positive impact on children’s learning. Dresser (2012, p. 82) goes on to suggest that 'scripted programs keep education and learning at a superficial level in that they narrow opportunities for teachers and students to be innovative'. It’s fine if you don’t believe innovation to be important in the learning process but I actually think it’s at the heart of meaningful education. Dresser (2012,) concludes by arguing that the drive for standardized curricula has left many children unprepared and teachers disillusioned about their profession.

Similarly, Parks and Bridges-Rhodes (2012) have highlighted  concerns on the impact of a scripted literacy programme on a teacher's instructional practices in maths. Such as, 'the act of following a script may encourage teachers to interact in more automatic and less thoughtful ways with their children' (2012, p. 321). Moreover, 'the curriculum’s highly structured scripts made it less likely that the teacher would engage in innovative practices in mathematics, which reduced opportunities for children in the classroom to reason and problem solve mathematically' (2012, p. 308). Again, scripted lesson limit creativity, innovation and can actually detrimental to pupils’ learning. Thanks, but no thanks.

Finally, if we take a look at BIA's model, which seems to be favoured by the likes of Lord Nash. In a recent study (Riep and Machacek, 2016), the academy chain came under serious criticism of their scripted lessons with pedagogy being rendered automated, computerised and mechanised. Furthermore, it has been argued that scripted curricula in BIA schools is controlling, rigid and 'disables creativity and innovativeness' (Riep and Machacek, 2016p, p. 29). And also doesn't require qualified and experienced teachers. 

'Exemplary teaching is not a regurgitation of a common script but is responsive to children's needs' (Allington, 2002, p. 474).  The art and craft of teaching is something that is developed over time through experimentation, reflection and adaptation. By suggesting  it can be replaced by a script is not only insulting to teachers but potentially detrimental to children's learning. 

References:

Allington, R. (2002). 'What I've Learned about Effective Reading Instruction From a Decade of Studying Exemplary Elementary Classroom Teachers', Phi Delta Kappa, Vol. 83, No. 10, pp. 740 - 747.

Dresser, R. (2012). 'The Impact of Scripted Literacy Instruction on Teachers and Students', Issues in Teacher Education, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 71 - 87.

Parks, A. and Bridges-Rhoads, S. (2012). Overly Scripted: Exploring the Impact of a Scripted Literacy Curriculum on a Preschool Teacher's Instructional Practices in Mathematics, Journal of Research in Childhood Education, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 308-324.

Riep, C. and Machacek, M. (2016). Schooling the Poor Profitably; The innovations and deprivations of Bridge International Academies in Uganda. Education International. 
https://www.ei-ie.org/media_gallery/DOC_Final_28sept.pdf

Knowledge is Profit

So, it looks as though Labour will include a commitment to abolish tuition fees in their forthcoming election manifesto. The Daily Mail is furious with such a 70s Trotskyite policy, however, a number of academics have commended Labour for committing to scrap fees which, they argue, have had a devastating impact on students and universities. This post is not an economic argument for the abolition of tuition fees but rather a brief insight into the current neoliberal HE landscape and the commodification of knowledge...

The higher education sector has experienced vast changes in the past twenty years. The introduction of tuition fees in 1998 began the journey from a publicly funded system to a market driven model, where education is now dominated by growing influence of business, rising tuition fees and the commodification of knowledge (Stromquist, 2002; Giroux, 2014). Indeed, in a knowledge-based economy, knowledge is sold like any other product or service and where the state’s role in providing education has been diminished as individuals are expected to self-fund their post-compulsory educational needs (Stromquist, 2002; Davies and Bansel, 2007; Giroux, 2014). This commodification of knowledge also has led to many universities becoming Edu-Factories churning out neoliberal subjects rather than critical politically engaged citizens. 

Since their introduction in 1998, tuition fees have increased from £1,000 to £9,000; the large hike being a result of the Browne Review (BIS, 2010) which recommended increasing student choice and removing the cap on university fees. The document, written by former BP chief executive Lord Browne, made a number of  neoliberal recommendations which has led to further marketisation of higher education, most notably universities being placed into league tables and judged on every aspect of their provision. Defendants of marketisation would argue that increased competition results in greater choice and opportunities for students, however, this does come at a cost as students are increasingly becoming consumers of education with some believing that because they’ve paid for a qualification they should be automatically awarded one (Light et al., 2009; Biggs and Tann, 2011). The increase of tuition fees has also impacted upon students’ expectations of employability with some believing that they are paying for the guarantee of a postgraduate job (Bates and Kaye, 2014). However the reality is that many graduates are forced to take on low-paid/ skilled jobs while simultaneously being crippled by debt (Allen, 2015). 

HE marketisation was further entrenched with the publication of the coalition government’s White Paper,  ‘Students at the Heart of the System’ (BIS, 2011), which put greater emphasis on turning university education into a marketplace commodity with profit being placed at the heart of the system. According to the White Paper (BIS, 2011, p. 25) the main purpose of the reforms was to ‘improve the quality of students’ academic experience and to increase their educational gain’ yet it was viewed by many as another way of permitting universities to increase their fees and revenue. Moreover, it allowed part-time students to take out loans to fund their courses, suggesting the increase would widen access for many disadvantaged young people, however, it has actually led to the number of part-time students falling by 56% in five years and universities having to scrap many of their part-time courses (Fazackerly, 2017).  On the other hand, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of full-time students due to a drive to diversify student recruitment and especially increase the number of overseas students.

From the 1990s to 2016 the full-time participation rates of young people (aged 18 – 30) attending university has increased from around 15% to 48% (Light et al., 2009; Biggs and Tann, 2011; Bates and Kaye, 2014; DfE, 2016). This, it is argued, has created a system which is far less elitist and accessible to the masses than ever before (Stromquist, 2002; Light et al., 2009). This is no bad thing. However, the significant increase has also resulted in greater diversification of the student population whose backgrounds and academic ability is presenting many institutions with teaching-related challenges (Stromquist, 2002; Light et al., 2009; Biggs and Tann, 2011). One of the main reasons behind this increase has been the drive to recruit more international students who provide universities with an important source of revenue but also bring with them needs which require specialist support (Biggs and Tann, 2011; Pokorny and Warren, 2016). There has also been a drive to recruit students from disadvantaged background with the government insisting it is to support mobility, though the money they provide to the knowledge economy should not be ignored. The rising numbers and increased diversity of students has led many higher education teachers becoming overwhelmed, under-resourced and struggling to meet the demands of their role (Light et al., 2009; Pokorny and Warren, 2016). The publication of Success as a Knowledge Economy (BIS, 2016) puts even greater emphasis on giving students more choice to purchase the best knowledge that is on offer. These huge financial investments have led to an increase in students' expectations and increasing pressure on universities to offer excellent tradable products; knowledge and teaching. The growing pressures with student diversification have also led to an increase in quality assurance of teaching and learning within and across universities.

One of the consequences of government policy has been a shift in responsibility of teaching from individuals to institutions. Here, they argue, universities are now responsible for devising and implementing policies to ensure that teaching is of the highest standard and students get the excellent education for which they have paid for. According to Light et al., (2009, p. 8) the focus on teaching accountability is ‘a natural manifestation of the discourse of excellence’. This natural profession has led to the development of the Teaching Excellent Framework (TEF) which  judges universities on the quality of their provision with funding to be linked to the quality of teaching for the first time (BIS, 2016). Universities will now be judged on teaching quality, learning environment and student gains with providers being awarded either bronze, silver or gold for their provision. According to the government, this is to ensure that students are able to access the excellence in higher education, however, it has led some critics to suggest that it will be used by higher education institutions to raise fees as they market themselves as offering a superior product to their competitors (McGhee, 2016). Either way, this move represents a seismic shift in teaching and learning and may very well place extra pressure on teachers as their employers strive for the much-lauded gold status.   

Recent reforms to the higher education sector has led to widespread changes which have resulted in the creation of a corporate culture where knowledge is hugely profitable. Labour are offering a alternative narrative to the knowledge economy which could change the lives of many young people in this country and possibly dramatically change the future of education...

References:

Allen, K. (2015). 'UK graduates are eating degrees in lower-skilled jobs', The Guardian. Published on 19th August 2015. 

Bates, E. and Kaye, L. (2014). ‘‘I’d be expecting caviar in lectures’’: the impact

of the new fee regime on undergraduate students’ expectations of Higher Education’, Higher Education, Vol. 67, No. 5, pp. 655 – 673.

Biggs, J. and Tann, C. (2011). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. (4^th Edition). London: McGraw-Hill.

Davies, B. and Bansel, P. (2007), ‘Neoliberalism and education’, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 247-259.

Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) (2011). Securing a Sustainable Future for Higher Education.

Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) (2011). Higher Education: Students at the Heart of the System.

Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) (2016). Success as a Knowledge Economy: Teaching Excellence, Social Mobility and Student Choice.

Department for Education (DfE) (2016). Participation Rates in Higher Education: Academic Years 2006/ 2007 – 2015/ 2016.

Fazackerly, A. (2017). ‘Part-time student numbers collapse by 56% in five years’, The Guardian. Published on 2^nd May 2017.

Light, G., Cox, R. and Calkins, S. (2009). Learning and Teaching in Higher Education; The Reflective Practitioner. London: SAGE.

McGhee, P. (2016). ‘Will the Teaching Excellence Framework be a licence for universities to raise fees?’, The Guardian. Published on 22^nd August 2016. 

Pokorny, H. and Digby, W. (2016). Enhancing Teaching Practice in Higher Education. London: SAGE.

Stromquist, N. (2002). Education in a Globalised World: The Connectivity of Economic Power, Technology and Knowledge. Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.