When curriculum implementation turns ugly
Rare is it to see refusal and resistance in the educational policy-making
process expressed in such a radical way, yet it epitomises the zeitgeist of the
post-financial crisis age.
Forbes explains to us that the teaching system in Mexico is
uncompetitive and that as per the World Bank mantra; teachers need to professionalise
in Mexico. Furthermore, the influence of unions needs to be reduced and
performance-based systems need to introduced. PISA rankings provide us with the
proof as to the poor quality of the Mexican education system. Indeed “as global
companies invest in increasingly complex factories and service provision
centers in Mexico, demand is growing for well-educated young workers”.
Why then are the teachers angry? Most of us now are
conditioned to believe that these sets of values are highly beneficial to
society. Economic efficiency and human capital models surely improve the
livelihood of millions and take nations out of poverty. Let us examine the
possible reasons for the Mexican government to push ahead with these reforms
through another lens.
Instead of taking responsibility for the failures of the
system, the government has put the responsibility squarely upon the teachers and
their lack of professionalism instead of on the paucity of the Mexican
educational infrastructure in which certain schools do not have running water
or toilets. It may also be just be a cynical attempt to axe senior unqualified
teachers on higher salaries and replace them with cheaper and younger "qualified"
teachers.
Such demands for professionalization are also a disguised
way of cutting back on union activity and ensuring teachers go through
government-managed teacher training institutions. Such a process means that
elites gain greater control of the minds of those teachers and thus better
oversight over what they inculcate to students in the classroom. Reduced union
activity means also lower levels of leverage for teachers when bargaining will
arise in the future whether it be concerning workloads, salaries or policy
issues.
Another area of reform is the proposed performance-based
systems. These increase the precarious nature of the teaching profession thus undermining
job security. Performance targets are highly subjective and often set by those
who are not in the "profession" of education. Targets are regularly shifted
or changed dependent on political whims or interest group pressures placing
teachers in a permanent state of apprehension.
Those in managerial positions, be it inside or outside the
school, can use this system to demand more and more out of the employed staff as
failing to meet those required standards of productivity might lead to job
loss. This kind of subterfuge places workers in stress positions where they
always have to be seen (and sometimes only seen) doing more.
Maslow’s theory applies to the teaching profession as much
as to our students. If deficiency needs are not met it is impossible to proceed
to higher levels of self-actualisation through which students will benefit from
a teacher. Teachers who are not working in a harmonious workplace will not be
able to pass on such feelings to their students.
While I have discussed the micro-level implications on the
teaching profession let us consider what the macro-level ones are. The same
pressures apply in the exact same way to schools as organisations. Those that
do not meet pre-defined criteria will be shut down; the social-Darwinist vision
of society exults. The market then jumps in and fills the void.
The evolution of the strongest allows national governments,
following the “Global Elite’s” neo-liberal agenda, to unravel the welfare
system. The contract which existed previously between society and its rulers
has now been reneged upon. Access to the same quality of education was a right
for all citizens of a society in which equity and meritocracy were the
underlying foundations.
Education now becomes a for-profit enterprise allowing
companies to draw revenues from the education of citizens. Another up-side that the owners of capital
will enjoy from the privatisation of education is the reduction in taxes paid
to maintain the welfare system; in business terms, passing on the costs to the
end-user. The profiteering is three-fold, as on top of making future employees
pay for their education, enjoying reductions in capital operating costs, new
privately owned schools better meet the needs of the corporations instead of
those of the children. The workers of tomorrow will better fit the mould
necessary to perform efficiently in their production tasks.
To conclude, those proponents of the liberalisation of
education seem to have forgotten other aspects of economic theory. Performance-based
systems as an economic model are often flawed resulting in distortions. For
instance pay-per-unit-produced systems have been introduced in the past in
factories in order to increase productivity. The theory being that the more we
incentivise a worker’s rate of production the higher their gross output will
be; if we are paid a flat rate whatever our output is, we will simply loaf
around, whereas if we are paid by the unit we will try and produce as many
units as possible.
The problem is people often cheat (see article below) or cut
corners to achieve those targets, especially if they are unrealistic,
unachievable or workers are nervous about the consequences that below-par
productivity might have on their employment prospects. The result is that while
there is a rise in quantitative output qualitative measures of productivity
suffer. Each unit produced is done so in a poorer fashion. In education we talk
about the backwash effect or teaching to the exam; the aim is no longer to provide
authentic learning opportunities but to meet targets.
Lastly, performance-related systems fail to take into account
a swath of imponderables; factors and variables that economics simply cannot
quantify. The human being is, human. As educators we often talk about intrinsic
and extrinsic motivation and how the former is preferable. Economists prefer to
focus on the latter as it easily manipulable in experimental conditions. We can
change the variables and work out causality just like a scientific experiment.
For the high priests of the market only that which is observable on the outside
is relevant and of scientific worth the inner workings of the mind and the soul
are irrelevant. Like a Pavlovian experiment teachers can be conditioned
too.
Yet it is slowly dawning on some in the school of
behavioural economics that economics is less science than social. As is the
case with every student being unique, so too is every teacher. Each and every
teacher acts on different impulses and motivations which explain his or her
actions. Many teach because of their passion; maybe there is a market for this
too.
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/sep/14/ravens-wood-school-marks-investigation
Post-scriptum:
This an opinion piece and not an academic paper therefore I have not included references though there are many which influence this piece of writing and frame it's analysis. Feel free to ask should you wish.
No comments:
Post a Comment