Problems of Public Education (3): Subject Hierarchy and Prescriptiveness.

By Sebastian Egerton-Read

This blog is a part of a series, they can be understood individually, but it might interest you to investigate the others if you haven’t already:

#1 Introduction: http://birminghamstudentbroadleft.blogspot.com/2011/01/problems-of-public-education-1.html

#2 Constrictions on Human Ability: http://birminghamstudentbroadleft.blogspot.com/2011/01/problems-of-public-education-2.html

Michael Gove’s most recent addition to the English system of public education is the ‘English Baccalaureate’; this is a measure that grades students for achieving ‘good’ passes in ‘good’ subjects. The measure is of how many students achieve good passes in English, Maths, a Foreign Language, Geography or History and two Science qualifications. This further narrowing of an already narrow curriculum will be absolutely detrimental to the future of so many students. This grading of certain subjects above others is based on an extremely narrow vision of intelligence and is not based on the reality of the diverseness of human potential. We have already established in a previous blog that the purpose of education should be to try and maximise human potential. Human potential extends far beyond these few subjects and the establishment of hierarchy among subjects at schools has been, and will continue to be devastating to the opportunity for many students to find their passions and talents.

Hierarchy has been engrained in our public education system from its very outset. Public education systems became essential after the industrial revolution when it was realised that the new economies would need a far larger portion of the workforce to have a more comprehensive education. Maths, Technology and the Sciences therefore started off with a higher status/value as they were the subjects that fed most directly into this particular economic climate. Now it is not fair to say that this has been stagnant, English for example is now considered to be at least as important as these other subjects, especially after the literacy teaching drive during the recent Labour government. The humanities and foreign languages have gained in importance and you might even argue that a subject like technology has possibly been reduced in importance (notice its absence from the Baccalaureate for example). However, broadly speaking the national curriculum still sets out this hierarchal structure where certain subjects are given less importance, while others are prioritised. The idea of picking only one of geography and history is an example of this, and the arts are another large category, which always finds itself at the bottom of the priority list. This subject priority is based on two main principles. The idea that certain subjects feed into the world of work more effectively, and the idea that certain subjects are of a higher intellectual value. The first of these is a simple impossibility since compulsory public education lasts for 12 years, and it is impossible to predict what the job market will look like across that sort of timespan. It also completely ignores the usefulness that a wide range of skills has to any economy. The wider societal idea that certain subjects are more ‘difficult’ or more intellectual is simply a mistake, a mistake that has been detrimental to huge numbers of people. Solving a maths equation does not require a higher level of brain activity than playing a musical instrument or playing a game of tennis for example. Human intelligence is hugely diverse and what is studied at schools must reflect that, rather than the system that is currently in place where only a very limited level of the spectrum is prioritised.

Part of this problem lies in the route of the idea of dividing learning into subjects at all. Creativity expert Sir Ken Robinson pioneers the idea that a far better way of setting up a school curriculum is through the idea of disciplines. This is far less divisive between different aspects of learning as opposed to subjects. In fact, the idea of inter-disciplinary studies opens up a huge range of possibilities in terms of improving learning techniques and making personalised learning easier and more effective. Subjects are based rather simply upon subject matter and content, and yet there is a lot more to Maths and Music than simply giving information. Disciplines encompass the idea that Maths, Music, History etc are actually made up of a complex combination of skills, processes, techniques. Information/content is just one more aspect of this. All of these disciplines have this basic structure in common and they often cross over, Music is often concerned with similar things to History and so on. This fluidity between disciplines is also far more representative of the world, where people are rarely engaged with the simple rigid ideas of a single subject, but rather deal with a plurality of experiences simultaneously.

The other problem with subjects in the national curriculum has been the over-prescriptiveness that has accompanied them. This blog will focus on the example of English to illustrate the way in which subjects can be hampered by this prescriptiveness and the inability of the curriculum to personalise education. English is a subject that has been elevated during the recent Labour government and it stands out as the humanity that is rated equally in the hierarchy to the likes of Science and Maths. This is obviously because the ability to read and write is extremely useful, especially in the media age. Within English though, there is a strong level of prescriptivism and it is associated to the same ideas of usefulness to work life and of certain aspects of English being elevated as more academic. In English, pupils are expected to write in a certain way known as the ‘Standard English’ dialect. This is one dialect amongst a huge number that exist in the UK; it is no more difficult or challenging linguistically than any other. Yet the same stigma attached to mistakes is applied to ‘incorrect’ grammar, and pupils are effectively forced into adopting one dialect, a dialect that might not be natural to them. This prescriptiveness in dialect limits the freedom of expression and often makes the experience of learning to write, which should be a liberating one, a frustrating and difficult one. A similar story is found in the way that pupils are taught to read, where certain books and writing are prescribed as being more worthy of study or of a higher value. This is in spite of the fact that judgement of the quality of literature is a wholly subjective experience. This all combines to make English an unnecessarily arduous subject and rather unappealing to many pupils. This is also carried on in English through degree level, where an ‘academic style’ is required, a style which is not only narrow, but has a limited association with the everyday language that people speak. This idea of a ‘higher’ dialect of English also influences a whole range of subjects/disciplines like History for example, where often the ‘quality of English’ is equally prioritised alongside content and actual ideas in exams/essays. 

Similar case studies can be done for all of the subjects. Physical Education has a social stigma attached to it with certain sports/activities being valued higher, not just amongst each other, but also between the sexes (Boys play football, girls play netball). Exercise is extremely healthy, not just physically, but also mentally and often socially as well. Physical activity is natural, but the social stigma created in PE lessons puts off a huge number of students not just from the subject, but also physical exercise altogether. If human potential is to be maximised, then the diversity of individual disciplines must be recognised and exploited. The way that these disciplines are then taught to our children must be personalised and must be interactive if students are to discover their talents and passions. This subject hierarchy and prescriptiveness is in part a result of a narrow national curriculum and huge amounts of standardised testing, but it is also based on out dated ideas of human ability and methods of education. Switching to a structure of wide-ranging disciplines will not only create a far more logical education structure that exploits human potential, but it will make the personalisation so dearly needed easier to implement.