Domestic science/home economics teachers
The lunacy of specialist colleges
Creativity in the corridor
From the Introduction
to Jane Grigson's 'English Food:'
'In the past food was often adulterated by unscrupulous purveyors...but at
least this was recognized as a vicious thing to do. Now our food is adulterated
and spoilt in ways that are entirely legal, even encouraged...
'And these crimes against good food are encouraged by domestic science teachers who think it is fine to teach pupils to make pies with pastry-mix and ready-prepared pie fillings. When criticized, they answer, 'We have no time; anyway at least they enable us to teach children the "manipulative skills".' What skills? The skill to turn on the tap and mix the mix to a dough? The skill to operate a tin-opener? The skill to read instructions on the packet or tin? The skill to spoon the filling into a dish? The skill to turn on the oven, a foolproof oven, to the correct temperature? Such 'manipulative skills' are usually mastered at home before school begins, or at the latest in the infant school. The development of taste and true knowledge should be the business of secondary school home economics teachers. And if they are not able to do this through bad organization of the curriculum, they should be seeking to change the system, not conniving in it and excusing themselves. I think it is ironic that the countries of Europe where you get the better food are the countries where such a subject is not taught in the usual state secondary school.'
Since Jane Grigson wrote these words, there has been the devolopment of 'food technology' courses. 'Educational' visits arranged in connection with these courses may include visits to factories where mechanically recovered meat is covered with pastry and the whole is deep frozen. Jane Grigson would have been horrified.
The school where I used to teach was, and is, a 'specialist science college.' What is the reason for the singling out, the isolation, of one subject area, sometimes more than one? (the school has now become a performing arts college as well). What are the advantages, what are the disadvantages? I think that the disadvantages vastly outweigh the advantages. Funds are disproportionately poured into one or sometimes two areas of the curriculum. This allows very many events to take place which otherwise would never take place, and supporters can point to these as evidence that the scheme is successful. Usually, of course, these supporters are from the area of the curriculum which has benefitted.
How is the area of curriculum chosen for a specialist college? By making a successful bid, by making a successful 'presentation,' in the approved way. As so often, the model is the business model, not at all an appropriate model. The skills needed for the submission may be sharply contrasted with the values, knowledge and skills of the subject area. The person who impresses when making the presentation at the overhead projector or the computer may not be the person who leads the department with the best claims to success, in any significant category.
This leads to nonsensical results and a further objection, the objection of distance. Someone who lives in a city and has done well at GCSE science (or foreign languages) is wondering where to study in the Sixth Form. The student decides not to study at the school which is very near but at a school which is much further away, because it's a specialist science (or foreign languages) college. And all because the head of the science department (or foreign languages department) was the most successful in a bid! The distant school may or may not be superior in the subject area but what is certain is that travel to the more distant school will involve more congestion, more pressure on the city's resources. I'm far from being the first person to point out the environmental objections to specialist schools. Every secondary school which offers post-GCSE education should be able to offer an adequate or more than adequate post-GCSE education. More often than not, the supposed advantages of the specialist colleges are completely unproven.
The flattering idea that creativity is overwhelmingly common and requires just a little application was represented on some very large posters I saw in the corridor on a visit to the school I attended. (This is the school led by Michael Chapman for a time.) The images showed a teacher teaching, a pupil painting, and others. It's a limited pupil who doesn't surpass his or her teacher, in time or even at the time. Sixth formers with more insight should find the slogans on the posters limited: they don't at all describe creativity:
'Creativity: something
a person or group can feel when they plan something.'
'Creativity is bright colours and expression.'
'Creativity: expressing yourself in different ways.'
'Creativity is a personal resonse to a stimulus.'
'Creativity is an expression of how you feel.'
And:
'Creativity: it can be what you want.'