I remember being quite taken with the ‘anti-schooling’ philosophy of education, with its emphasis on self education and the development of the whole individual, with the result of turning out what AS Neill described as ‘self-regulating individuals’. In his school, Summerhill formal lessons were compulsory, but only for the teachers. The children were free to attend, or not, as they chose. Remarkably, most children chose to attend, as the onus was on the teacher to do a decent job and keep the kids interested. I’m sure that this is the case anyway in the mainstream system we have at present, and those teachers who do manage to capture the interest of their students have few discipline problems. Children can, and do organise their own education in many places around the world, as is the case with the street schools in India – of course they are assited by adults, but it is the involvement of the children themselves in organising and planning their own education that is crucial.

Interestingly, Summerhill had no rules, bar one, which was a general prohibition of climbing onto the school roof! All else was ‘allowed’, but with the caveat that responsibility had to be taken, and damage paid for – an object lesson in actions and consequences! The vast majority of children attending Summerhill went on to be just the self-regulating individuals that Neill desired of his philosphy, both useful to themselves, and as concomitant, to wider society. Many of those children went to Summerhill as a last resort having been, in modern parlance ‘excluded’ from other schools. Critics may suggest that Summerhill worked because it was a private school. It was Neill’s regret that his ideas were not more widely available to those of limited means, who probably ended up being failed in the local Secondary Modern.

If school were a stimulating and, horror of horrors, a fun place to be, I don’t think the truancy problem would be even a fraction of its present level. After all, who in their right mind wants be corralled and made to do something that appears pointless and boring as well as apparently irrelevant to one’s future career?

Despite the advent of so called ‘Lifelong Learning’, though a laudable aim, education is still, in my opinion still far too much of an experience that ‘happens’ to an individual roughly between the ages of five and eighteen. Added to this is what I think is far too much of an emphasis on academic achievement, as if this was the only worthwhile measure of educational success or failure. Is the government’s aim to have half of all school leavers take up higher, (university) education driven by the need to look good in international league tables? Or is it the result of sound educational thinking? One can hardly blame the higher education institutes for offering the plethora of dubious courses, subject as they now are to the vagaries of the market it’s a case of bums on seats, or they don’t attract the funding. It’s ‘never mind the quality, feel the width’.

No wonder young people appear to be lacking in general knowledge, cannot spell, or use grammar in speech – how often does one hear comments like ‘less clothes’, or ‘It’s only one pound’?

I personally doubt the wisdom of allowing so many young people, mostly of a similar age, entering higher education all at the same time. Access to it should, in my view, be available to all who can take advantage of it, but how many young people around 18-years-old know what they want to do? (On the other hand, what about the 14 year-old who knows what trade they wish to pursue, but is prevented from doing so because of the ‘educational’ need to be at school – where of course, they could become bored and disruptive?) Many would be better off taking a few years out doing something else, like perhaps stacking shelves in a supermarket, sweeping the streets and getting a bit of experience of life. Only a genuine system of Lifelong Learning would accomplish this. But this would demand a radical shift in the way our society approaches the whole issue of education, and it wouldn’t be cheap.

On a final note, the issue of re-training for adults is seriously in need of consideration. Unless an individual has enough disposable income to pay for retraining, (or is fortunate enough to work for an enlightened employer) the options are very limited. For the unemployed, they are offered micky-mouse training schemes that are provided by private sector training companies that have to tender for the contract – leading to the job being done ‘on the cheap’. Up until the Thatcher asset stripping years the Manpower Services Commission offered the Training Opportunities Schemes, usually of about six months in duration, provided in government run centres to an agreed, and high standard and taught by people who had worked in the trades and skills they taught. Had these Skillcentres not been abolished perhaps the skill shortages our society now suffers would not exist?

Being the spouse of a teacher and the son in law of a former past president of the California Association of school administrators, I can tell you they both groan when they hear a politico talk about education and reform! When my father in law was a superintendent in the LAUSD California had the best schools in the US 30 years ago. Now with cuts in funding its in the bottom 5. I believe that is the case in Wales, however no one has the cojones to speak out about it because of they could endanger their political careers.

I don’t recall buy the 9/11 reason for TB not dealing with education. He did have 4 years to initiate some form of reform of the education system. However nothing that was comparable to the Butler act of 1944, or even the Forster Education Act of 1870, or even Tony Crossland’s reforms of the 1960s.

My son is due to go to school in 2.5 years time, and I am very keen to see the radical reform that I think we all think is due. Wales does have an opportunity to do so, but I am concern about a paradox in this article….

“Teachers and lecturers, already swamped with paperwork, may groan at such a suggestion. They’ve endured change after change, often with negligible benefit. Having witnessed increased workloads for their members, and greater levels of stress among them as a consequence, teaching unions are unlikely to welcome such a suggestion.”

And then…

“What we need is a complete re-think of the education system so that it delivers from when someone is born until the day they die. The existing rule book should be thrown out of the window.”

Now, we need to be clear on which one it is? A rethink is probably needed, but this must be something with a certain amount of permanence, because it is teachers buy in that will make it a success.

Teachers I would imagine are half likely to view every ‘reform’ as a flash in the pan announcement that it too short term. The foundation phase is certainly something I think is right, as is the need to identify skill shortages in the economy and make sure they are met within education – this also means adult education.