Who is better, Mozart or Monet? Bieber or Banksy? Who creates the better art?
Comparisons such as these are rather silly. But silly questions like these can have their uses; we recognise that finding a definitive answer is not the point. In this case what usually emerges is that appreciation of an art form requires attention to and appreciation of its distinctive features. And ultimately, thinking about this is more about understanding than action. It’s much the same for children, where we also want to pay attention to and appreciate the distinctive features of each child in each situation. Understanding is a critical human face of education.
But there is a crucial difference between children and art – in many cases action is required as well as understanding. While we can all have or opinions of Monet or Mozart, the answer doesn’t really matter. But questions such as Should be allow individuals to act freely, even if it damages a group? Which is more important, supporting the weakest or challenging the strongest? Which is better, competition or co-operation? Which is better, being compassionate to misbehaving students or demanding high standards? have direct operational consequences and impacts on our students, your children. So answers here really matter. Of course, that only further emphasises the critical need for understanding. In some cases, some empirical investigation is possible (as far as long-term deep learning goes, for example, co-operation generally beats competition). In others, it’s a matter of values. More important than the specifics, though, is recognizing that it’s always a matter of trade-offs. We can’t focus on just one of the options; we always need at least a bit of both. And because context is vital, we need to rely on the teachers who are closest to see issues, gather data, consult, and decide.
An perennial example – each year we monitor grade 12 students to see if any are struggling with coursework deadlines. One year, many were asking for extensions, often (but not always) for good reasons. Now, students cannot hand in their work whenever they want; we need structures, and we need to enforce deadlines – mainly because this is good for the students themselves. So firm or flexible? You’d be surprised how much schools differ in this basic notion – I have seen everything from absolute rigidity to almost total laissez-faire. In these cases we consult students, take into account any exceptional circumstances and see what we can do. Sometimes, biut not always, the grace of a few days is possible. It may be a small move, perhaps almost symbolic; but symbolism can be important, and the students have told me how much they appreciated it.
More difficult cases arise when we are dealing with individual students, where their individual needs are in tension with the needs of the whole class, year group or school. Do we support a policy of not informing universities of disciplinary incidents, when doing so would almost certainly destroy a student’s chances of acceptance? How do we weigh our obligation to the individual, against that to the group (remembering that a group is simply a collection of individuals)? Much like Bieber or Banksy? it’s a silly question, because it cannot be answered without specific attention to, and appreciation of the particular details. And further, it’s a hard question, because someone will be worse off with any decision. Philosopher Julian Baggini hits the nail on the head: This is the tragedy of the world in which goods are is genuinely plural; we cannot have all of them.
My takeaway message is that only non-silly answer to many questions is the apparently vague but actually quite wise ah, well, it depends what you really want, and actually, it’s quite complicated. So the answer has to be a conversation, not a statement. That sounds a bit like education, generally, now I come to think of it.
