The School Curriculum Ten Years Hence - UCET: Universities ...

children; others thought that the solution lay in improved teaching
methods and better teacher-pupil communication. This took us back
to the Lawton-Pring vision of schools that were less obsessed with
control and more concerned with individual needs, interests and
development. The school as an institution needed to change, but
the culture of many schools was very difficult to reform. We were
also impressed by Susan Lewis’s description of the typical school,
with a relatively short day, closed in the evenings and at weekends,
and not available for long vacation periods throughout the year. If
we were starting from scratch it was hardly likely that we would
plan schools to operate in this way. But obsolete institutions and
practices are very difficult to alter.
In England the new Education Bill (in England) seemed to some to
present a more flexible view of the common curriculum, but others
thought that there was a danger that some attitudes to flexible
curricula might be interpreted as preparation for work for those who
were not reacting well to the academic curriculum. It would be
ironic if moves towards greater social inclusion resulted in ‘selling
some children short’ - legitimately. Similarly, we had no quarrel
with the New Labour view of the classroom as an ‘adult-rich
environment’, but were anxious to distinguish between that vision
and solutions to teacher shortages that rested mainly on providing
teacher assistants instead of professional teachers. One member of
the group - from England - pointed out that one of the functions of
teacher assistants suggested by Estelle Morris in her Social Market
Foundation Lecture was to cover for absent teachers. In desperate
situations a teacher assistant in the classroom might be better than
no one, but to see this as a solution to the problems of teacher
recruitment was extremely dangerous.
The Chair skilfully brought the group back to the main purpose of
the Symposium: to look at the future of schools and the curriculum
together with the changing role of teachers. We agreed that there
was a need to do more to break into national debates about
teachers and schooling, and to move the discussion away from the
sterile debates typical of the 1980s and 1990s about the importance
of good practice rather than sound theory. It was clear that
teachers needed both and also needed good education as well as
good training. The career structure of teachers should be seen as a
process of continuous development from initial teacher education to
induction and to professional development. Universities had much
to offer at all three stages and should be regarded as essential
partners in the process. It was also stressed that it would never be
enough to prepare teachers for schools as they are now: good
teachers must be able to cope with changes in society, in local
communities and in the needs of students.