Transversal
Study Visit
Visit No: 167
Creativity or Accountability?
A Philosophical Dilemma
Visit Title: Creativity and the
Curriculum
Bratislavia, Slovakia
17-19th May 2011
Transversal Study Visit
Creativity and the Curriculum
Hosts: Zuzana Fatulova, Ľubica Bagalová
Bratislava, Slovakia
17th – 19th May 2011
Table of Contents
Preface
Section 1
The Tension between Creativity and Accountability
Section 2
The Tension Explained
Section 3
Two Exemplar Countries
England –accountability of Standardised Testing
Slovakia –accountability of the Inspection Process
Section 4
The Role of Accountability in other EU countries
Bucking the Trend - Finland
Section 5
The Solution – Changes in Accountability Structure
Conclusions
Creative Curriculum or Creative System?
G. Rutherford
Headteacher
Wyche CE School
Malvern, Worcestershire
1
Preface
This report is written based on the views and thoughts of the participants on the study
visit. In that sense the opinions expressed are those of the individuals on the course
and whilst they have not sought to be disingenuous one must accept that their views
are their own personal take on the education systems and not necessarily a fair or
representative reflection of their country’s education policy. However, there was
enough convergence of thought amongst the members of the group to convince me
that the tension between accountability and creativity needs to be addressed, with
some urgency, throughout the European Union. Where opinions were vague or a little
unclear then clarity was sought from the INCA (International Review of Curriculum
and Assessment) a rich resource of international comparison. Any data used from the
website is referenced throughout the document.
The Key Issue: The Tension between Creativity and Accountability
It is said that within any organisation are soown the seeds for its own destruction. At
present much of the current philosophy driving the Education systems throughout
Europe seem to be in danger of imploding. The issue arises from the desire to embed
a dual focus of creativity and accountability into the curriculum. Whilst it may be true
that publicly funded institutions need to be accountable to stakeholders in the wider
society, it is also true that few would question the need for any curriculum in the 21st
Century to have creativity at its heart. However what does not seem to have been fully
appreciated is that when these two fundamental areas are set within the full orb of an
education system, they are totally juxtaposed; the one thwarting the purpose of the
other. Therefore much of the current educational policy developed within the member
states of the EU has a destructive tension built within its very core.
The Tension Explained
In many countries schools are recognising the need for the curriculum to reflect the
needs of the 21st Century. Pioneering work of brain research along with a recognition
that the world has entered a new socio-economic phase with the technological
revolution, all point to the fact that the Victorian model of education based on
preparing students for an industrial based world is no longer appropriate in our current
society. It is not surprising to find therefore, that most of the developed world have
undertaken a rigorous process of curriculum reform at the Primary School level in the
past decade, the exceptions being; England, Germany, Hungary, Sweden and
Australia. (Inca Comparative Tables November 2010) Many of the reforms centre on
creating a curriculum that focuses less on discrete academic subjects and more on
areas of learning, with a greater emphasis on the skills and personal learning
attributes. Along with England “Only two countries organise the primary curriculum
by subjects. In its reforms, Slovenia retained subjects- but sought more crosscurricularity in implementation. In the first stage of its primary curriculum, Norway
moved from areas to the subjects already used in the second stage –to improve
continuity” (Primary curriculum change: directions of travel in 10 countries) This
shift focuses on the need for schools to develop a greater creativity within the
curriculum in response to the societal changes of the modern age. All the participants
on the study visit applauded any moves made towards this.
2
However alongside this all the countries in the Inca study have also developed
standardised national assessment over the past decade. Reform in this area has been
more prolific than that of curriculum reform. All countries bar France have developed
a robust and rigorous standardised national assessment. In most countries these focus
on the basics of Maths and the Literacy of the Mother tongue. However other
countries have widened the tests to include other subjects, for instance Sweden takes a
sample of subjects and tests them across selected schools.
The issue relates to the tension found between these two fundamental building blocks
of educational policy and whilst they may not seem at first sight to be at odds with
one another, the reality paints a very different picture.
Two Exemplar Countries
Nowhere has this been more amply illustrated than in two EU countries;
1. England has a recent tradition of using rigorous testing within primary schools to
hold schools accountable in Numeracy, Literacy, and until recently, Science.
2. Slovakia has sought to move the curriculum forward creatively but has found its
work thwarted by the regime of a rigid school inspection programme.
The United Kingdom – The accountability of Standardised Testing
Since 1991 the schools in the United Kingdom have administered
tests for children at the ages of 7, 11 and 14. These dovetail into tests held by national
exam boards for children leaving school either at 16 or 18. Whilst the majority of
schools are not averse to the occasional testing of children to provide an element of
objectivity for their teacher assessments, the real nub of the debate lies in how the
data is used. Each year the results are published in league tables which, according to
the government, provide a clear picture to parents of those schools who achieve well
and are therefore providing a quality education. In the early days of the league tables
no account was given to the socio-economic differences between schools. To this end
the tables looked more like a presentation of socio-economic statistics than true
attainment scores. The truth is that England is a highly socially divided country. In the
developed world only the USA is more divided (Income Equality measured by the
National Gini Coefficient Office for National Statistics.) and therefore the obvious
conclusion is that schools generally reflect the socio-economic status of their
catchment area.1 The government sought to address this issue by creating a
“Contextual Value Added” measure which attempted to level out socio economic
differences by measuring the progress of individual children but whilst they have the
appearance of being intrinsically fairer the scores remain flawed in the eyes of many
in the profession.
However the real issue relating to this debate is not the inequality of the results or the
political philosophy driving the government’s desire to compare school against school
1
Of course socio-economic factors do not explain standards in all schools and should never be used as
an excuse for under performance. Ofsted report regularly on schools in socially challenging areas
which attain remarkable standards and these schools counter any notion that children from certain
backgrounds are unable to achieve. Research shows clearly that lack of aspiration both in schools and
individual children are a key determining factor in academic success. Similarly there are great
disparities of attainment in middle-class, aspirational schools areas. These reflect systemic issues
within individual schools and for the sake of children in these schools the issue of attainment should be
addressed with great speed and great rigour
3
but its impact on creativity, within the curriculum. Since the introduction of the
testing regime and the high stakes they present in terms of the school’s standings both
in the league tables and thereby in the wider community, schools have tended to focus
much of their time and energy in raising attainment in the subjects that are tested;
namely Literacy and Numeracy. As Howard Gardner points out “Current approaches
almost inevitably push people to teach to the test because those tests are such high
stake for students and teachers” (NEA journal, 1999)
This has had two major impacts on education
1. In 1997, only 63% of pupils at Key stage 2 (age 11, final year of primary school)
managed to achieve level 4 in the literacy SATS tests and only 62% in the
numeracy SATS. By 2006, these figures were 79% and 76% respectively. Whilst the
government applauds the rising attainment of children in these two core
curriculum areas many are sceptical of the real progress made. There are many
academics who feel that the only real progress has been made in the school’s
ability to train children in test technique. Dylan William stated that 'There are
many children who can reach Level 4 in May of Year 6, but cannot reach the same
level a year later, because they'd been coached for the tests.” Furthermore
independent studies by “The Curriculum, Evaluation and Management Centre” at
Durham University between 1997 and 2002 found no evidence of improvement in
literacy and only meagre improvement in maths, despite significant rises in Key
Stage 2 test scores. (Performance Indicators in Primary Schools Project). The
truth would appear to be that schools have placed a greater focus on the tests and
have simply become more astute at getting the children to jump through the
testing hoops rather than there being any true rise in attainment. The Statistics
Commission discredited the rise in national test scores claiming much of this
could be “attributed to external factors, including teaching to the test” (Statistics
Commission: Measuring Standards in English Primary Schools, 2005)
2. The more worrying trend relates more specifically to the thesis of this document
and it is that schools have spent more time driving a political agenda of “Raising
Standards” at the expense of looking at the wider curriculum. Consequently the
curriculum in England has become centered around two subjects (admittedly two
key subjects) but has lost the balance it had previously. Many flirt with developing
a creative curriculum and look at broadening skills across a range of curriculum
subjects but quickly recede when they face the reality that whilst they may make
great gains in these areas, there is nothing in the system that will commend them
for this. Consequently they withdraw back into the comfort zone of those subjects
for which they know they will be held ultimately accountable. QCA reported that
there was a; “Shrinkage of both the whole curriculum and also within the literacy
and numeracy curricula, in order to focus on what is tested. (QCA Annual Report
2003/2004 Times Educational Supplement 27th April 2007) A research project for
the Department for Education itself found that Year 6 teaching was 'dominated by
intensive periods of test preparation'. (Beverton et al. DfES Research Report 669
2005). There is little doubt in the minds of classroom practitioners that the heavy
emphasis on SAT results legislates against schools taking risks with the
curriculum. This has been amply demonstrated by the government in Wales who
are probably the only country in the world to buy into the “school accountability”
philosophy and then to backtrack from it. The Welsh assembly scrapped SAT
4
testing in 2004, their report on SAT testing stated the following; “Much of the
evidence received focused on the ways in which the current form of testing had
impacted upon the curriculum. The group has considered whether the testing, in
terms of the hard data it gives is of sufficient value to compensate for the evident
impoverishment of pupil’s learning” (Chapter 3.4) Let us be clear it is not that
schools don’t recognise the need to be accountable to stakeholders, nor do they
underestimate the role of assessment in the learning process it is just that as Jane
Davidson the Welsh education minister states “the challenge is to get the right
kind of testing and assessment." Whilst Wales frees itself from the shackles of an
overbearing testing regime the philosophical contradictions continue within the
English system. In 2008 Barry Sheerman, the Commons School Select
Committee's chairman, noted the damage being done by an education system
"where the success of a child, of a teacher, or a school is linked to testing, testing,
testing" He continued "There is something wrong with the amount of testing and
assessment we are doing, the quality of testing and assessment that we are doing,
and unseen consequences of that testing on the whole school culture," (Graeme
Paton, Education Editor, Daily Telegraph 11 May 2008.) Whilst there has been a
constant voice into government from a wide range of sources of the damage that
testing is delivering, the accountability monster continues to trample relentlessly
over the educational landscape destroying all sense of creativity in its path.
Slovakia – The accountability of the Inspection Process
The Slovakian experience is most insightful for which I thank Martin Kríž, from the
National Institute of Education who gave a very candid appraisal of the creative
curriculum in his country. Slovakia, like most of the developed world has created a
curriculum which hinges on the areas of learning beyond the pure academic. There
was a shift in the legislation of 2008 towards a curriculum that moved away from pure
knowledge acquisition to the role of the learner and the development of personal
skills. The curriculum hinged on three competencies; Lifelong learning, Solving
problems and Social and Personal skills. In the latter the document stated that
“Students are aware their personal responsibility in the team, and are able to
participate creatively on achieving the common goals” To facilitate this they
developed a tripartite curriculum on three distinct levels. The National Curriculum,
which was centrally controlled and outlined a bare minimum of content that children
should cover in age related terms. The School Curriculum which they described as a
“route map” where schools could develop a framework for teaching and learning
appropriate for their own particular setting. Finally the Teacher’s Curriculum sought
to devolve authority to the classteacher to organise how the “milestones” of learning
were to be attained.
It would appear to me that the education department had a clear and cohesive
education philosophy that underpinned their thinking and at least on paper the
curriculum looked to the outside world as a major break through in curricular
development. However as Martin pointed out in his address “You can have a
document, you can have a policy, but implementing it is a different thing”
The new curriculum hit various obstacles. The first hurdle was seeking to get the
support of headteachers to develop a school curriculum for themselves. They took the
approach that this was the role of government and that theirs was one of strategy
implementation. This may well be exacerbated by the fact that Slovakia comes from a
5
long political tradition of totalitarianism and so the element of personal autonomy
would be new and fresh to many governmental employees. This may well be true but
the same pattern occurs in the England which conversely has had a long history of
democratic thinking and yet headteachers appear to want to abdicate the role of
curriculum leader and fulfil the more mundane and routine role of curriculum
manager. Consequently the Slovak schools saw the skeletal National Curriculum as
lacking the necessary support to deliver a full and rich curriculum in the classroom.
The teaching profession demanded more central prescription.
Despite these downsides there were a significant number of schools who saw the 2008
reforms as a golden opportunity to take their own schools forward into fresh realms of
creativity. They grasped the concept of the School Curriculum and developed a
curriculum that was child centred seeking to“increase manual, creative, art and
psychomotor (interpersonal) skills…” (Quote from National Curriculum: Objectives
of Education 2008)
All seemed to be going well in these schools until they were inspected. The inspection
teams had not kept pace with the changes in terms of the philosophy and the
pedagogy underpinning the new educational initiatives. They took the National
Curriculum and read it prescriptively taking out all the aspects of it they could
measure and used these to drive the inspection. They also delved into the guidance
(which was not statutory) and used these elements to judge schools by. In short, as the
creative schools integrated curricular elements that had moved away from the narrow
measurable elements the inspection team found it difficult to quantify the attainment
of the children in terms that could measure. As Einstein rightly says “Not all that
counts can be counted” and this was one of those scenarios. The true depth of learning
in these schools was evident to all but not quantifiable in terms of an inspection
process. Creative schools throughout Slovakia were slated in reports and this sent
shockwaves through the educational community. Schools started to move back to
safer ground and move away from a creative curriculum to one where they could
demonstrate tangible progress in terms of learning. As Slovakia is developing a more
robust national testing culture many schools found solace in this and thus, just as in
England, the curriculum has become narrowed and limiting for the children in many
schools. As one of the Slovakian delegates at the conference said “We had creative
schools but we did not have creative inspectors”
The Perfect Storm – The UK and the tripartite problem
The UK serves as a prime example of an education system that has become totally
embroiled in the elements of accountability and has a tripartite problem. It was one of
the first countries to develop national standardised tests and has become a leader in its
field in this regard. It also was one of the first to use these results to hold schools to
account publically through the use of published league tables. Like Slovakia it has a
robust inspection team but whilst its evaluation schedule has laudable statements on
the curriculum and the manner in which schools might develop their own locally
based model for teaching and learning, there is no confidence in the teaching
profession that inspection teams look much further than the SAT scores when
assessing and evaluating schools effectiveness. The final nail in this tripartite coffin is
that unlike many of its European counterparts, the government’s admission policy has
loosed the boundaries of the local catchment areas and we have entered the realms of
“parental choice”.
6
This cocktail of policy decisions has led to a system that is based less on secure
educational pedagogy and more upon a philosophy borrowed from the world of
economics; the free market economy. The reality is that now schools are held so
publically to account that all parents feel they have quantifiable evidence for which
school they believe is the “best” in their locality. This encourages the more mobile
and aspirational in society to “select” the best schools thereby providing a potentially
selective education system. The only curtailing of total selectivity is the admissions
criteria that offers preference to those in the school’s catchment area. The principle
being that the better schools will thrive and the poorer will be driven to attain the
standards of those schools around them. Whilst it might be an excellent business
model it is doubtful whether these principles work effectively in a social setting. This
philosophy exacerbates the attainment divide between schools and leads politicians to
feel that some schools are “failing” and thus must be made more “accountable.” So
the accountability machine continues to grind its way relentlessly through the
education landscape without anyone standing back from it all and to consider what it
is creating.
The Role of Accountability in other EU states
Despite the warnings heralded within the Slovakian and the English system the rest of
Europe seems to be heading like lemmings towards the precipice of creative oblivion.
All the participants on the study visit were of one mind that their own education
systems were moving towards the heavy accountability end of the spectrum and in
that sense are treading the path that countries like England have trod before them. All
despaired of these developments and whilst they were comfortable with schools being
accountable they sensed that the moves towards accountability would also deliver a
corresponding narrowing of the curriculum. The one country that stood out from this
trend was Finland, they predict no major changes on the horizon and as we see below
currently have no national tests or any inspection process at present.
In summary the countries are moving in the following directions:
Sweden: Sweden has a new education minster with an army background. He is firmly
committed to following the accountability agenda and has made moves in this
direction already. Currently there is no standardised testing on a national level but this
is being debated at present. Whilst schools are inspected and the reports published
they are low key and parents are not yet in the mentality of dissecting their findings.
This is probably due to the fact that, at present, admissions policy is driven by strict
catchment area criteria so there is no parental choice. There was a feeling that this too
was due for change.
Belgium: Belgium has testing and the results are published, they also have
inspections. These are held regularly and schools are graded in three categories;
positive, negative or somewhere in between the two. If a school has three negative
inspections then funding is withdrawn from that school. Therefore inspections have
become high stakes in the educational community.
Spain: Spain at present has no national testing regime and at present has no formal
inspection process that drives the accountability agenda in the same way other
countries.
Germany: Whilst Germany has no SAT testing they have a selective system for their
secondary education, these results are not tabulated or used to compare schools but
7
they are used internally to challenge schools. Inspections are held every 5 years but
they are very low key. The inspection team may make suggestions to the school but
there is no accountability related to the process. If the team returns in 5 years and
nothing is changed then no admonishment is undertaken.
Italy: Italy has no external inspection process. The headteacher has to write an
internal evaluation of the school but by definition this will be subjective in its nature.
Whilst the senior management teams in schools have access to data they rarely use it
in the rigorous manner in which English schools might, to drive up performance.
There are no external tests for any subjects in Primary schools. The Italian
government are looking towards reform but want to free up the curriculum rather then
develop a heavy centralised model
Slovakia: Slovakia has a robust inspection model (see above) and has recently
established The National Institute for Educational Measurements. This organisation is
developing a raft of standardised tests which they impose on schools. In 2007 this
involved just a sample of children but increasingly the tests will become for all
children. Again the results are published for all parents to read and like the UK they
have developed a tentative model of parental choice as an admissions policy
Slovenia: Slovenia has yet to move towards standardised testing but the feeling was
once again that it is somewhere in the government’s thinking for the future.
Inspections were also low key at present.
Bucking the Trend - Finland
Finland stood out as being the one education system that did not appear to be
interested in following the “accountability” route. The representative on the Study
visit from Finland was Mikko Hartikainen, who worked for the Finnish National
Board of Education in Helsinki. He found the whole concept of schools being pitched
against each other in a seemingly competitive market somewhat repugnant. His
emphasis, and that of his country, appeared to be more based on the rationale that
headteachers are the ones best placed to judge their own schools in conjunction with
peers from within the education system. They are favourably placed in the PISA
tables and one suspects that the principle underlining their stance is “If it ain’t broke
don’t fix it”
The Finns do not have any standardised testing in their primary schools and therefore
have no league tables for parents to interrogate. They also have no national inspection
system. The key is that they are able to deliver on the basics of education without
feeling the need to place undue and sometimes unfair pressure on those in the
teaching profession or those leading their schools. The important point to draw from
this is that there is an alternative to the over centralised model of accountability that
the rest of Europe seems to be heading headlong into.
It may be true that there are cultural aspects to Finland’s success and also why they
are able to develop the education system they have. They have one of the smallest
income gaps in the world. (Income Equality measured by the National Gini
Coefficient Office for National Statistics) All teachers have a Masters degree and
teaching is held in high regard socially, on an equal footing with law and medicine.
Indeed in 2010 it was harder to get onto a teaching training course than to get into
medical school. Class sizes tend to be smaller and of course the whole education
system deals with only 600,000 children compared to England’s 7 million. Whilst
some of these maybe contributing factors one suspects that it is their ability to get the
macro picture right that allows the creativity and true learning to flourish so
successfully. As the phrase goes “You don’t make a pig fat by keep weighing it” and
8
it is maybe that England and the rest of Europe should stand back and ponder on
whether the money spent on testing would be better spent on teaching.
The Solution
Any solution lies in a correct analysis of the problem. The two strands of
accountability and creativity are diametrically opposed to each other. The issue
remains at present that one leads one down a narrow path of core subject assessment,
the other opens up a potentially broader and more enriching path. Governments must
recognise the tension between these opposite forces and also recognise that they
themselves have created the data crunching monster that devours the creativity within
the system. At present there does not seem to be the will amongst politicians to
recognise that these two forces moving through schools are juxtaposed to each other
in their purpose.
So whilst there is huge complexity in the accountability debate there is a sense of
clarity in the broad brush stroke solutions if one accepts the premise that the current
accountability model suppresses creativity. The following may be good starting points
for any debate on the subject.
(i) Remove the Accountability Structure
Whilst maybe not the preferred option of politicians it is one that some countries have
chosen. As we have seen Finland has never had inspections but still enjoy a place at
the top of the PISA table. Hungary on the other hand decided in an unprecedented
move to remove the inspection system when they found it stifling the curriculum they
wished to promote in schools. One can readily appreciate that for countries such as
Britain who have travelled a far distance down accountability road, this may well be a
bridge too far at present.
(ii) Change the Emphasis
If the inspection service is subservient to the government, in the sense that their role is
to monitor the effectiveness of education policy and standards on the ground then the
gap between education philosophy and the inspection process should be significantly
narrowed. The Slovakian government found to its cost that the inspection process
(although flawed by its own definition) held greater teeth than the curriculum written
on the paper. So whilst the curriculum was innovative, forward thinking and creative
if professionals are to be judged by other criteria they will focus on the latter rather
than the former. The Slovakians have returned to the drawing board and are re-writing
elements of their National Curriculum but maybe a better way forward would be to
train the inspectors in monitoring the new curriculum. The problem is that much of
the richness of the creative curriculum does not rest on hard data but relies on an
element of subjectivity, which does not satisfy those who want to reduce school
performance to a set of numbers to make comparisons between schools clearer. If the
premise of this report is correct there is a simple choice to be made. Release schools
into the freedom of a creative curriculum and monitor that with all its inherent flaws
and difficulties, or pursue the current narrow path. Whatever we do we cannot
pretend, as we appear to believe at present, that we can have both – this is plainly a
logical contradiction.
(iii) Highlight the Support Element
9
The other option is to undertake the model of countries like Denmark where the
purpose of inspection is to be “an inspiring counterpart to all who work with
strengthening the quality within schools in order to offer the pupils the best
possibilities to develop socially, academically and personally (SICI European
Inspectorates’ Profiles: Denmark, 2009) The accountability rests on the fact that the
school has stakeholders at many levels who input into the school, from the inspection
team through the local education authorities to parents themselves. In this sense it is a
multi-faceted model but the school itself remains ultimately responsible for quality of
the education it provides for its children. The emphasis is upon building a secure and
deep rooted “evaluation culture” into the system.
The Spanish inspectorate has a similar remit it does not… “aspire to classify schools
but rather to help them know themselves more deeply” (SICI European Inspectorates’
Profiles: Spain, 2009). Similarly in Northern Ireland the inspectorate’s explicitly
stated mission is principally to ‘promote improvement’
The Czech Republic, like the Hungarians saw the immense damage that the
overburdening accountability inspections were doing to their system. So they divided
the inspection process into three sections some of which are made public but others
are reserved solely for internal debate.
There is precedence for change in this area. Singapore develop an inspection system
in the 1980’s that emphasised accountability. It contributed to the raising of standards
in test scores but led schools to focus too much on examination results. In 2000 the
country made a switch to a self-evaluative process with a “system of rewards to
encourage and motivate” SICI European Inspectorates’ Profiles: Singapore, 2009)
At present most countries have adopted a pattern of inspecting the schools with the
greatest need. In England Ofsted also undertake subject inspections and these feed
into the wider educational community as guidance documents for good practice. It
may sound counter intuitive but if inspections are to become a key element of support
for schools it maybe that the best schools should be inspected more frequently and
“decisions about which schools to inspect should be determined by a view about
which have most features from which others can learn” (G Penzer, 2009)
(iv) Change the Accountability/Improvement Balance
There is a logical conundrum in one individual or one organisation fulfilling the dual
roles of support and accountability. This conflict of interest will just drive schools
back into protection mode when dealing with the personnel they feel is ultimately
holding them to account. As Geoffrey Penzer points out “To a significant degree, the
requirements of accountability and improvement are in tension with each other.
Accountability looks outward from the school towards government and other
stakeholders and aims to be an objective process. Improvement may be measured
objectively, but it is achieved subjectively. There is a tendency to expect inspection to
be all things to all people… no one has yet found a way to achieve this. (School
Inspections What Happens Next, 2011)
Within this model it might be possible to separate the two roles of support and
accountability. In England in years past the Local Education Authority provided
support for the schools on the ground whilst Her Majesty’s Inspectors (HMI) would
10
monitor, regulate and moderate the standards throughout the wider system, a model
containing support and accountability in equal measure.
The key is the removal of the overbearing nature of the inspection process which
quenches a risk-taking and innovative environment thereby preventing schools from
developing innovative methods of teaching and learning without the feeling that the
sword of Damocles hangs permanently over them.
(v) Resolve the Autonomy/Accountability Debate
There is a further tension as many national governments have come to recognise that
schools flourish when they are given autonomy. Many school systems have this built
into their DNA but others such as England developed a highly centralised model in
the latter years of the last century. There is now general agreement that local
autonomy produces the most effective results, hence the shift in thinking of the
English government; “We know that schools are most effective when they have the
autonomy to innovate and adapt to their local circumstances.” (Government White
Paper 2005) However in systems where operational independence has been devolved
to schools there has tended to be a rise in centrally based accountability. The rationale
is simple; if one offers autonomy to schools then underpinning this there must be a
safety net that ensures common minimum standards are being met throughout the
whole system. Thus the concept of autonomy becomes a double edged sword, given
with one hand and then taken away with the other through a rigid inspection system
with a clear centrally focused agenda. Governments need to find a way of squaring
this circle if they truly want school systems to innovate at a local level.
Conclusion - Creative Curriculum or Creative System?
The two exemplar countries, England and Slovakia, quoted previously illustrate the
same principle that whilst schools and teachers have in their inner most being the
desire to move towards a creative curriculum, the truth is that where the system
penalises this in such a publicly accountable manner then it takes a brave school
leader to put their head above the parapet to have it shot at by those in control of the
individual school’s destiny. The reality is that if one steps outside of the confines of
the system then you are in danger of biting the hand that feeds you, in the sense that
both the league tables in England and the inspection process in Slovakia, have the
ability to pull the school down into the mire of negative perception amongst its key
stakeholders.
The truth is that the biggest force wins and whilst classroom practitioners and school
leaders may believe passionately in creativity and a broad and balanced curriculum if
moving along that path puts them in a position where the school may at best be
publicly slated or at worse be forced to close, then it takes a headteacher with a
kamikaze mentality to pursue this goal.
11
To this end I can only draw the conclusion that it is not creative schools we need; it is
a creative educational system. One that allows those who teach and lead schools to
develop and foster the creativity they long for. If you want the beauty of a fragrant
rose to flourish and blossom you don’t grow it in a desert, nor plant it at the back of a
dark cave, by the same token if governments want to produce learners that are
creative, rich in self esteem and secure in their working relationships with others they
need to promote the right environment for this to grow. The sad reality is that in the
group report there is one salutary sentence that states “all the participants on the
study visit agreed that the European systems do not promote creativity within
education”.
What we need is governments, ministers and politicians to engage with the education
debate holistically. They need to lift their eyes above the parapet and see where
society is heading and then take the risk in developing a curriculum that meets the
needs of those attending schools in the 21st century. It may well be that in certain
areas their own education system may seem to slide in global comparative terms in
the more narrowly defined traditional standards but herein lies the choice; Do we
chase the elements of the curriculum that others deem to be important, and to be fair
probably were in decades past, or do we recognise the reality of the fact that we are in
a global technological and social revolution. Do we wake up and smell the coffee as
the phrase goes, and provide a curriculum in which children can grow and thrive not
just in school but well into adult life as global citizens in the new frontiers of this ever
changing and transforming world in which we live.
“My guess, for what it is worth, is that teachers could do with fewer rules and
regulations and more freedom to try what works for their classes”
Jamie Oliver’s reflection from his “Dream School” Project
Channel 4 Production, 2011
12