Can Pupils Have Agency in What they Learn and How they Learn it? Should they?

My #BrewEd session at the NEU #celebratingeducation conference, 2019

This year (2019), for the first time since studies began, young people spent more time online than watching TV.  According to the study, half of the time young people spent online was spent on YouTube.  Amazingly, a big proportion of their time on YouTube was spent watching ‘how-to’ videos! Young people are choosing to educate themselves with knowledge which they consider to be powerful.  

This reflects a broader trend of people who feel like they want more control over their lives. Netflix has more than148 million users and is producing a huge amount of content in-house based on the viewing habits of subscribers.  People are choosing to watch the content that they like, when they like it, rather than be bound to a restrictive broadcast schedule. This in turn encourages the creation more content aimed at their tastes.  87 million people stream music on Spotify rather than buy albums.  Trump and other populists around the world are winning votes from people because they feel that globalisation has created a world which happens to them, rather than one in which they have agency.  The successful Vote Leave campaign focused on the slogan of ‘take back control!’.

In addition the ‘online review’ revolution has greatly influenced the way we make decisions. Young people today are used to being asked to give their opinions on the things they consume.  When I go on holiday these days, the first think I do is search ‘best restaurants in x city’ and then read the customer reviews. Students can even do this for schools on Google Maps and for teachers on Rate My Teacher.  

In contrast are we, as an education system, telling students to leave their opinions and initiative at the school gates?  When they walk into the school building they are told where to go, when to go there, what they will be doing when they get there and who they will be going there with. Increasingly, there are examples of schools shortening lunches, enforcing silence during transitions and excluding students for having a certain haircut further reducing any control over the school day.

In this context, the traditional school curriculum looks increasingly out of date.  It is the TV with four channels. It is the album you buy with 12 tracks (of which you like 3).  It is the external force making you feel powerless.

However, there is a valid argument against schools which give students agency over their learning and the development of the curriculum.

It can legitimately be argued that, although the world has changed dramatically on the surface, humans are still humans and feel the same emotions as they did 2500 years ago. Shakespeare’s portrayal of the feelings of unrequited love, the Greek Tragedies exploring the conflict between the rational and emotional feelings we all grapple with and the laws of nature have not changed at all.  

The traditional curriculum is not only still valid, it is still relevant. Perhaps in a hyper-individualised society, the traditional curriculum is, in fact, more relevant than ever - culture is, after all, a shared story.  What would the world be like if we all knew different stories from school.  Could we still converse at a dinner party? Isn’t Game of Thrones / Luther / Peaky Blinders better when you can talk about it with other people?  

Nothing kills a conversation quicker than ‘I’ve not seen it…’.

Linked to this is an argument against complete free choice.  Yes, young people are watching how-to videos on YouTube about things that they want to learn about (the most popular are make-up tutorials), but are they missing out on how-to videos about how to be happy with how you look naturally (which perhaps not many want, and which are less instantly gratifying, but would arguably have a more positive impact?).  What about all of the great films people are missing out on because the algorithm has picked up that they like action films with Nicolas Cage? Is my music knowledge less diverse now that Spotify only ever plays me 90s indie?  Shouldn’t school be about broadening horizons, rather than simply delivering what the user wants?

‘Just Google-it’ also doesn’t stand up to criticism.  I can Google the date of the Battle of Hastings, but what does that mean I now know?  What if I Googled the ‘story of the Battle of Hastings’? Well now I would surely be overwhelmed.  These days, if anything, we have too much information at our fingertips - we are suffering from a crisis of infobesity.  Schools have a duty to curate the information and sequence it so that students have the ability to make sense of the world around them.

Surely a ‘Third Way’ is possible?

The word ‘curriculum’ is derived from the Latin ‘currere’ which refers to the course of a race. Schools today are 100 metre sprints.  A rush along a straight line in which each student has to follow a set course.  The curriculum could be more like the Race Around the World.  A set start and end point, with set rules and check-ins, but much more like an adventure with lots of options for detours and chances to admire the view.

One of the ways to do this is to based a curriculum around the ‘Head, Heart and Hand’.

Education of the 'Head’ is the curriculum area based around more traditional subject domains.  This element of our curriculum ensures students leave school with a good grounding of knowledge which has been carefully sequenced into a narrative upon which students can add further knowledge in the future.  It also ensures that we have a shared set of stories (as teachers and students) to use in conversations. 

However, students can still have agency in a number of ways:

• Curriculum tunings - These are scheduled sessions in which teachers present their curriculum plans.  This enables students (and other members of staff) to give their feedback on planned schemes of work and assessment methods.  Of course, it is up to the teacher how much of the feedback they use to inform their planning. Subject teachers, as the experts, make the final decisions. We don’t have to act on all the feedback, but surely we can make better decisions with more information?
  

• Dialogic classrooms - A strong focus on oracy is another opportunity to advance student agency.  'Head' lessons will include conversation to enable students to develop their understanding of the knowledge they have acquired.  Walking around a school such as this, you see many teachers delivering content through direct instruction, but you also see students discussing and working with peers.  Teachers should have a broad toolkit which can employ different pedagogical techniques depending on the content. I would question the teacher who decides to plan a project with the aim of students learning times tables as much as I would question the teacher who expects students to play an instrument through factual tests and direct instruction of the history of the trumpet!
  

• Dialogic staffroom - teachers are also encouraged to debate the knowledge which is being taught.  I would argue it is not possible to develop a culture of student agency, without teacher agency. Even if it possible, it would not be desirable.  We are missing an opportunity if we fail to tap into the broad experience of our students and teachers. Despite the move towards compliance, I think schools should be broad churches - with staff who, like society as a whole, believe in a range of education philosophies. This should be encouraged, not seen as a problem.

Education of the 'Hand’ is the project elective curriculum.  This aspect of our curriculum ensures students (and teachers) have the opportunity to work in an interdisciplinary way with a focus on a real-world outcome - something which makes a difference to the world.  

• Project tunings - same process as the curriculum tunings (see above!)

• Teacher preference - this aspect of our curriculum allows teachers to work in a cross disciplinary way.  For example, an English teacher and a drama teacher can collaborate on a script writing project.  A science teacher can collaborate with an art teacher to deliver a project which explains complex scientific concepts using stop motion animation.  

• Student preference - the projects developed by the teachers are then put to students who list their preferences.  Teachers make the final choice, but the aim, as much as possible should be to give students their first choice of project - this enhances student buy-in. Students who don’t fill in the preference form by the deadline learn a valuable democratic lesson - if you don’t vote, you don’t get a say! The student preference form allows students to have a voice in a more subtle, almost market-driven way - a bit like the data Netflix can draw on, we can get a snapshot of the interests of a particular cohort. Again, this does not mean anything needs to be changed, but surely having the information is preferable to not having it?

• Authenticity - a focus of these projects is to create something which has value in the world.  This shows students they have agency over the world around them, if they see a problem, they have the power to try to solve it.  They don’t have to wait until they have finished education to make a positive difference to the world.

The Curriculum of the 'Heart’, is the coaching programme focused on values and wellbeing.  

This empowers students in a number of ways:

• Circles - We don't always need to sit in rows. We don't always need desks. In this aspect of the curriculum, circles are encouraged. This is not only symbolic of a more democratic approach, but is a space in which students are encouraged to discuss important issues in order to make sense of them.

• Portfolio Presentations - these are a version of ‘student-led conferences’.  Once a year, instead of a traditional parents’ evening, students have to prepare a presentation through which they talk about their ‘story of learning’ and aims for the year.  They are then questioned by the teacher and parent.

• Oracy - the coaching programme can drive the teaching of oracy.  It, quite literally, gives students a voice. This can involve a range of activities - including more traditional speeches and poetry recitals.

I would argue that all schools can incorporate at least some of these elements with minimal costs or disruption.

Can 'novices' have agency? Yes.

I am concerned that certain aspects of education research and theories have been overused.  I hear a lot about ‘novice / expert’. Of course, experts learning theories about how novices in their discipline should be guided to learn is important and useful. However, we should be wary of what Dylan Wiliam has called ‘lethal mutations’ - valid research points which have been extrapolated out beyond their original intention.

For example, I am a novice piano player.  That does not mean I am a novice at everything. Examples of this lethal mutation can be illustrated by denying students and new teachers a voice under the cover that they are simply ‘novices’ and they have to wait until they are ‘experts’ before they can question their instructors. This could also be preventing novices learning important lessons through mistakes and reflection.

To conclude, we should ignore the outliers.  I don’t believe that the school curriculum should be based entirely around the students and nor do I believe that they should have no say whatever.  A middle ground is possible. However, this depends on us viewing students as novices in subject domains but not novices in everything.