Over the past year I have spent a good deal of time in the Far East. I am struck by the very optimistic nature of education policy in those countries and the sharp contrast with our own, rather downbeat, views.
It is not to say that that these countries are unrealistic about the educational challenges that they face but rather that they are positive about their ability to address them.
In Hong Kong, for example, they face a skills shortage. A highly qualified workforce will be needed in the near future, and they estimate that over three-quarters of students will need to leave school with degree or equivalent qualifications. Yet they are not daunted.
One reason for this is that they are not held back by the ideas of destiny that so shape our education system. They see each new student coming into the school system as a potential success story and were frustrated with me when I continually asked questions about family background.
Family background, they told me, was a factor to be considered but was unlikely to define a child’s education outcomes. Why is that so different from here?
Equally perplexing for them was my preoccupation with failure: schools failing, teachers failing, students failing. Yes, they said, there was still much that could be improved in all three areas, but it was important to remember that most schools, most teachers and most students were not failing and so policy planning should operate primarily for the majority.
There is much done to celebrate success in the Far East. Schools are celebrated. Teachers are celebrated. The High Achievers Gallery in Hong Kong focusing on remarkable achievements from remarkable children in domains as diverse as maths, piano and para-Olympic sport is an inspiration.
All this positive acclamation leads to confidence in the system, and parents are generally happier than in the UK with their children’s schools.
More surprising still was the genuine dialogue between policy makers and professionals. Chris Wardlaw, Deputy Secretary for Education, commenting on international benchmarking is typically honest. He starts with a comment on how Hong Kong performed (very highly), looks to congratulate on areas of improvement, recognises and addresses in an honest fashion criticisms of international benchmarking, and then sets priorities for the future.
The following is typical of the tone:
“The studies provide important feedback for improvement. For example, students do better in science when they have a stronger sense of values, awareness of environmental issues and responsibility for sustainable development. The curriculum reform, including the forthcoming new senior secondary, builds on this finding. Of particular importance is the confirmation of low self-concept of our students relative to their peers in other countries. Hong Kong students are ‘doing good, but feeling bad’. Closing this disconnect between what our students are capable of and what they believe they can do is a very great challenge for educators.”
Now for me this is real feedback. It actually points to things educators can do rather than suggesting, as our policy makers seem prone to do, generalities - e.g. that Finland is some kind of an educational Utopia which we should all aspire to emulate.
So I’m making a plea for the positive.
As the song goes (Johnny Mercer/Harold Arlen) – You've got to accentuate the positive. Eliminate the negative. Latch on to the affirmative. Don't mess with Mister In-Between.
Our current policy seems sharply focused on eliminating the negative and whilst that is not wrong, it is depressing. I would suggest that we could all benefit from a bit more balance. If we were as upbeat as Hong Kong then maybe we might also achieve as they do.
