The term Edupunk has gained some credence online recently although I suspect the originator either simply didn’t know, or wikipedia couldn’t tell them, that punk is not a word with a particularly positive history. And there lies the problem. Techno-zealots tend not to know or care much about anything other than technology and so to expect them to know that a punk was originally a prostitute is asking a bit too much.   

What I find most interesting about the entire SATS mess is the light it throws on quite a few areas of educational change in the UK. The fundamental differences between a US examination culture dominated by multiple-choice and the reproduction of "correct" information, with little if any demonstration of applied knowledge, and our own: which has a much stronger tradition of applied knowledge, were bound to have led at the very least to confusion, and at worst, as we now know, chaos. As anyone who has spent more than a flying visit to the States knows, US and UK cultures are radically different and some educational ideas are very bad travelers. The question I would ask is why didn't someone involved in the selection of ETS know this?

Another good example of bad educational ideas imported by UK residents who know little of US culture, are the ideas of Marc Prensky, an American businessman whose business is online learning for adults, but whose writing strays freely into the world of schooling and has been used by techno-zealots as a very effective stick to beat teachers with. His Digital immigrants and digital natives mantra is almost as trite and glib as the pernicious catchphrase, guide on the side not sage on the stage. If a 16 year old had used that phrase in a GCSE essay for me, I would have returned it with the note, “weak-minded doggerel”.

Sadly Prensky’s digital immigrants and digital natives mantra, used by him to describe the difference between kids who know all about technology and stupid, out of touch teachers who know nothing, is still very much in vogue. I think it is possibly the single most damaging concept the profession has had to deal with in the last fifteen years. Not least because there are massive cultural differences Prensky’s UK fans just don’t understand. I saw him speaking at a conference a couple of years ago in the UK, and at one point he asserted the truth of some event with this phrase, “It’s true, I saw it on TV.” There was an audible giggle around the auditorium, as hundreds of listeners tried to decide whether he was joking or not and therefore to laugh. He wasn’t. Like many Americans he regards the TV as a crucial feature of his life. Something like a cross between Hal, the computer from Kubrick’s 2001 and a prayer table. He absolutely meant what he said, and his surprise at the British audience’s amused response was dramatically visible.

But there are some areas where US and UK educational cultures do agree. In a 2006 Harpers Magazine survey in the United States, the ratio of negative portrayals of teachers on children's TV shows, to positive portrayals, was....3:1. The sooner we reverse that figure, the better for all the children they teach.

I was invited to a Teach First event at Bethnal Green Technology College this week, with a bunch of other supporting business guests, to hear how the Teach First teachers there had helped the head lift the school, out of special measures. The centerpiece of the afternoon was a little story narrated by five pupils in turn, which they had written, and which described in their own, fairy story terms, how the school had changed. It was a delight to hear real children (and not the knife-wielding teenagers of the tabloids) voice their hatred of a failing school culture that they knew had been denying them an education. In their story, the demon king (their new head, Mark Keary) announced only one rule at his first school assembly: "that all teachers have the right to teach and all children the right to learn. You can choose to break that rule, if you wish, but if you do, I assure you, you will go." Now that is what I call change management.

Prince Charles was the VIP guest and showed he was definitely listening with an apposite crack about not quite knowing how he felt about a story involving a Demon King. Lord Adonis, was also there, and I’ve just finished reading the book on Academies published by the liberal Thinktank, CentreForum, for which he wrote the foreword. After so much pussy footing around, for so many years, it really is a relief to read this honest and open acknowledgement by him of what the private sector does well.

…the relentless focus of academies on the quality of teaching and learning, and the development of a wider curriculum including sport and the arts – seeking to nurture the full range of talents of each individual pupil to the full, just as private schools do.

Quite how the Steer Review on behaviour has produced headlines like Parents and adults too often set a bad example for young people…I can’t fathom. What struck me when I read the interim report was how obvious so much of what it recommends is. The list in italics below was produced by the Practitioners’ Group, and represents their Core Beliefs. You might be tempted to think what does it say about schools if this list is seen as something they need? But I understand absolutely what this list is trying to achieve because, like parents and other adults, there are many teachers who have no idea how to set an example. I came across this teacher’s blog via the Times Educational Supplement’s website recently and thought it deserved a wider airing. If you only read the About Me section I am sure you will appreciate the point. And if you think the writer isn’t representative, I’m afraid he is, literally…he is a union rep.

The quality of learning, teaching and behaviour in schools are inseparable issues, and the responsibility of all staff;

Poor behaviour cannot be tolerated as it is a denial of the right of pupils to learn and teachers to teach.

To enable learning to take place preventative action is the most effective, but where this fails schools must have clear, firm and intelligent strategies in place to help pupils manage their behaviour;

There is no single solution to the problem of poor behaviour, but all schools have the potential to raise standards if they are consistent in implementing good practice in learning, teaching and behaviour management;

Respect has to be given in order to be received.

Parents, carers, pupils and teachers all need to operate in a culture of mutual regard;

The support of parents is essential for the maintenance of good behaviour.

Parents and schools each need to have a clear understanding of their rights and responsibilities;

School leaders have a critical role in establishing high standards of learning, teaching and behaviour.

I’ve been fortunate enough to have played a lot of sport since I was child, and now get great pleasure watching my own children’s obvious delight and excitement in physical competition. The sport I gained most from, and which for me puts all the others in the shade in terms of how one tests oneself, was cycle racing. There is none of the knee-jerking friction, joint-jolting energy waste of running, or the bruising exhaustion of a harsh contact sport like rugby. I was reminded of this only recently because after my accident in March, when I was convalescing, I exercised on a Cycleops indoor trainer for weeks. When the time came to get out on my new bike on the road again, (see photo for new bike and note…helmet!) what shocked and actually made me smile, was how you suddenly realize what you are doing is forcing yourself through a wall of air. Inside this doesn’t happen. But outside there is this weight of air pressure you are constantly battling through, which is why it is up to 30% more efficient to ride behind another rider….or car. In terms of testing your own physical ability, there is something extremely pure, about sitting on this incredibly efficient machine, with only a thin piece of rubber between you and the road’s surface, forcing yourself through the air at speed. When you train yourself to do it, and your body can do it well, it is amazingly exhilarating. Lance Armstrong had an expression for those moments, “Look, no chain!” he would yell at his team-mates.

So I was really interested in reading this article, by Bruno Macaes on drugs and sport in the New Atlantis Journal. In it he articulates the reasons why we feel drug use in sport is morally indefensible but goes further into the world of technology and biotechnology. In his piece he argues that,

Chemical or genetic enhancements are a way to influence human action from the outside. Precisely because they are the sort of power to which one will gladly submit, enhancement technologies should be regarded as an interference with our freedom, perhaps beneficial and attractive, but an external power nonetheless. They represent, ironically, the return of a repressed nature.

All of this has helped me clarify in my own mind, why I am so fundamentally uncomfortable with techno-zealots who encourage children to use technology for educational purposes, without ever hesitating to consider the possible consequences, or even having enough wit to realize there may be some. Time and time again, when you look through their rhetoric, the real reason why children and schools are encouraged to use technology is because it makes things easier for them. If using technology makes communicating or understanding easier for a child, I wonder have they really communicated or understood?