X Close

IOE Blog


Expert opinion from IOE, UCL's Faculty of Education and Society


What is education for? Gibb's list misses a key dimension

By Blog Editor, IOE Digital, on 28 July 2015

John White.
Nick Gibb, the Schools Minister, addressed the Education Reform Summit earlier this month on the purposes of education.  He said there are three. “Education is the engine of our economy, it is the foundation of our culture, and it’s an essential preparation for adult life”.
The first is self-explanatory. The second is about “introducing (the next generation) to the best that has been thought and said, and instilling in them a love of knowledge and culture for their own sake”. The third has to do with “key character traits, including persistence, grit, optimism and curiosity”.
There’s not even a nod in these aims towards equipping young people as democratic citizens. Nothing on understanding the society or the wider world in which they will be growing up. Nothing on the values underlying democracy – on the prime duty of the state to protect and promote the well-being of every citizen, on extending opportunities for participation, on fraternal concern for others, on freedom of thought, on equality of respect.
The civic dimension is not an add-on to the other aims. It is only in its light that the elements of Gibb’s trinity find their rationale. No democrat would advocate economic growth unless it helped everyone and not just a section of the population to lead a fuller life. Gove, unlike Gibb, at least justified his predilection for a high culture curriculum on the democratic ground that everyone should be an autonomous pursuer of a fulfilling life, or, in former Education Secretary Michael Gove’s own words, ‘the author of their own life-story’.
As for character education, it all depends on what personal qualities are highlighted. ‘Persistence, grit and optimism’ were favoured for the children of the poor in the nineteenth century, enabling them to live through the vale of tears that was their lot before the promise of a better life elsewhere. No doubt they have their place in a modern democracy, but only if harnessed to its values. So do traits that Gibb does not mention, like a sense of fairness, or the desire to alleviate the burdens of the badly off.
Gibb’s evident passion for spreading high culture across the population seems at odds with his boss, Nicky Morgan’s interest in steering young people away from the arts and humanities and towards STEM subjects, a move that Gibb’s hero, Matthew Arnold, would have labelled ‘Hebraism’ in contrast to the sweetness and light of the Hellenists. In his speech he said that schools must teach pupils the “fundamental principles” of core subjects in a way that will enable them to read around the subject for leisure as adults. “That’s the purpose of education in my judgement, in every subject. Can you read a geography book after you leave school, can you read further history books by famous historians after you leave school? The purpose of school is to provide that grounding to indulge and read around those subjects as you go through adult life.”
I really applaud the idea of people pursuing learning and artistic activities in their leisure time, if this is what they want. Curling up with a geography book would not be my own choice (I would prefer a handbook on algebra), but the notion of everyone having the leisure to pursue intrinsically valuable activities of all sorts is immensely appealing. (See Exploring well-being in schools: a guide to making children’s lives more fulfilling.)
This shows, once again, that Gibb’s cultural purpose of education has to fit under wider, civic aims. We live in an increasingly time-poor society. This is true of many a middle-class victim of a long hours culture, and not least of those nearer the bottom of the occupational ladder. If we wanted to, we could change our priorities, from producing and consuming dispensable goods and services, towards reducing working hours. As part of their civic education, students could well discuss Keynes’s conviction, expressed in 1930, that a century later people would be working no more than a 12 or 15 hour week.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

5 Responses to “What is education for? Gibb's list misses a key dimension”

  • 1
    Debbie Hepplewhite (@debbiehepp) wrote on 28 July 2015:

    Doesn’t this aspiration include all those issues mentioned above: “it is the foundation of our culture”.
    Isn’t fairness, etc, part of our culture?

  • 2
    Miss Honey wrote on 28 July 2015:

    Isn’t fairness a part of our culture? A part of the culture of a country in which inequality is so entrenched that socio-economic backround and children’s ability to choose their parents wisely are still the chief determinants of educational success? I don’t think the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission would agree that fairness is part of our culture.

  • 3
    John White wrote on 28 July 2015:

    Debbie: OED defines ‘culture’ as
    1.The arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively.
    2. The ideas, customs, and social behaviour of a particular people or society
    You mean 2. (the anthropological sense).
    Gibb means 1. (I don’t think he’s rooting for sociology in the curriculum).
    His quote from Arnold in his speech makes this clear, along with his remarks about
    ’the successful autodidact, finding their own way through literature, history and culture’
    ‘The core academic subjects at school are the primary colours of an educated person’s palette, enabling them to read more, not just within those subjects but also the subjects that emanate from them: history and maths underpin economics; the study of English links to drama; paleontology combines chemistry and biology.
    We have also continued to champion the importance of the arts in schools.’

  • 4
    Miss Honey wrote on 28 July 2015:

    The absence of an aim related to “equipping young people as democratic citizens” is all the more glaring, given the government’s ostensible championing of democracy as a key component of fundamental British values. The truth, perhaps, is that an education system geared to producing an economically exploitable, and compliant, populace is as important to the ruling class today as it was in the nineteenth century, and true democracy as much of a threat. Is it in the interests of the politicians who benefit from such a system to reform it?

  • 5
    toomanysusans wrote on 10 August 2015:

    Reblogged this on The Learning Renaissance and commented:
    A perfect illustration of the restricted view that governments have on the role and purpose of education is illustrated by a UK example. Nick Gibb the Tory government Schools Minister put forward one view of what they see as the purpose of education, it is seemingly at odds with the methods currently employed by the Education Secretary to re-focus the curriculum on STEM subjects…