It’s long been said that it takes a village to raise a child. Whilst our schools can been seen as a small village within a larger community I’m a firm believer that the village is much more representative of the community as a whole.
In today’s society raising children is much more complicated that it has ever been, there are societal expectations, economic pressures, complex family arrangements and the monster that is social media. These influences have created a complicated, multifaceted environment in which to raise well-rounded children. As governments and communities grapple with this increased complexity often seeking quick win solutions, it is increasingly becoming the role of our educational systems to become all things to all people.
Traditionally it has been the responsibility of families and their support networks to set expectations, model values and establish limits that define and shape a young person’s moral compass. Children can became products of their environment where they learn how to behave, how to express opinions, how to interact with those around them respectfully and how to navigate the world safely and productively. I agree that schools certainly have a key role to play in character development. Public education offers our students exposure to the full breadth of our community where they are able to access wide ranging views, beliefs and opinions. This is a strength of our system. Over recent years though, there has been a dramatic shift where schools and teachers are being tasked with the responsibility of tackling an increasingly wide range of social issues.
Whilst education is the great equaliser and assists in rising above poverty, racism, sexism and promotes the establishment of strong moral and ethical codes it is not the miracle solution to solving all societal issues. It appears that with each emerging issue, policy makers with all best intentions and boundless enthusiasm, rely solely on schools to provide education campaigns that address and target the platform of the day. Strong, well-meaning interest groups are crowding the curriculum in the hope that schools can right the wrongs of others. It seems that the default position to almost any problem in society is to teach it in schools. There seems to be a giant leap in the logic. If we cover issues related to road safety, water safety, responsible pet ownership, sun safety, civics, obesity, cyber safety, financial literacy and the list goes on then we will be able to adequately solve some of society’s greatest problems. Whilst these issues are all important they enter an already overcrowded curriculum. Adding to the curriculum may not necessarily be the best way to address such a broad range of social issues. If we continue to use schools as the sole vehicle for addressing social problems then we will always continue to miss the mark.
Schools will always respond to the social, emotional and welfare needs of their students as the role normally performed by families becomes more and more part of the daily school routine. The skill set of the modern day teacher has far outgrown the traditional model as they become counsellors, peace makers, social workers, law enforcers, nurses and careers advisors. Teachers continue to work daily on developing well rounded citizens who will and can contribute to society. But this is not their sole responsibility. It takes a village.
Why is it then that this has become the default? Partly because it is seen as an easy fix. There is an economic argument that says that it is more fiscally responsible to educate than to build infrastructure and support systems to address the cause of the problem. Long term solutions require changes in behaviour. Changes in behaviour come from education. Whilst there is undoubtedly an economic cost for delivering new educational programs it is certainly seen as a more cost effective method. The second reason is that education is the great equaliser. If we deliver relevant curriculum that educates on a particular issue then we are building a foundation of change from the ground up. Sowing the seeds of change and monitoring growth is a well-used strategy. However as educators we know that working on things in isolation is not always the most effective change management solution. We need all elements of the community to wrap around the issues to see real change.
As we look towards our schools of the future we face the challenge of assessing what we want our teachers to teach. If we are to continue to be front line educators of social change then we need to consider how this is done and at what expense? As our education systems increase in size it can be complex to allow the flexibility to address social issues as a whole of system response. Our task is to enable schools to work contextually with local issues in the confines of a large organisation. How do we alleviate system pressure to allow schools to focus on the relevant task at hand? Whilst we can be quick to add to the ever growing list we can at times be slow to reduce it. I have noticed recently a focus on ‘decluttering’. Whilst this at present appears to be more on an administrative basis there is hope that it could move to a broader platform.
The biggest question though is what role will the village play in developing our schools of the future? How will all arms of the community work in partnership to develop the skills needed by our students to address the pressures of modern society? Education systems cannot continue to be all things to all people. As educators we know that it takes a village. It’s time for the village to assume the collective responsibility.
I think it’s in the DNA of teachers to battle on despite the growing responsibilities.
Perhaps schools should start “decluttering” the curriculum (particularly the hidden curriculum) and return some of the responsibility to the “village”?
Very thought provoking!
Rob Francis Principal Ellison Public School
Sent from my iPhone