Thursday, 20 February 2014

National Disservice


Later this year, a bill - backed by Tory MP Philip Hollobone - will go to Parliament calling for the return of National Service. Whilst it may have thrived at the time of the First and Second World Wars, I believe that the education system today means that the rejuvenation of  National Service would be irrational, unpopular and unproductive.

When I hear the words National Service, I cannot help but tie them to Conscription. And I can be forgiven for doing so - after all, throughout the 30's, 40's and 1950's that's essentially what it was. Males between the ages of 18 and 26 could be told to report to a military base and then shipped away within a week, where they would be expected to carry out military training exercises in far away locations. Whether building bridges on a Royal Engineer course in Cyprus, or providing nursing support to troops in Korea, participants could expect to have their lives brought to a stop - without notice - at any time.

However, if National Service was to return in 2014, it's not difficult to see why it would take a rather different shape. Considering the huge loss of life among young soldiers during the 20th century, a replication of the original national service would be scandalous, and this is something that Hollobone of course is aware of. 

As a result, he has instead drawn up plans of service to enhance the 'self respect, personal reliance, discipline and behavior' of 18-26 year-olds. 
He claims that the program will run with the NHS, yet admits that military service will still be involved. 

This itself will spark some morale controversy, yet it is another issue which I am concerned about. If this plan was to go ahead, it would mean that education would be greatly affected. Having worked hard for exams for the past 3 years, for my education to suddenly be prolonged would be devastating. Having to take two years out of studying or learning, at a time when I would be preparing for further exams, would mean that years of work would need to be re learnt. 

Whilst the original National Service aimed to supply men with jobs by teaching trades, with more teenagers going to university than taking jobs, this would now be aimless. Those training to be doctors, physicians and lawyers could be whisked away to fix tanks on an engineers course, rather than complete their studies. It's then clear that National Service is irrelevant for the 21st century, and as a system built for the development of physical skills and trade, it couldn't possibly provide the same level of effectiveness in the modern day. 

As a result of its downfalls, it's extremely unlikely that this bill will be passed at all - yet there certainly is room for Hollobone's intentions. I absolutely agree that young people should be taught respect and cooking skills, and I believe that we live in an intolerant society, but there is no need for National Service.   Granted, these type of schemes were effective 80 years ago, but this was 80 years ago. There is no question that we could benefit from money management advise and the other courses offered in the Bill, yet offering it in this manner just isn't the way forward. 

Any plan would need to stripped of any military connotations and added to curriculum at secondary education, where it could be effective, rather than simply disruptive. If Hollobone is so keen on teaching teenagers manners and life skills, then this would surely be a more appropriate course of action. Not unfamiliar with controversy, however, a more appropriate course of action probably isn't what Holobone wants.

Wednesday, 19 February 2014

Michael Gove: Butcher of Creativity


In another chapter of his never-ending war on education, Michael Gove has announced his intentions of cutting  English Literature from the school syllabus. Currently studying for my GCSEs, this is yet another crippling blow to an already strangled curriculum; in a system with a growing disregard for creativity and free-thought.

I feel that, in the current day of 2014, creativity is dying. A stirring claim - I know - yet, when I look at my peers, it is what I am led to believe. I enjoy making music, learning and reading, but it seems that I am currently almost alone in my pastimes. I seem to be part of a 'bored' generation - too cool to take an interest in politics or be seen as anything but a sheep. Of course we can't expect every sixteen year old to suddenly start thinking for themselves - the mind just doesn't work that way - but I do certainly believe that the education system could do part to inspire the youth, and kick start the creativity-revolution. We need free-thinkers and we need people to be aware of the world they live in, and by adjusting the school curriculum these people are far more likely to become. By axing English literature, Michael Gove is acting as a contraception for the growth of creative individuals, removing what remains essentially the only inspiring part of secondary education. 

The undeniable truth is that of course that there are some students who are not interested in Animal Farm or other significant writings, yet this is not the reason the subject is being dropped. Michael Gove, in his strive for a 'traditional' school system that focuses persistently on academia and grades, has forgotten what is essential for the basis for learning - creativity, driven by interest. For those captivated by the literature of Orwell and Shakespeare, the subject is obviously worth its weight in gold, but I would argue that even those the least interested would find vital lessons from the basic morals of these books. Animal Farm teaches free-thinking, An Inspector Calls addresses class division and responsibility,  and Romeo and Juliet exposes further prejudice. The retaining of these lessons is needed, to inspire future thinkers but also to remind us of human values, something missing at times in this modern world.

If Miliband wants to reduce the voting age to 16, he needs to give students something that will drive them to vote, and something that will increase their awareness of the importance of voting. We have recently seen Russell Brand encourage people not to vote, and if you ask me, its not just corrupt politicians that are to blame for embarrassing young voter's turnouts. We are all too 'bored' to vote, and probably will still be too 'bored' to vote for years to come. Creativity needs to be implemented into the school curriculum - whether via awe-inspiring classic literature or the debate of continuous topics - to create a more educated and inventive youth. But of course they probably won't if it has any chance of affecting their party's hopes. Animal Farm, An inspector Calls and Of Mice and Men are all written by left-wing authors, but surely it would be to controversial to ask if this was why their books were cut. No. Of course, that would not be the reason. After all, you'll be hard pushed to find any politician who currently upholds the morals of these books. 

It just seems clear to me that cutting English Literature cannot be a good thing for the education of future teenagers and the development of tomorrow's minds. It's true that those who are the key thinkers of the future will already be interested in the clliterature, but it's transparent that there is no reason the rest cannot be affected by it just a little bit. If anything, those who read the aforementioned books at school will take away the basic morals, but in this new Gove-ian curriculum there will be no morality. The role of the teacher should be to enhance their students minds, both academically and experimentally, but the room for this work is rapidly being diminished. Work needs to be done at an earlier age so that young people can think for themselves and break the petty restrictions of their peers; and this can only be a good thing. If not, I fear that in the near future we could be breeding a nation of slobs and indoctrinated academics... and I am not sure which one is worse.