Is the left’s blasé attitude to teaching knowledge helping

the far right?

By Richard Russell, a primary school teacher

Facts must be taught and they must be valued – it’s the only way to challenge
dangerous populists. Too much attention is paid to ‘transferable skills’
“65% of today’s students will be employed in jobs that don’t exist yet – so we should focus on
teaching transferable skills rather than outdated and potentially redundant knowledge.”
Nothing to disagree with there, right? Well actually, yes. As a primary school teacher, what I
find so troubling about this is not that MPs (Dan Jarvis, Tristram Hunt and Mary Creagh),
business leaders and academics have parroted this stat ad nauseum for years, despite it being
almost completely made up, as a recent episode of Radio 4’s More or Less made clear. What
worries me is the strand of left-wing thought it represents – that the teaching of knowledge is
right-wing, regressive and redundant, and should at all costs be resisted.
In fact, the reverse is true. Knowledge must be embraced in our schools and society. It is the
key weapon with which progressives can fight regressive politics.
There’s nothing wrong with teaching skills like those prescribed by the RSA’s Opening Minds –
problem-solving, reasoning, debating, thinking creatively and critically. But without knowledge,
critical thinking is redundant. Ask me to consider people’s fantasy Premier League teams and I
could write an essay citing statistics and giving reasoned advice; but show me several pieces of
priceless artwork and ask me the same thing and you’d get little of substantive merit. I say that
not to pat myself on the back for successive victories in my Fantasy League, but merely to point
out that the skills themselves are not really transferable. They depend on high levels of
knowledge.
This has real-world consequences that go well beyond what should be taught in school. There
was astonishment on both sides of the Atlantic when the public did not punish the lies of Donald
Trump and the leave campaign. Yet with a recent survey showing that 66% of young people
think filibustering is a sexual act, do voters really have enough knowledge to think critically
about what politicians say? No wonder “alternative facts” can gain such traction.
Knowledge plays a key role in debating with – and hopefully changing the minds of – those who
hold racist, bigoted and ultimately false beliefs. Without some knowledge, some acceptance of
facts, we’re just people with different opinions shouting at each other. And it is knowledge of a
subject that allows people to think critically about the divisive and cynical claims made by
populists.
There is nothing new here. Scientia potestas est – knowledge is power – is an idea so famous
that it is known by even those who have very little of it. This wisdom, first cited in an Arabic
book in the 10th century, is also born out by longitudinal studies, such as the National Child
Development Survey (NCDS, 1958), which show that differences between people in their
knowledge acquisition show clearly in life outcomes. Knowledge is crucial to the fight against
inequality. Yet I’ve seen first-hand that – barring a few notable exceptions like David Blunkett
and James Callaghan – its prioritisation has been abandoned by the left.
Progressive education’s uneasy relationship with knowledge is long and complicated but can be
traced back to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who suggested that teaching knowledge corrupted the
innate virtues of children. One need look no further than Pink Floyd’s “We don’t need no
education. We don’t need no thought control” to see how that idea has permeated through
society. It reached its apotheosis with Labour’s revised national curriculum in 2007, which
explicitly focused on skills over knowledge, and the Department for Education and Employment
being renamed the Department for Education and Skills in 2001.
The left’s aversion to knowledge-based education is, of course, complicated – but the role of
postmodernism is without question. Social constructivism has understandably gained much
traction on the left. This is the idea that what we know, and what knowledge is, is inherently
linked to the context in which it is “known” - therefore knowledge, facts themselves, change as
time and social context alters. It’s a concept which helps much historical and contemporary
analysis.
But as with so many things, a valid and important criticism has been diminished by a societal
game of Chinese whispers. It is used by too many, with too little understanding of the concept,
to dismiss all knowledge and facts as somehow malleable, open for debate, as subjective as
any opinion. When the left has been openly questioning what constitutes a “fact” for so long –
as noble as the intentions may have been – it’s no surprise that the far right has leapt upon that
idea for more malign intent, leaving us with little to combat it.
I despair every time I’m asked by a parent why we are teaching knowledge when the kids can
just Google it? If knowledge hadn’t been so side-lined, would we so readily celebrate politicians
who are, or pretend to be, uninformed, illiterate buffoons – not mentioning any names, but it
rhymes with Horace Bronson. Without this downgrading of knowledge, would demagogues and
manipulative politicians have found it so easy to besmirch experts in recent years?
And it is this side-lining of knowledge that contributes towards the dangerous trend of refuting
and rejecting traditional sources of information. While many on the left celebrate this as
evidence of critical thinking, when it is combined with an ever increasing rejection of the
importance of knowledge you are instead left with the opposite: a large group of people who are
willing to accept alternative facts from dubious sources provided that they conform to their
current beliefs. It’s no surprise that there’s been a surge in conspiracy theories, from 9/11 no-
planers, to those who think the Earth is flat. Everything is up for grabs. In societies where
access to facts is limited – whether by the state or the populace’s own desire – dangerous
misinformation can run rampant.
Luckily, as the psychologist Daniel Willingham points out, people want to believe what is true.
While we are all biased to accept things that conform to our current beliefs and to reject things
that don’t, doubt – a key tool of the right – can only flourish when we have insignificant
knowledge. When we doubt things, fear, social conformity and group dynamics can be used to
influence and manipulate us. But when this is competing against overwhelming levels of
knowledge these things have far less sway.
Educational policy in the UK and the US has in recent years taken huge positive strides
regarding the role of knowledge. In both countries, reforms based heavily on the work of ED
Hirsch have sought to harness the power of a knowledge-rich curriculum. In the UK this was of
course pioneered by Michael Gove – although he may have missed the irony of championing
this and then denigrating experts at every turn.
We cannot as progressive educators define ourselves through simply opposing things. When
we believe that something is right, when it is evidence-based and when it will bring about
greater levels of equality, we must say so. Before I’m denounced as a heretic by my colleagues
in the NUT, let me make it clear I disagree with Conservative education policy on countless
matters, and their approach to knowledge should be far more nuanced. But we must
acknowledge that by reclaiming and revelling in the value of knowledge we can push back the
tide of extremism. This will require action from society at large – not just teachers like me. In our
schools, media and homes we must ensure that knowledge is once again held up as the key
tool for enrichment and advancement. Only by celebrating knowledge can progressive politics
triumph at the ballot box.
• Richard Russell is a primary school teacher and maths lead in Barcelona having previously
taught in London for seven years

In a post-truth world, statistics could provide an essential

public service
By John Pullinger

Statisticians can now amass more data more quickly than ever. This could help us
to make decisions based on real numbers, not prejudice
In the “post-truth” society there is a huge opportunity for statistics. On the face of it that may
sound like a contradiction. But as individuals trying to work out what is really going on in the
world around us, for businesses trying to decide on their next venture, and for governments
trying to form effective policy, there is a common desire: data.
There is great potential for us to mobilise the power of data to help us make better decisions.
However, the technology that has allowed us all to be so wonderfully connected has also
allowed us each to live in our own world, separated from others. In our online lives, we risk
connecting only with those with similar views to our own and not encountering those who think
differently – something many commentators are now terming the social media “echo chamber”.
But this is not new – we have always tended to mix with people of similar backgrounds, and
inevitably we have tended to read those newspapers whose outlook we prefer. However, what
is different, is that for many people, especially the young, looking to the web rather than
broadcast bulletins, this risk is growing. In this situation, it becomes increasingly hard to
understand how anyone else can have a different view. It also becomes increasingly easy to
think little of those who do.
This can make us prey to those who choose to support their own perspective with “facts” that
show just how right they are (and how wrong everyone else). These facts can be made up.
They can be biased or out of context. Often they fit the old adage about the drunk and the
lamppost – used more for support than illumination. This wilful blindness is dangerous.
Of course decisions are made on the basis of emotions and beliefs as well as science. Those of
us who work in the world of data need some humility in what we claim. But good evidence does
matter. Anyone who wants us to succeed as individuals, families, communities, businesses and
as a country should stand up and make the case.
Unless we have a trustworthy understanding of where we are now, unless we can analyse what
works, and unless we can focus attention on what matters, we are unlikely to make the most of
the opportunities we must now seize in the months and years ahead.
My current job as a government statistical adviser was first created by Winston Churchill in
1941 when he said, with uncharacteristic understatement, that the utmost confusion is caused
when people base arguments on different numbers. He called for someone to provide
information that could be “accepted and used without question”. That remains a powerful
rallying call for me and my colleagues.
And today, while the data revolution has created a moment of danger, it also provides the
opportunity to gain new insights. It is now possible to get those insights much more quickly, in
more fine-grained forms, and to design them to illuminate the issues that people care about.
Recent reports produced by my team on domestic violence, our ageing population and UK
productivity are just some examples of what is possible. With the right rules in place to respect
the fact that we make use of information about individuals and individual businesses and must
not betray their privacy, there is an unprecedented potential to use data to serve the public
good.
So, with the supply of data increasing rapidly, perhaps our real challenge is to take our statistics
off the page and find ways to listen and connect with those people who have been left
perplexed and disappointed by “experts”. For us in official statistics, as well as the wider
statistical world, that means our mission has to shift fundamentally, from being mere producers
of numbers to providers of an essential public service. That way we can realise the potential
that now exists to help us all make better decisions.

Should we be teaching knowledge or skills?

A head of English gets to the heart of the curriculum debate and shares his X
Factor-based teaching resource on using solo taxonomy
It is a truth, universally acknowledged, that our education system isn't quite up to snuff. And at
that point virtually all agreement ceases. There are those on which we might loosely term the
"right" of the divide who point to PISA scores, claim that we're in the middle of a crisis and
suggest that a return to traditional values is the way forward. Oh, and Free Schools are good
too.
Then there are the proponents of the "left" who think that the current emphasis of schools does
not fit us for a future in which compliance will no longer be rewarded.
Maybe at the heart of this debate is a fundamental disagreement about the curriculum and
pedagogy. Should education be about getting students to know more facts or should it be about
encouraging them to solve problems? Knowledge or skills?
I am, by instinct, a constructivist; that is, one who believes that students should construct their
own meaning and discover new knowledge by doing. This slots in neatly with the PLTS agenda.
The more traditional approach is termed "direct instruction", often misrepresented as some sort
of Gradgrindian, didactic, teacher-led talking from the front, but is in fact the essence of the
modern three (or four) part lesson where the teacher decides the objectives and success
criteria; models how tasks should be completed; provides feedback and finally reviews the
learning objective.
Now the bad news for constructivists is that direct instruction is shown by researchers to be the
most effective strategy for transmitting knowledge and has the biggest effect on students'
grades. So where does that leave discovery learning, problem solving and inquiry based
teaching? Are they simply surplus to requirements?
Well, that's what the "right" would have us believe: students collaborating in teams is messy,
time consuming and ineffective. And maybe that's true. But it boils down to what you think the
point of education is. Is it to ensure that students take exams that test how good they are at
regurgitating knowledge, following instructions and passing exams? Or is it to produce learners
who can solve problems; think creatively and compete in a world where white collar jobs can be
cheaply outsourced elsewhere?
Because if you believe in what Ian Gilbert calls The Great Educational Lie (do well at school
and you'll get a good job) then passing exams is fine. But if you believe that "to succeed in
business you need to break the rules" then we have a responsibility to teach content in a way
that also teaches skills, dispositions and competencies needed to make our children
indispensible in an uncertain future.
As usual the answer lies somewhere in the middle ground. Both sides have a point and the best
approach lies in making sure we are teaching students knowledge and skills and that they leave
school with a fistful of qualifications as well as being prepared for a brave new world in which
following instructions won't count for much.
No one, or at least no one I'd take seriously, advocates content free lessons or claims that
knowledge is not worth having. Cognitive psychologist Daniel Willingham says that students
don't like school because teachers are always trying to make them think and that the human
brain just isn't that good at thinking. In fact it's wired to help us avoid having to think: almost
everything we do is a product of stuff we hold in long-term memory, which allows to literally act
without thinking. If you accept this then it's entirely reasonable that in order to perform any kind
of skill efficiently (driving, writing essays, solving quadratic equations etc) we need to know how
to do it deep down in our souls.
As an English teacher I rock at writing essays because I write so many of the damn things and
have an expert knowledge of how to do it well. Knowledge and skills are inseparable. You can't
have one without the other.
So how to square this circle? One idea is to use SOLO taxonomy to design learning
experiences which focus on acquiring knowledge and then the skill of applying this new
knowledge in new and interesting ways.
As learning progresses it becomes more complex. SOLO (Structure of Observed Learning
Outcomes) is a way to classify learning outcomes in terms of their complexity, enabling us to
assess students' work in terms of how interesting it is rather than whether it's right or wrong.
To begin with we will have a few unconnected pieces of knowledge which we can apply to a
task, but as our understanding grows we become able to relate this knowledge to the whole and
then to see how this information could be used to connect with other seemingly unrelated ideas.
It's daft to simply ask students to tell us what we've already told them. Much better if they tell us
how they could apply what they've learnt. They should be able to do this if we start with the
outcomes we intend students to learn and make sure teaching and assessment match these
outcomes. Outcome statements need to use verbs (apply, explain, evaluate etc.) which
describe the activities that students need to undertake in order to meet the intended outcome.
In this system learning is constructed by what the students do, not what us teachers do. The
SOLO taxonomy helps to map levels of understanding that can be built into the intended
learning outcomes and to create assessment criteria which are based not so much on what
students know as on how skilled they are in applying that knowledge.
Confused? Here's a handy introductory lesson that can be successfully used with almost any
group using Solo Taxonomy based on the X Factor!
• David Didau has been teaching for 12 years and is currently Head of English at Priory
Community School in Weston-super-Mare. He keeps his own counsel on his Learningspy blog
and you can follow him on Twitter @LearningSpy
Read David's blog on the case for teaching texting here.

This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. Sign up to the Guardian Teacher
Network to get access to over 70,000 pages of teaching resources and join our growing
community.
Could you be one of our bloggers?
Do you have something you want to share with colleagues – a resource of your own and why it
works well with your students, or perhaps a brilliant piece of good practice in teaching or whole
school activity that you know about it? If so please get in touch. If you would like to blog on the
Guardian Teacher Network please email emma.drury@theguardian.com and please don't be
shy about commenting on blogs on this page.