In England, there is currently a national english curriculum in place (Gray, 2009; Gov.uk, 2012). Having a standardised curriculum (Gov.uk, 2012) provides students with the same educational starting point, therefore, offering equal opportunities to thrive in education. Although having a curriculum can be seen as an advantage, the current system only provides a narrow curriculum which makes it difficult to meet the wide range of needs children and young people have (Carnie, 2017).
Schools can be seen to take a more career orientated approach to education (gov.uk, 2012). This means that schools are placing a larger emphasis on teaching set information which is required to gain sufficient qualifications. The current public system appears to take a more behaviourist approach to education. Students are typically made to sit in rows and learn by receiving information from teachers, often being rewarded for providing correct answers (Waterhouse,1983; Gray and MacBlain, 2015). This poses the question of what education is for as LL considers the child as a whole by encompassing themes of freedom, democracy and individuality.
The current system also teaches young people about tolerance, and to understand diversity, by being exposed to different people and to control extreme views that may not be accepted (Lubienski, 2000). This shows the current system prepares individuals to be a good citizen in society. The current system is a public good, but there are also private good options. Education being a public good is significant as without it there will be more children with a poor education, with less social cohesion and tolerance (Lubienski, 2000). Therefore, the current system being a public good is beneficial in society.
The public system is also based around the undertaking of assessments and exams (Gov.uk, 2012). By taking this stance it means that students are constantly being compared either between themselves (Gray, 2009), or to the national league tables. According to Gray (2009), this comparison and testing based system can in the long term cause students to have reduced critical thinking skills because they are more focused on retaining information. Additionally, it has also been found to cause an increase in the number of students suffering from exam based anxiety. Not only does it potentially affect the wellbeing of young people, it reduces education to one size fits all, ignoring individual differences (Carnie, 2017), such as children not performing well in exams.
In relation to 21st century educational imagery the LL alternative can be seen as the most effective. It tailors to the individual and provides more flexibility to learning through the use of a more holistic approach, promoting lifelong learning of individuals (Trilling and Fadel, 2009). If the LL alternative replaced the current system, children would learn by constructivism and social constructivism. Both of these approaches take a child centred and self directed approach to learning (Gray and MacBlain, 2015;Pritchard, 2018). In addition to this, individuals are encouraged to work and learn with each other, particularly in the primary alternative. In both the primary and secondary alternatives, there are limited restrictions on time and choice. The primary alternative could be more flexible than the current system at the time a child learns. However, as Montessori and forest schools need to take place in a specific area and need staff, it may not be possible for every child to be learning in their optimal time frame.
Unlike home schooling, where an individual can be taught at any time of the day depending on their individual learning time preference. As well as this, individuals who are informally homeschooled learn in relation to their interests (Davis, 2015; Jones, 2013). With current society, this form of freedom may not provide the individuals with all of the necessary skills and knowledge needed for everyday life. However, it could be argued that the current school system does not provide students with these skills and knowledge either.
LL provides individuals with some of the skills they need to be able to live within a democractic society, such as confidence to share opinions and having more responsibility and choice in relation to learning. This can also be seen in home education and Montessori/forest schooling. The practice of democracy in LL will help create good citizens for society. In spite of LL having many positives, there is the conflict of freedom and democracy. If a child has freedom in education, it may also be difficult to be democratic.However, freedom and democracy can work together if they are carefully balanced, which can be seen in relation to A. S. Neill’s alternative school, Summerhill.
Summerhill is an example of an alternative education setting (Bailey, 2013), that has the same founding themes and values as LL. Summerhill has played a key role in the progressive education movement due to the fact that it approached schooling in a different way compared to the public school system (Bailey, 2013). Unlike the current system, Summerhill provides a community based learning environment (Cassebaum, 2003) that is founded on the themes of freedom, democracy and individuality (Saffange, 1994). These are the main themes in LL alternative.
In contrast with the current system, everyone at Summerhill are considered equal members of the schooling community. Adults are never seen as the ones to hold greater power (Saffange, 1994), which is commonly the case in the majority of public schools. The principles of creating an equality based environment, link in with the self governing and democratic values promoted by the school (Smith, 2019). Children are also provided with the skills to develop their individual opinions through weekly group discussion meetings, where the adults and students come together to share problems, with the aim of overcoming them together (Saffange,1994).
Unlike the current system, Summerhill allows children to do ‘nothing’ if they wish to do so. This demonstrates that children at Summerhill do not face the stress of neoliberal measurements to succeed academically (Lees, 2016). It could be argued that children who have the freedom to choose what to do may not get a sufficient education. However, according to Carnie (2017), children teach themselves if they are curious so there are benefits for freedom in education. Additionally, if children are free to choose what to do, they will have an individualised education which is also one of the values of LL.
Overall, LL has the potential to replace the current public school system. However, it does have contrasting themes and values when comparing it to the current system. LL promotes freedom, individuality and democracy whereas the current system attempts to promote democracy but is focused on the economy and standards. This means that children are not going to school to learn about what they want, but are forced to learn to fit into society when they are adults.
References:
Bailey, R. (2013) A.S. Neill. London, Bloodbury.
Carnie, F. (2017) Alternative Approaches to Education: A guide for teachers and parents. 2nd ed. Oxon, Routledge.
Cassebaum, A. (2003) Revisiting Summerhill, Phi Delta Kappan, 84 (8), pp. 575-578.
Davis, R. (2015) Home Education: Then and Now, Oxford Review Of Education, 41 (4), pp. 534-548.
Gov.uk (2012) Education System in The UK [Internet]. Available from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/goverment/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/219167/vol-2012ukes.pdf [Accessed 11th May 2020]
Gray, P. (2009) Seven Sins Of Our System Of Forced Education [Internet]. Available from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/freedom-learn/200909/seven-sins-our-system-forced-education [Accessed 11th May 2020].
Gray, C. and MacBlain, S. (2015) Learning Theories In childhood. 2nd ed. London, Sage.
Jones, T. (2013) Through The Lens Of Home-Educated Children; Engagement In Education, Education Psychology In Practice, 29 (2), pp. 107-121.
Lees, H.E. (2016) Hanging around, pottering about, chilling out: lessons on silence and well-being from Summerhill School. Revista Hipótese, 3(2), pp. 192-210.
Lubienski, C. (2000) Whither the common good? A critique of home schooling. Peabody Journal of Education, 75(1-2), pp. 207-232.
Pritchard, A. (2018) Ways Of Learning: Learning theory For The Classroom. Oxon, Routledge.
Saffange, J.S. (1994) Alexander Sutherland Neill, Prospects:The Quarterly Review Of Comparative Education, 24(1), pp. 217-229.
Smith, M.K. (2019) Education For Democracy [Internet]. Available from https://infred.org/mobi/education-for-democracy/ [Accessed 11th May 2020].
Trilling, B. and Fadel, C. (2009) 21st Century Skills: Learning For Life In Our Times. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
Waterhouse, P. (1983) Managing The Learning Process, London, McGraw Hill.