Oxford CIE

There is little doubt that the rise of populism in Europe, buoyed by the vote in the United Kingdom to leave the European Union and the election of the most recent American President has increased political unpredictability.  This in turn, has led to new economic uncertainties; and it is clear that in many countries the decline of inclusive economic growth coupled with the growth of inequalities has given rise to other uncertainties:

​

​

Personal uncertainties and ambivalences as job security and the declining dignity of work; social uncertainties as the class gap widens and the neighbours next door are identified as ‘immigrants’ who jump the queue for social services and welfare benefits; cultural uncertainties as violent extremists working alone or in concert unleash attacks on restaurants, street markets, shopping malls, schools and mosques; personal and moral uncertainties as more and frequent evidence of historical and contemporary cases of child abuse, ‘grooming’, and the modern slave trade becomes evident; uncertainties about the advances in technology as smart phones and other devices are used to bully, harass, entice and embarrass rather than for social and scientific advancement.

​

​

But it is the fact that each reported incidence of ‘home grown terrorism’, cultural intolerance or even broadly, the rise of populism is attributed to the failure of the educational system that compels us to pause to examine more closely the relationship between education and social and political uncertainty. It is important to reflect upon the tension between what we think to be a widely shared worldview of the ultimate philosophical ‘mission’ of education and more contentious perspectives on how this is to be realised.

​

There are for example strongly held views that it is at the door of the school that we must place the blame for the fracturing of the political order and the fissures in social cohesion; and that the answers lie in teaching learners to be ‘global citizens’ or ‘creative thinkers and problem solvers’, that teachers must be (trained to be) ‘open minded’ and that the curriculum must change so that it lays the basis for ‘peace building’ and for ‘pluralism’.

​

But, there are equally strong arguments for educational systems to teach national values, or in some countries to concentrate what little time teachers have on a narrow curriculum – or as some might have it, like soldiers on a battle field, on the ‘last’ problem; that is that teachers are deployed to deal with the immediate presenting ‘battle’ – to ensure that students read better, or read more; become skilled users of scientific or computer equipment; or that they compose poetry and learn to play the flute.

​

Both sets of arguments are clearly important and it is a matter of concern that they have recently been posed as contesting and opposite ‘educational’ responses to broader political, economic and social uncertainties.

​

For us it is timely to interrogate both these positions in a more rigorous manner. It is important to temper strongly held political and philosophical beliefs of the advocates for change, with the views of those who ‘work’ the system, or those who work within the system.

We are keen to hear your views and what you think ought to constitute the educational response to dimensions of uncertainty and unpredictability moving forward.