PGCE INTERNATIONAL

Breaking the bank Assessment B

Saskia Kuiper

12/7/2015

A critical examination of how the needs of students with different abilities and learning styles are

met in my particular education setting and through my own pedagogy.

LEARNERS, LEARNING AND ASSESSMENT: EDU 40099

Word count: 4454

1 | P a g e

“Breaking the Bank”

“It goes without saying - educational institutions exist for the sake of learners” (Curtis, W.

and Pettigrew, A. 2010). In the Twenty First Century one wonders how much truth this

statement holds. On paper, yes, schools exist for the sake of educating students, but - in

practice, do schools perhaps serve a darker master? Foucault would argue that ‘education’

is less about learning content and more about creating homogeneous and disciplined

members of society, or what he calls docile bodies (Foucault, M. 1977). “The raison d'etre of

libertarian education, on the other hand, lies in its drive towards reconciliation. Education

must begin with the solution of the teacher-student contradiction, by reconciling the poles

of the contradiction so that both are simultaneously teachers and students” (Freire, P. 1970)

Schools are a direct response to the drive for education for all, which no one would think of

as being sinister in any way. Unfortunately, the development of schools and mass education

came with an unavoidable set of limitations and restrictions. One-on-one tuition may be an

idealist’s dream but it is a realist’s nightmare. Financially and practically it is impossible for a

nation to have this form of education, and so mass education was and is the most practical

and financially feasible answer. However, while it is the most feasible answer it is not as

inclusive as it makes itself out to be. Learning differences are seen as cumbersome and

those who fall behind are quickly rooted out. Few schools, in practice, adopt an inclusive

approach to learning. They “talk the talk” of inclusive education, but when it comes to

“walking the walk” they get lost down corridors of formality and standardisation. Freire calls

standardisation anti-democratic, something imposed by elites where the curriculum is

controlled from above to “impose the dominant culture on each new generation of

students.” (Ira, S., 1993)

The Theory

The concept of learning is a subjective one and often depends upon which side of the desk

you sit. There are two camps into which education can loosely be divided: Behaviourists and

Constructivists, both of which have opposing views on the process of learning. Behaviourists

argue that “the ordinary form that learning takes is S-R conditioning” (Bigge, M. and

Shermis, S. 2004) with the repetition of a given stimulus until the desired response is

achieved. In contrast to this, Constructivists regard the “developing of generalised insights

or understandings” as coming through peer interaction and a more active or liberated

pedagogy (Bigge, M. and Shermis, S. 2004). Behaviourists argue that learning is a

“mechanical trial-and-error process.” (Bigge, M. and Shermis, S. 2004). Constructivists argue

that learning “is a persistent change in knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, or

commitments.” Freire critiques Behaviourist pedagogy and says that teaching which

promotes memorising makes students into "receptacles to be "filled" by the teacher. The

more completely she fills the receptacles, the better a teacher she is. The more meekly the

2 | P a g e

receptacles permit themselves to be filled, the better students they are.” (Freire, P. 1970).

The different approach to knowledge between the two is that Behaviourists believe

knowledge is more-or-less fixed and is ‘transmitted’ through continuous Stimulus-Response

conditioning, while Constructivists believe knowledge is not fixed and is constructed through

interaction and shared experiences which bring about a more accurate and true reflection

of reality and a deeper understanding of knowledge.

From these definitions one could argue that within the pedagogical practice of

Behaviourism, room is only made for one learning style: top-down instruction and S-R

conditioning. However, in Constructivism, because knowledge and meaning are generated

through individual experience, it is logical to conclude that there are almost as many

learning styles and abilities as there are children. This essay will critically examine how

successfully Alcatraz1 meets the needs, styles and abilities of its students. Before doing so,

the complex concepts of needs, learning styles and abilities need to be thoroughly fleshed

out in order to effectively answer the questions: What makes a successful learner? What

makes a successful teacher? What makes a successful school?

The ocean of literature concerning the term “learning style” is vast and one is easily swept

away by currents of “right” and “wrong”. I myself have ebbed and flowed between various

theories and am yet to be washed upon the shores of a decision as to which is most

effective.

When asking teachers how they think learning occurs there are generally two main answers

which mirror the two afore mentioned camps. Learning either follows an “acquisition”

model (direct instruction, teacher-led and surface/rote learning) or a “participation” model

(active learning, teacher as facilitator not transmitter and deeper understanding). The

success of both can be gauged from Figure One, ‘The Learning Pyramid’2. This shows the

success of a participatory model with an increase in knowledge retention from 5 to 50%

through group discussion and up to 90% through the teaching of others. The acquisition

model (teacher-led instruction) is shown to be ineffective at garnering true understanding at

a mere 5%. This model, which is heavily critiqued, sees knowledge as “a gift bestowed by

those who consider themselves knowledgeable upon those whom they consider to know

nothing. Projecting an absolute ignorance onto others, a characteristic of the ideology of

oppression [which] negates education and knowledge as processes of inquiry.” (Freire, P.

1970). Figure Two displays a participatory model of learning by Kolb (1984) which

emphasises the concepts of active learning and reflective practice, something the

Cambridge International Certificate, followed by Alcatraz, supports and endorses.

1 This is not the school’s real name but, for purposes of privacy, a pseudonym has been used.

2 Based on research in the 1960s by The National Training Laboratories in the USA.

3 | P a g e

In line with the participatory model, Abbotts (1994) describes learning as “that reflexive

activity which enables the learner to draw upon previous experience to understand and

evaluate the present, so as to shape future action and formulate new knowledge.” (Burkhill,

B. and Eaton, R. 2011) “Authentic thinking, thinking that is concerned about reality, does not

take place in ivory tower isolation, but only in communication. If it is true that thought has

meaning only when generated by action upon the world, the subordination of students to

teachers becomes impossible.” (Freire, P. 1970, my italics) So, if learners create meaning

from past experience it implies that in any class there could be multiple understandings or

“bags of knowledge” of the information presented. It is this multitude which forms the host

of different learning styles and abilities.

Over the last century, ideas on education and learning have changed drastically. A quick

travel through time will allow us to briefly touch on each of the main theorists.

Moving from teaching to learning

There has been a gradual shift from Behaviourism to Constructivism over the last century.

The biggest change being that whereas Behaviourism looked at the input of teaching

(stimulus), Constructivism asked the question: What is the output? What is really learnt?

The difference is simple but profound. Should one just input (teach) and leave the learning

to itself or, do you help learners learn by providing effective opportunities to achieve this

(which might not even include teaching!). Before we answer this, let us begin the swift

journey through time.

Before the 1900s education was primarily carried out by mission organisations or private

schools, and their function was to develop literacy and numeracy in order to strengthen the

economy and cultivate a strong workforce. There was little concern for how people learnt

and skills were mostly ‘drilled’. Post 1900s there is little change and Pavlov and Skinner

advocated the Stimulus-Response model as a way to condition behaviour, and it was this

Figure 1 Figure 2

4 | P a g e

behaviour change which was seen as ‘learning’. A major critique of this theory, namely by

Foucault (1977) is that it has strong echoes of indoctrination and totalitarianism.

Next on the scene is Bloom’s Taxonomy (1965). Bloom specified three domains within which

learning occurs; cognitive (knowledge, knowing (how and why) and thinking), psychomotor

(motor and physical skills) and affective (feelings, attitudes, emotions and values). This

theory was pro-differentiation as all learners learnt at a level comparable with their ability.

It enabled “weaker learners to experience success and the stronger ones to be ‘stretched’ or

challenged in their learning.” (Burkhill, B. and Eaton, R. 2011). The idea of ‘scaffolding’ was

beginning to take shape.

Piaget and Vygotsky (1930s), both writing ahead of their times, began to look towards

understanding the individual learner’s needs and individual knowledge creation, and this

formed the basis of a constructivist learning theory. They believed in the scaffolding of

teaching and Piaget believed in schemas or ‘levels’ of development in learners, often

depending on their age (Wood, D. 1998). Emphasis was placed on the necessity of

acknowledging a learner’s existing knowledge and using it to build new and more complex

schemes of understanding. Vygotsky, in particular, spoke of the Zone of Proximal

Development, the areas of cognitive development where a learner could move forward

most effectively with the help of peers and adults. Piaget pushed for the importance of play

in learning “as it shows their [children’s] mastery over cognitive problems and forms the

basis of their imagination” (Burkhill, B. and Eaton, R. 2011).

Bruner, influenced by Vygotsky, wrote up until the 1990s and argued that if conditions are

right any learning can occur at any stage. This echoes behaviourism to some extent but the

difference here is that Bruner saw reality as a narrative constructed by people and shared

experience which necessitated a more constructivist approach. (Kuiper, J. 2015). His theory

was that as “the learner begins to demonstrate mastery of the new learning, the levels of

support or ‘scaffolds’ are gradually withdrawn to shift the responsibility for learning from

the teacher to the learner” (Burkhill, B. and Eaton, R. 2011).

Howard Gardner (1993) wrote about the possibility of Multiple Intelligences. He felt that

“we live in a culture with a strong but possibly circumscribed view of intelligence” (Gardner,

H. 1993). He states that we as humans “impose the conditions that each individual is born

with a certain amount of intelligence, and that we individuals can in fact be ranked in terms

of our God-given intellect or I.Q” (Gardner, H. 1993). Gardner argues that the idea of “fixed

intelligence” is faulty and that, sadly, “so entrenched is this way of thinking – and talking –

that most of us lapse readily into rankings of individuals as more or less “smart,” bright,”

“clever,” or “intelligent” (Gardner, H. 1993). “Problem-posing education affirms men and

women as beings in the process of becoming—as unfinished, uncompleted beings in and

with a likewise unfinished reality” (Freire, P. 1970) which affirms Gardner’s belief that there

is fault in the notion of ‘fixed intelligence’.

5 | P a g e

This brings us to the present day and to the task at hand. The obvious validity of a variety of

learning styles cannot be contested. An analysis will now begin of how effectively the

curriculum and pedagogy at Alcatraz is at making opportunities available to cater for these

different learning styles and needs.

Applying the literature to a setting

Alcatraz is a school which prides itself on its academic success and is considered to be the

top girl’s school in the country with a one-hundred percent pass rate at IGCSE, AS and A

Level, following the Cambridge syllabus. Entry into the school at Form One level is based on

academic achievement in the CHISZ3 entrance exam. Classes are divided into ‘sets’ with four

sets at Form One and Two and five streamed classes at IGCSE. Streaming at IGCSE is done

according to Languages (which includes English, French and History) and Sciences

(Mathematics, Science, Geography, and Accounting). There are only three available sets for

Physics and Chemistry and those students who do not achieve the necessary grades are

immediately placed into Set 4 and 5 and are not allowed to take Physics or Chemistry. AS

and A Level classes are not streamed but entry is based solely on achieving top IGCSE results

and students who do not achieve the necessary results are asked to reapply to the school

and may not be guaranteed a position. Last year, 25% of IGCSE students left the schools

because of this4.

It is clear that the school’s primary focus is academic success. Every system within the

school works towards achieving this academic success and consequently, life as an Alcatraz

student is rife with pressure. This pressure comes from the teachers, the parents and,

strangely, the girls themselves5.

Unfortunately, the streaming of students who all follow the same curriculum6 demands a

curriculum accessible to students of all abilities. Curtis, W. and Pettigrew, A. (2000) ask the

important question, “How can the multitude of experiences, interests, needs and skills of all

learners be accommodated? For Phillips (1998), educational policy-makers’ response has

been to reduce expectations and standards to the lowest common denominator, thereby

harming the interests of all.” Cambridge, as a response, has made available two papers for

each subject: Core and Extended. Core is a more basic form of the Extended Paper and

students are encouraged to take the Core option if they are struggling with the particular

3 The Conference of Heads of Independent Schools of Zimbabwe is the group of private schools in the country.

4 There were 97 IGCSE students enrolled in 2014 and 73 AS students returned in 2015. The majority did not

meet the required standards and a minority did not receive the subjects desired and so left the school. 5 A questionnaire was handed out to the Set One and Set Five Form Three students inquiring about the effect

of streaming, (see Appendix) 6 Unlike the Dutch/German/Austrian/Danish system which streams students according to different curricula,

with the purpose being to provide appropriate education for every student’s ability and level. Schools are differentiated into the following loosely given headings: technical, middle administrative-business, higher admin-business, and pre-university.

6 | P a g e

subject7. However, the highest symbol they can attain on the Core paper is a C and this

limits their opportunities to study the subject further. It is rare at the school for a student

who received a C on the Core Paper at IGCSE to be accepted back to do AS Level in the same

subject. This demonstrates a clear failure of the curriculum on behalf of the learners and

demonstrates that while the curriculum caters to some extent for learners with learning

difficulties it also ties their hands as to the certainty and direction of their future.

However, the reality of the African situation is that very few learners go on to pursue a

higher education. Consequently, with the availability of the Core Paper, a learner has the

opportunity to pass all their IGCSE examinations (with, at most, a C) and leave school with a

certificate or “currency” which allows them to enrol in a vocational courses or get a job as

an apprentice, etc. In this way, the Core paper is extremely advantageous to the learner as,

without it, they would face a bleak future of failed AS/A Levels and difficulty finding

employment. So, while the “reduce[d] expectations” of the syllabus may hinder some

learners from pursuing higher education it does support the needs of others8.

Following the discussion on the effectiveness of the syllabus, the discussion will now focus

on the concept of streaming and how successfully this tool is utilised at Alcatraz to meet the

needs of its students. The discussion will assess the literature as well as individual student

and teacher opinion on the process9. Critics of the concept argue that it implies a ‘fixed’

intelligence of each learner and has detrimental effects on the learner’s confidence and

subsequently motivation and perceived ability to learn. Supporters of the concept advocate

that mixed-ability classes are “logistically demanding” (Rohrer, D. and Pashler, H. 2012) and

that streaming affords teachers the opportunity to focus on specific learning abilities and

often in smaller classes10. Foucault argues that schools function to discipline and normalize

students and that “Disciplinary space tends to be divided into as many sections as there are

bodies or elements to be distributed” (Foucault, P. 1977), hence streaming.

As a self-proclaimed supporter of Constructivism, I find value in the identification of learning

styles and the moulding of my pedagogy to suit these styles. This is for the sake of learners’

needs and not for disciplinary reasons. However, the school’s reasons for streaming may

7 To give an idea of the difficulty quality of the of the paper, we use the IGCSE English Language Paper for the

Form Two’s and are beginning to use it with the Form One’s next year. 8 However, as mentioned above, these students may have found greater success at schools which were more

suited to their ability and style as is common in many European education models. 9 This was done through the afore mentioned questionnaire.

10 This is due to the assumption that “bright” learners have the ability to learn through basic top-down

pedagogy and learners with difficulties learn through other means (kinaesthetic, auditory, etc.) which can be catered for with smaller classes and more periods. However, Rohrer, D. and Pashler, H. (2012) argue that the idea that catering for individual learning styles results in better grades is a myth and that there is little empirical evidence to support the claim. They argue that different subjects marry well with different learning styles not that different students require different styles. While there is validity in this I don’t think ti’s quite so clear cut.

7 | P a g e

follow this disciplinary function a little too readily11. Reid (2004) makes a compelling

argument for the adherence to learning styles, the “use of learning styles in the classroom

can help teachers deal with many of the challenges they face in inclusive schools” and that

an “effective learning environment needs to incorporate a range of stimuli that can be

accessed by all learners.” (Reid, G. 2004). However, with little training or adequate

resources it is difficult to be consistent and effective in a manner which accommodates a

variety of learning styles.

Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences “reflect a pluralistic panorama of learners’ individual

differences; they are understood as personal tools each individual possesses to make sense

out of new information...The different intelligences are of neutral value; none of them is

considered superior to the others…Each of these frames is autonomous, changeable and

trainable and they interact to facilitate the solution of daily problems” (Gardner, H. 1999).

This highlights a number of important points: firstly that these intelligences are neutral, that

there is no “right” way of learning and secondly, that they are not fixed and can be changed

and developed. Unfortunately at Alcatraz, there is an assumed “right” way of learning that

the majority of teachers use, and there is also the unfortunate assumption that learners in

Set Four and Five are doomed to remain there forever as their intelligence was assigned at

birth and cannot be improved.

With these beliefs the streaming process is carried out according to ‘ability’ which is a

controversial and unreliable process, and which begs the question of what assumptions do

we have of the students’ abilities, what these assumptions are based on, who defines

student’s needs, whose needs are being met and at what expense and what are the

implications of all of the above? Freire says the “oppressed are regarded as the pathology of

the healthy society, which must therefore adjust these "incompetent and lazy" folk to its

own patterns by changing their mentality. These marginals need to be "integrated,"

"incorporated" into the healthy society that they have "forsaken." The solution is not to

"integrate" them into the structure of oppression, but to transform that structure so that

they can become "beings for themselves."” (Freire, P. 1970)

In my first year of teaching I was given Set One and Set Five from the Form Three classes12. I

was advised to use the same material13 to ensure that I coped with the work load. However,

after following this advice for a couple of weeks it was clear that it was not working. My

lesson plans were aimed at Set One students and, as a new teacher, embarrassingly purely

Skinnerian. I taught a concept, they wrote notes, wrote a test and received results, and

11

It is often within Set Five that the deviant learners may be found. These learners are constantly on detention and usually have serious attitude problems. I wonder if their position in Set Five is a punishment for their deviance and a hope that it will be rectified. However, sadly it just perpetuates the cycle and their attitudes get worse because of diminished confidence and constant berating. It is rare that they have a teacher who teaches them as individuals with potential and not as individuals with problems. 12

We begin the IGCSE syllabus in Form Three and so this is an important year. 13

Hand-outs, worksheets, lesson plans, etc.

8 | P a g e

adjusted their knowledge accordingly. The Set Ones all did remarkably well, probably

because, unlike the Set Fives, they had a larger “repertoire of learning styles to fall back on”

(Reid, G. 2004). However, the same lesson was a dismal failure with the Set Fives and so I

had to readjust my approach. This was extremely difficult with no training or knowledge of

different learning styles. My teaching, I realised, was suffering from “narration sickness”

(Freire, P. 1970). So I browsed the internet and learnt about the three basic learning styles14.

There were tests available at a great cost and when I proposed that I administer them the

answer was a categorical no. I looked for free ones and the results revealed a class of

students who did not learn through auditory instruction15. They needed to be involved in

the knowledge creation process. However, Rose (1999) states that “Intelligence tests were

devised from within the conceptual framework of early twentieth century schooling. These

schools ‘organised behavioural space’ establishing the norms against which ‘divergences

between children’ could be charted.” (Allen, A. 2012). Slipping into the practice of

identifying “divergents” is dangerous and something teachers should all be wary of. The

very nature of teaching, assessment and learning is dangerous, “everything is dangerous”

says Foucault (1977).

However, with the identification of learning styles, classes were a lot more meaningful with

the amalgamation of different media, etc. Gilakjani (2012) states that “in the second

language classroom it is possible to motivate learners by activating multiple ways of

meaning-making through the use of tasks relating to the different intelligences” (Gilakjani,

A. 2012). It also “makes it possible to engage multiple memory pathways necessary to

produce sustained deep learning (Schumann, J. 1997).” This held true and the students

became more motivated and more able16 to learn.

Sadly, with the preparation time needed for effective and inclusive classes, my Set One class

suffered; their lessons were extremely boring. Learners whose styles weren’t catered for

had to adjust quickly. They still received an 80% average but that was because of their

ability to adjust not because of my ability to teach. I had failed and was saved purely by a

group of flexible students. My conscience got the better of me in my second year and my

pedagogy became more inclusive. I carried the same two classes through into their final

IGCSE year and began the new year with an adjusted approach. Startlingly, the Set Ones

were horrified with this new approach and failed the first few tests. They had never come

across inclusive pedagogy and struggled to adjust. Their shock made me realise how

effective the capability of banking education had been to “minimize and annul the students

creative power and to stimulate their credulity” (Freire, P. 1970). However, after a term of

14

Visual, auditory and kinaesthetic. 15

Again there is a huge problem with administrating these tests. “The poor general quality of available instruments…[makes it] unwise to use any one instrument as a true indicator of learning styles…using only one measure assumes [that] that measure is more correct than the others. (Reid, G. 2004) 16

Through their own perception of themselves and their ability.

9 | P a g e

liberating them and teaching them that learning could be involve play they began to thrive

and we moved from dread to excitement for each lesson.

Inclusive teaching, I came to realise was hard work. However, I realised that each lesson

didn’t need to address every MI17 profile but needed to offer “a balanced approach where

different “windows on the same concept” are incorporated” (Gilakjani, A. 2012). It was

amazing how a more inclusive approach affected their ability. “Learners’ belief about their

ability to participate successfully in a language task can be influenced by the way teachers’

present material to their students…When learners see what they can do, this has a positive

effect on their self-esteem and can lead to enhancing success in language learning”18

(Gilakjani, A. 2012).

However, while the above worked wonders19 there was still a cloud over the girls which I

couldn’t blow away. A more sinister process was underway and the effects were disastrous.

Dr Rita Dunn and Dr Kenneth Dunn (1978) write that learners are affected by four main

things: immediate environment, own emotionality, sociological needs and physical needs20.

Through streaming only one of these needs was catered for: their immediate environment.

Emotionally both sets suffered. Set Ones felt streaming “makes learners in lower sets feel

like they aren’t clever and makes students in higher sets feel stressed because they have to

be the best21” (Appendix A, S122). Other responses stated that streaming “breaks students

emotionally,” and is “discriminatory”23 (Appendix B, S5). Their sociological needs were also

affected, they felt “teachers compared classes” and “had this sort of bad attitude toward

people in lower sets” (Appendix C and D, S1) and “there are teachers who are accustomed

to teaching fast learners and the slow ones will not be accommodated for” (Appendix E, S1).

There is lack of provision for the physical need of time; learning in streamed classes was

rushed. Peer discrimination also came up, “People would make side comments about it [the

given set] but not to my face.” (Appendix F, S5). Pressure and judgement are rife at the

school and, consequently, there isn’t a very effective learning environment. “If the bell-

curve distribution is a manifestation of savage competition in nature, then schooling should

be about a rational civilizing process in which moral compassion and a sense of justice direct

educational practices to overcome natural brutishness” (Fendler, L. and Muzaffar, I. 2008).

17

Multiple Intelligence 18

As an English teacher this is obviously key. 19

I am nowhere near as inclusive as I would like to be but I am slowly building up a repertoire of techniques and styles. 20

(1) immediate environment (sound, light, temperature, and design); (2) own emotionality (motivation, persistence, responsibility, and need for structure or flexibility); (3) sociological needs (self, pair, peers, team, adult, or varied); and (4) physical needs (perceptual strengths, intake, time, and mobility)” (Dunn & Dunn, 1978). 21

Other Set Ones expressed similar feelings when asked about the advantages of mixed ability classes, “no one would have to feel pressurised to be better than anyone and we can all focus on improving instead of having better grades than people in other sets.” See Appendix. 22

S1 for Set One response, S5 for Set Five response. See Appendix. 23

Other sentiments stated that students believed “their worth [was] based on their set.”

10 | P a g e

Neill (1960), founder of Summerhill states, “The function of the child is to live his own life -

not the life that his anxious parents think he should live, nor a life according to the purpose

of the educator who thinks he knows what is best. All this interference and guidance on the

part of adults only produces a generation of robots” (Neill, A. 1960) This sentiment, again, is

reminiscent of Foucault and Freire.

Fendler and Muzaffar (2008) state that sorting or streaming leads to the “establishment of

social inequalities.” They argue that the bell curve is not a representation “of the way things

are in nature” and that it perpetuates the idea of an “acceptable rate of failure and the

Average Student.” Alcatraz, following the bell curve theory, “denies even the possibility of

success to a certain number of people” (Fendler, L. and Muzaffar, I. 2008). I have often

expressed concern about specific students who display learning difficulties but little is ever

done to assist them24.

As mentioned earlier, Alcatraz prides itself on its academic success but, like the French

system, “it takes an attrition approach to education: Survive or fall behind, and if you fail,

there’s no one to catch you and help you get back on track25” (Gumbel, P., 2010). Streaming

allows management and administration to “clarify and simplify a confusing morass of

dynamic diversity for purposes of policy making.” It also “shapes the idea of normal in

education by functioning as a technology of risk management26” (Fendler, L. and Muzaffar, I.

2008) “Wallace and Graves’s thesis is that if teaching is based on bell-curve expectations,

then nobody gets a good education. In other words, under a bell curve, teachers are

expected to direct their lessons to a fiction called the Average Student, despite the fact that

no student actually embodies the characteristics of that statistically generated average”

(Fendler, L. and Muzaffar, I. 2008).

To conclude

Answering the opening question of whether or not Alcatraz caters for learners’ needs,

differences and abilities is difficult. To some extent the learners’ needs are adequately met,

but with the learner’s future in mind it seems the school has done little to equip them with

the tools they need to survive. If anyone has succeeded it is the Set Fives who have been

24

Teaching Set Five guarantees there are learners with learning difficulties (diagnosed ADHD, etc) but very little provision is made for them as they are the failures expected in the system. One child in particular is the granddaughter of a prominent politician and was accepted as a result. She is what makes up the schools quota for the “acceptable rate of failure” and nothing has been done to help her. She has attended English Support sessions offered by our Department but classes here are too big to properly assist her. These sessions have been labelled unnecessary with the argument that timetabled lessons should cater for all students. The problem is that they don’t, classes are too big and teachers are not always properly trained in dealing with learning difficulties. 25

Remember that students who do not meet the required standards at IGCSE are not accepted back to the school. 26

If the student is in Set Five and fails the school feels they have covered that risk by already informing the parent (by placing their child in the bottom set) that there is a possibility that their child may fail.

11 | P a g e

liberated and because they have seen and faced problems and questioned their position

within the school. But, on the whole, we have bankrupted our learners and left them no

currency with which to survive in the world. We have deposited knowledge into them and

left them as slaves to the system which pays their way and from which they are unable to

escape.

“Just as Foucault doubted the existence of objective truth, he also doubted the possibility of

achieving true freedom. He sought to demonstrate that such a situation is impossible and

that we should avoid the seductions of this utopian dream when, for example, we are

encouraged to believe that the legitimate goal of education is to produce autonomous,

rational, freethinking individuals. Such hopes represent a suspension of critical awareness,

allowing unheeded operations of power to be smuggled through.” (Allen, A. 2012)

But as for me, I will keep trying to achieve this “true freedom” Foucault speaks of and,

luckily, there are many other teachers out there working to do the same.

12 | P a g e

Appendix

13 | P a g e

14 | P a g e

15 | P a g e

16 | P a g e

17 | P a g e

18 | P a g e

Bibliography

1. Abbott, J. (1994), Learning makes sense: Recreating Education for a Changing Future, in

Burkhill, B. and Eaton, R. (2011), Developing Teaching and Learning, Cambridge

University Press.

2. Allen, A. (2012), Using Foucault in education research, British Educational Research Association.

3. Bigge, M. and Shermis, S. (2004), Learning Theories for Teachers, Sixth Edition, Pearson Education Inc.

4. Bloom, B. (1965), Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Longman.

5. Dunn, R. and Dunn, K. (1978), Teaching Students through their Individual Learning Styles,

A Practical Approach, Prentice Hall, Reston, VA.

6. Fendler, L. and Muzafffar, I. (2008), “The history of the bell curve: sorting and the idea of

normal”, Educational Theory, Vol. 58, No. 1, University of Illinois.

7. Foucault, M. (1977), Discipline and Punish, Vintage Books, Random House, New York

1991.

8. Freire, P. (1970), Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Thirtieth Anniversary Edition, The

Continuum International Publishing Group Inc, 2005.

9. Gardner, H. (1983), Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, Heinemann,

London.

10. Gilakjani, A. (2012), “Visual, Auditory, Kinaesthetic Learning Styles and Their Impacts on

English Language Teaching”, Journal of Studies in Education, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2012.

11. Gumbel, P. (2010). They Shoot School Kids, Don’t They? Grasset.

12. Kolb, D. (1984), Experiential Learning: Experiences as the Source of Learning and

Development, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall.

13. Kuiper, J. (2015), Streaming as inter- or intra-curricular phenomenon: is it about equal opportunity or the opposite? Personal Communication.

14. Pettigrew, A. and Curtis, W. (2010), Education Studies Reflective Reader, Learning Matters Ltd.

15. Phillips, M. (1998), All must have Prizes, London, Little Brown. 16. Reid, G. (2004), Learning Styles and Inclusion, SAGE Publications, Ltd.

17. Rohrer, D. and Pashler, H. (2012), “Learning styles: where’s the evidence?” Medical

Education, 2012, 46: 630–635, Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

18. Rose, N. (1999a), Governing the soul: the shaping of the private self, Second edition, London, Free Association Books.

19. Schumann, J. (1997), The neurobiology of affect in language, Boston, Blackwell.

20. Shor, I. (1993), "Education is Politics: Paulo Freire’s critical pedagogy" in Paulo Freire: A Critical Encounter, Edited by Peter McLaren and Peter Leonard, London, Routlegde.

21. Topping, K. and Maloney, S. (2005), The Routledge Falmer Reader in Inclusive Education,

Routledge Falmer, USA and Canada.

22. Wood, D. (1998), How Children Think and Learn, Second Edition, Blackwell Publishing.