What should we be teaching in
the 21st century?
How do we choose from the ever-increasing
amount of knowledge that, in theory, pupils should be taught? Life skills, practical
skills, general culture, preparation for their working lives... are schools trying to do
too much? A look at the content of the debate with Claude Lelièvre, educational science
historian, and Philippe Meirieu, educationalist.
Laurence Seugé-Bernabeu, journalist
It is surely no accident that the question of
defining a knowledge base common to everyone has recurred like a refrain throughout the
debate on the school of the future, chaired by Claude Thélot. "For decades this
central question has been put forward regularly by ministers as being of primary
importance only to be sidestepped when it came to answering it." comments Claude
Lelièvre, educational science historian. "But what is changing today is
teachers’ expectations, because they are feeling increasingly at a loss. They expect
society to define their mission more clearly."
While some see it as a sign of healthy
democratic debate, this questioning about the minimum knowledge that young people leaving
school at the age of sixteen (the age when compulsory schooling ends) should be equipped
with, is seen by others as evidence of the crisis being experienced by school and society.
"In a theocratic or despotic state, the question of what is to be learnt does not
arise," points out educationalist Philippe Meirieu. "On the other hand, in a
democratic society the citizen, who is called upon to construct the direction he wishes
society to move in, cannot help but question the missions of education."
In other words, in as much as reflection is
what makes action possible, there is every reason to be pleased that these questions are
being debated. And there are many of them. Should we prepare young people for jobs or give
them the tools that will help them make sense of the world and adapt to its ever more
rapid changes? Since the time spent in school cannot go on being extended, is it possible
to reconcile mastery of the French language, learning foreign languages and understanding
the languages of technology and science, which today we can no longer do without?
In the face of the ever-increasing amount of
knowledge, how can we maintain the balance between education of the body and education of
the mind which the humanist Montaigne advocated in his time? If professional retraining is
becoming a fact of life, isn’t it better to teach people how to think and make them
more able to adapt, rather than pass on knowledge that will be out of date in twenty
years1? And finally, what about information technology, law, social sciences, the history
of religions, economics...?
Inflation of knowledge
"For as long as the debate on the
knowledge base remains the preserve of specialists," says Claude Lelièvre,
"action can only be taken on the margins. With the risk that, if we wait another ten
years, the national school system will fall apart." Philippe Meirieu feels the same
way, remembering the time when he sat on the National Curriculum Council (CNP)2: "In
the 1990s, the specialists I saw were all, without exception, convinced of the absolute
need to trim the curricula all over the place... except in their own subject."
Will we manage to resolve this? The most
optimistic think so, arguing in favour of the creation of an institute independent of
changeovers of political power and lobbying by qualified university teachers’
associations3. "This higher council representing citizens would have the task of
reviewing the knowledge and skills that every pupil leaving school at sixteen should have
to equip them for life. It will have to select and define priorities, and present them to
teachers in such a way that they are not negotiable," declares Claude Lelièvre.
"But that would imply a radical change in the way people think and in educational
practice," comments Philippe Meirieu. "To achieve this, it would be necessary to
tailor the curriculum to each pupil, who would acquire the building blocks of knowledge
and skills at their own pace."
Keys for understanding the world
The question remains of what to choose. Since
there is no question of making pupils work all night, what criteria should be used to
choose between different subjects, and do away with knowledge that has become useless or
secondary? "It is not a case of trying to learn everything that can be known, but of
learning well what one cannot do without knowing." Jules Ferry – the man behind
the free, secular and compulsory French school – was already asserting in 1882.
Philippe Meirieu feels that we have to get
back to the two essential tasks of education: on the one hand, giving the young person the
tools that will enable him to understand the world around him and take part in the
discussions that will decide his future; and, on the other, giving him the knowledge that
will liberate and connect him.
"This begins with mastery of basic
languages, without which no communication is possible, and continues with the acquisition
of the knowledge necessary to understand the challenges of our individual histories and of
our collective history." he states. "One astute way of doing this would be to
look at the major issues covered in the leading French newspapers. It would then be easy
to establish how urgent it is to teach law and the difference between civil and criminal
law, to strengthen the teaching of statistics to prevent manipulation by the media or for
political ends, or the history of religions. This would also be a good way of determining
the multidisciplinary areas capable of providing an overall understanding of the
challenges of globalisation or the environment4."
The need to include meaning...
Moving away from contemporary issues, the
teaching of the "humanities" should promote the discovery of what links us to
others in relation to what is best... and worst in us. "It is what we call
approaching the universal through the personal," Philippe Meirieu says. "Art,
literature, mythology, music, cinema and theatre offer works of art that enable us to
examine the violence we have within us as well as our highest aspirations. It is one of
the most basic tasks of the school to pass on culture, in other words to forge the human
that is in each of us."
Helping young people to integrate into the
world by giving them immediately usable tools doesn’t mean failing to stimulate them
so that they can make sense of it themselves... It is definitely no simple matter. Some
people feel we should go back to learning basic skills (the option chosen by the current
French Minister of Education), while others feel that these cannot be acquired without
branching off into desire, authentic questioning, and therefore into works of art and
creativity.
(Courtesy Label France Magazine,
Embassy of France, Kathmandu) |
