The Learning Relationship: Psychoanalytic Thinking in Education
A day rarely goes by without some item on the national news related to schools, teachers or education policy. Last week, we were told that the SATS system is to be reviewed, with pilot schemes to test out a new approach; one in which teachers make judgements about the readiness of pupils to tackle particular tasks. We were encouraged to express outrage at the former Secretary of State's decision to send her son to a private special school. We also heard the tragic news that a head teacher had taken her own life after being suspended from her post. This week, we hear that the government would support local businesses in taking over the management of schools. It is rare to hear anyone bringing the various stories together; making links between initiative fatigue, teacher stress and perceived failures in provision.
Ruth Kelly is free to choose a private school if she so wishes. The fact that she justifies her decision in terms of the individual, special needs of her son which cannot be met in the state system dismays me. For twenty years now (since the introduction of the National Curriculum in the 1980s) successive governments have been driving forward an agenda which has been aimed at a "one size fits all" kind of system. Standardisation has been the watchword and we have now reached a point where politicians actually seem to believe that lesson plans can be downloaded from the Internet and delivered to classes by classroom assistants with little or no training.
I have recently been involved in running training days in a variety of cities in the north of England under the auspices of the Northern School of Child and Adolescent Psychotherapy. We have called the workshops, "Emotional experience in the educational setting," derived as they are from the long established course at the Tavistock Clinic, "Emotional Factors in Learning and Teaching. Counselling Aspects in Education." Recruitment has been good, with teachers and others coming along, eager for the opportunity to reflect on feelings and share their experiences. The majority of participants tell us that they believe more time and thought should be given to the emotional life of children and the emotional impact on teachers of working with challenging, puzzling and troubling young people. They complain about the pressure of work, the demands of the National Curriculum, SATS, League Tables, OFSTED, Peer review, annual appraisal, performance related pay...the list is endless. They tell us that the system does not cater for the child who cannot manage the expectations of school, who cannot learn or cannot conform. They worry about the children they feel they are failing to reach. They also worry about themselves and the predicament they feel themselves to be in...deeply committed to their jobs but facing impossible odds; exhausted, under-appreciated and misunderstood by society at large.
What has been interesting, however, is the way in which the discussion at these workshops unfolds. People express surprise and some anxiety that we do not use "Power Point," nor do we offer pre-prepared handouts. They are under pressure to justify the small contribution they have received from school INSET budgets by taking something concrete back to offer their colleagues who have been left covering their classes. When they move into small groups and look together at some detailed observational material from the classroom, an account of interaction between teachers and pupils, they find it hard to think about the emotional experience of the participants. They almost always rush into making judgements about what is or is not "good practice", into suggesting strategies and even into recommending that the poor beleaguered teacher in the narrative be put on something which sounds like "special measures". Teachers are expected to know and to have the answers. They inhabit a culture in which uncertainty is not seen as productive.
I need to acknowledge that standards in schools are generally higher than they were when I was teaching in the 1980s. There has, I accept, been a significant improvement in levels of literacy and numeracy. Schools are more open places and greater transparency and accountability has, I am sure, reduced the number of really poor teachers...of truly "bad practice." The challenges presented by inclusion policies, by high numbers in some areas of non English-speaking children, by innovations in IT, by innovations in school meal provision...etc...are met with a level of energy which I think is amazing. However, in the face of these demands I think it is more and more difficult for the classroom teacher to hold on to an approach which takes account of their own and their pupils' emotional experience....and most do want to do that. So much of what they are required to do is manualised, standardised and objectively measured. In a climate such as this, it is perhaps not surprising that concern for the individual all too easily gets projected into the so called experts...those who are seen as having the luxury of space and time.
In "The Learning Relationship. Psychoanalytic Thinking in Education" I have tried to re-emphasise the centrality of the emotional experience of teacher and learner, of the relationship between the teacher, the pupil and the institution. I have tried to show some of what psychoanalytic theory has to offer in understanding many of the issues which help and hinder the educative process at various stages in the life cycle and within the context of current educational policy and practice. The book does not offer easy answers to the many dilemmas which preoccupy teachers, parents and educationists but it attempts to ask relevant questions and provide a framework for further thinking.
