Licence to kill!

A recent visit to Bilbao led me to reflect on digital creation and ownership. I will briefly describe the two experiences that triggered this post. The image above is a photo taken during my visit to the Guggenheim museum. As I wandered around looking at the Jean-Michel Basquiat exhibit on the top floor I used my phone to capture some of the quotations on the wall. A friend meanwhile captured the impressive light and surfaces of this beautiful building. We were not prevented from doing so. That is until I turned my phone towards one of the artworks and was abruptly chided "no photos por favor". Fair enough, I thought, maybe the flash could damage the artwork. Later, having visited the fan shop for Athletico Bilbao in the old town to take home a souvenir for my son, I asked if I could take a picture of the shop's interior to share with him. Again came the "no photos" reply. 

I was left puzzling the principles behind these rules. Both spaces are public spaces, they clearly want to attract visitors. Both will happily take our money and benefit from our patronage. Our reported experiences (as seen on sites such as Trip Advisor) can influence other potential visitors and thus affect their "brand". It is normal these days for us to capture snapshots of our experiences to share on social media. Perhaps such businesses could better communicate what they consider to be acceptable use of technology on their premesis? 

Digital activity has made everyone a reviewer or reviewee. Creating and sharing digital capture allows individuals to express their unique take on the world, capturing a perspective that is personal and original. In the same way Basquiat's self expression came to promenance on the streets of New York, ours resides on social websites such as Instagram, evidencing how our experiences shape our lives. Businesses are in some cases claiming ownership of such experiences, the more progressive of them recognise that visitor impressions are powerful and encourage posting to their own social pages. 

Using legislation, policies and rules to limit the rights of others to experience and portray their world without good reason is abhorrent to me. I believe it is contrary to web culture, a domain where equity and freedom of speech is currently a defining principle. I believe Basquiat would have felt the same way had he lived long enough to experience the rise of the web. He clearly felt that self expression through art connected him to the world.  Freedom is under threat however, not least by those who abuse it, but also by those who would assert ownership of the infrastructure to create a two-tiered system where access is governed by your means. One way of addressing this is to ensure that ordinary people can claim their stake on their contribution through Creative Commons licencing. The silent majority need to be heard if we are to avoid the internet becoming a mirror of our world, where 1% of the population owns the lion's share. 

PS. If you would like to explore Basquiat's work in the open take a look at this site Artsy has a mission to bring art to all. 

Labelled and dismissed.

"Generalisations are always dangerous" said my English teacher to our class when I was about 12 year's old. The joke was not wasted on me, I have often had call to remind myself of this in the past 40 years or so...

The recent reporting of comments from Sir Michael Wilshaw have sent shockwaves through the education community. You can read them here.

So let's do some amateur discourse analysis on the oft repeated soundbite from Sir Michael's pronouncements as reported by the press and tweeted:

Wilshaw 'enraged' by suggestion that inspectors 'lefty-child-centred ideologues'. Says Ofsted 'in a very different place now.' #oprah
— Tom Bennett (@tombennett71) March 21, 2014

"lefty"  adj, leaning to the party political left. Overtones of insult.


"child-centred" adj., refers to an approach to teaching that prioritises the needs of the recipient. 

"idealogue" n., someone who theorises. 


So, he felt the need to refute the labelling of Ofsted inspectors against these stereotypical perceptions of the profession and yet:

What has someone's political choice to do with their employment? To cast someone as a "lefty" comes from the perspective of someone who does not respect that individual's party political choices. 

We are learning more each day about teaching and learning thanks to the emerging work of cognitive neuroscience. What is rapidly becoming clear is that learning happens despite our best efforts, probably through a process that attaches emotional information to experiences being processed by our memory systems. As communicated recently by Dr. Terry Lamb, Professor of Languages and Pedagogy at the University of Sheffield:

#ECMLconference we must think about learning and then review what we mean by teaching (Terry Lamb) pic.twitter.com/lOMffFqi3h
— pestalozziprogramme (@pestalozziprog) March 21, 2014

If the child isn't at the centre of education, who should be? Is the individual less important than their ability to generate statistics for analysis by others? Seems to me that learner centric learning is all that exists. Should teachers not want a child to learn? Should lesson planning not prioritise the learning needs of individuals ?

Finally, does Sir Michael really believe that those tasked with inspecting the delivery of education should be incapable of engaging with theory and connecting this to their practice? An intellectual idealogue is someone who can think creatively, a quality we know is important in order to function in a rapidly changing world and imagine the raft of skills that will be necessary for a future we are as yet unable to see. 

So I am at a loss to see Sir Michael's rationale for wishing to dismiss these terms in relation to his office. Surely, they are labels which could be considered badges of distinction for educators. 

A "lefty" must be an individual who knows their own mind and has made political choices which best represent their experience. As professionals, these would be part of a range of personal preferences that remain private in the sphere of work.

The rest is all about an approach to the teaching profession which is to be applauded. I am proud to be involved in learner centric teaching, my students tell me it works for them. It is demanding for them and for me, pushes their boundaries and engages them in new and important experiences. I engage with educational theory in order to better understand how the anecdotal experiences I have as an educator relate to wider conclusions based upon empirical observations. In order to do this I have to use reasoning, critical and analytical skills often referred to as higher order thinking. 

Labelling is a neat way of dismissing someone, it can be used as part of a polemic discourse to support a particular agenda. Sir Wilshaw's defence is worrying, I wonder if he has the metal to stand up for what matters in education?