The proponent of the Gaia image, James Lovelock, has battled his way against initial scepticism to presenting a full picture of the dire condition of our planet, through acceptance of his insistence on total synthesis of sciences, observations. and geohistory. Until recently stiffly opposed, he places the origin of this “largely with scientists in the 19thC. who for their own aggrandisement seized and declared independent the territories of physics, chemistry, Earth and life sciences. This conflict over turf “, he says, “ still goes on”.
Doesn’t he offer a major epitome for the prevailing conception, still, of our school curriculum in general? The parallels can be read straight over into secondary education. Consider its compartmented, subject-based, specialised, top-down knowledge model, split into small chunks, with little or no inter-relation, a drip-fed process ending in an incoherent experience for all too many pupils. It is founded on ancient practices in their attempt to link knowledge to comprehension – practices far more ancient than Lovelock’s 19th Century (more on that another time!) – with scarcely a glimmer of thought on the real learning capacity of the young mind.
It assumes that specialism must begin at an early age, without regard to any idea that concentration of knowledge can be distilled in later stages. And then the whole unanalysed assumption is built into an examination industry dominated by higher academic needs and ideals, that industry then again exploited as a convenience by central government for the satisfaction of its Gradgrindian mindset. To government it is facts that matter, not understanding.
No wonder a large body of youngsters is turned off by what is handed out to it at school and want to leave it at the earliest age allowed. Bring on Marcus de Sautoy et al. sim. to take over Soft Furnishings!
Juvenile
edu-can-do 