‘ … Now the Tories would have you believe that they are the party of decentralization and local autonomy. Their privatization paradigm is ostensibly founded on cutting red tape, freeing creative minds to be innovative, freeing entrepreneurs to create new wealth opportunities. Oh don’t you believe a word of it. The privatization scam in this country is as Stalinist as an apparatchnik… as absurd as Kafka… It’s all about power, and nothing else…’
An interesting background story about schools and ‘quality assurance’…
Many years ago I was a teacher-examiner for some student-led plays devised for Year 13 A-Level Drama. As the teacher, my role was to provide the initial stimulus and faciliate the early devising process. Then, when the students began to take ownership over the process, I took a back seat role. My job then was to provide guidance and feedback. I moderated any artistic or critical differences of opinion, and answered any questions. I conducted formative assessments and offered advice and suggestions. Finally, as the examiner, I conducted the A-Level examination and summative assessment.
The students’ plays dealt, quite rightly, with adult themes (psychological, sociological and political – not sexual!) They were not open to the general public. They were not, in any sense, ‘school plays’. These were ‘closed performances’ under examination conditions with a select invited audience (friends, family and peers). The audience were already aware of the nature and content of the plays, and were forewarned before the performance.
One of the scenes contained some swearing. The ‘F’ word was mentioned five times in the course of a heated argument between two characters. It was not gratuitous swearing. It was dramatically justified. The students asked me whether they were allowed to do this. I watched the scene, said that I thought it was both appropriate and justified, and gave my consent.
Then, a few days before the examination, a member of the management team asked to watch a dress rehearsal as part of the school’s ‘quality assurance’ procedure. I was more than happy to obtain feedback from a different perspective (not that I had any choice in the matter!).
After the rehearsal, the manager asked to speak with me. He told me that the swearing had to be cut. I asked why. He said that it was ‘not appropriate’ for a school play and would bring the school into disrepute.
Basically I told him that it was none of his business. I pointed out that these were not school plays for the public but closed examinations with select audiences. I pointed out that the examination criteria required the students to make choices about the nature and content of the piece and justify those choices. I told him that, as the examiner, I was satisfied that the swearing was both appropriate and justified in a dramatic context. I told him that it was inappropriate for the school to censor the material, particularly at this late stage. The devising process had been fraught enough. The students had finally gathered momentum and were on the verge of pulling the rabbit out of the hat. I told him that any late interference could be disastrous and throw their confidence.
He listened carefully and respectfully then sought clarification from his line-manager. When he returned, he came with a compromize. Could the students cut four of the ‘F’ words and just keep one for the required dramatic effect? I told him that I thought this was ludicrous.
First, what replacement expletives did he suggest? “Flipping” or “Frigging” just jarred on the ear. They sounded exactly like what they were – incongruous euphemisms for the censored ‘F’ word. Who would be so coy in a heated argument? They just made its absence more obvious and worked against the scene. The fact that the ‘F’ word was mentioned just made its vanishing act more glaring and absurd.
He blinked. Clearly, by this time, I was being seen as a trouble-maker. I pointed out that I was completely in the right and that management were completely in the wrong. What was there to compromize about? It was management who were actually making the trouble. However, management just folded its arms, stamped its foot, and said “We’re not going to argue about this. Just do as you’re told”
I met with the students. I gently explained that, as their examiner, I had no problem with the swearing and thought it both appropriate and justified. I then gently explained that the school management did have a problem with the swearing and had instructed me (to instruct them) to remove four out of the five ‘F’ words. I said that I had now passed on my instructions but I could not explain the logic behind them as there didn’t seem to be any.
I expected the students to erupt with frustration. Instead, they basically said “Thanks for arguing on our behalf. But you’re not going to get anywhere, so just forget it. We’ll take the swearing out.”
Did their performances suffer as a result? Yes. Did they lose marks over it? No… At least, not specifically. The marking was far more holistic than a few missing ‘F’ words. But it weakened the performance overall. It was a petulantly tossed pebble that spread ripples…
So, tell me, who had the problem? Not the students. Not the teacher. Not the audience. Only the management.
Also, tell me, cui bono? Who benefits? Who gains from such ‘quality assurance’? The students? No. The teacher? No. The parents? No. Only the management. The insidious spread of their power benefits…
Now the Tories would have you believe that they are the party of decentralization and local autonomy. Their privatization paradigm is ostensibly founded on cutting red tape, freeing creative minds to be innovative, freeing entrepreneurs to create new wealth opportunities. Oh don’t you believe a word of it. The privatization scam in this country is as Stalinist as an apparatchik … as absurd as Kafka… It’s all about power, and nothing else…
An interesting background story about schools and ‘quality assurance’…
Many years ago I was a teacher-examiner for some student-led plays devised for Year 13 A-Level Drama. As the teacher, my role was to provide the initial stimulus and faciliate the early devising process. Then, when the students began to take ownership over the process, I took a back seat role. My job then was to provide guidance and feedback. I moderated any artistic or critical differences of opinion, and answered any questions. I conducted formative assessments and offered advice and suggestions. Finally, as the examiner, I conducted the A-Level examination and summative assessment.
The students’ plays dealt, quite rightly, with adult themes (psychological, sociological and political – not sexual!) They were not open to the general public. They were not, in any sense, ‘school plays’. These were ‘closed performances’ under examination conditions with a select invited audience (friends, family and peers). The audience were already aware of the nature and content of the plays, and were forewarned before the performance.
One of the scenes contained some swearing. The ‘F’ word was mentioned five times in the course of a heated argument between two characters. It was not gratuitous swearing. It was dramatically justified. The students asked me whether they were allowed to do this. I watched the scene, said that I thought it was both appropriate and justified, and gave my consent.
Then, a few days before the examination, a member of the management team asked to watch a dress rehearsal as part of the school’s ‘quality assurance’ procedure. I was more than happy to obtain feedback from a different perspective (not that I had any choice in the matter!).
After the rehearsal, the manager asked to speak with me. He told me that the swearing had to be cut. I asked why. He said that it was ‘not appropriate’ for a school play and would bring the school into disrepute.
Basically I told him that it was none of his business. I pointed out that these were not school plays for the public but closed examinations with select audiences. I pointed out that the examination criteria required the students to make choices about the nature and content of the piece and justify those choices. I told him that, as the examiner, I was satisfied that the swearing was both appropriate and justified in a dramatic context. I told him that it was inappropriate for the school to censor the material, particularly at this late stage. The devising process had been fraught enough. The students had finally gathered momentum and were on the verge of pulling the rabbit out of the hat. I told him that any late interference could be disastrous and throw their confidence.
He listened carefully and respectfully then sought clarification from his line-manager. When he returned, he came with a compromize. Could the students cut four of the ‘F’ words and just keep one for the required dramatic effect? I told him that I thought this was ludicrous.
First, what replacement expletives did he suggest? “Flipping” or “Frigging” just jarred on the ear. They sounded exactly like what they were – incongruous euphemisms for the censored ‘F’ word. Who would be so coy in a heated argument? They just made its absence more obvious and worked against the scene. The fact that the ‘F’ word was mentioned just made its vanishing act more glaring and absurd.
He blinked. Clearly, by this time, I was being seen as a trouble-maker. I pointed out that I was completely in the right and that management were completely in the wrong. What was there to compromize about? It was management who were actually making the trouble. However, management just folded its arms, stamped its foot, and said “We’re not going to argue about this. Just do as you’re told”
I met with the students. I gently explained that, as their examiner, I had no problem with the swearing and thought it both appropriate and justified. I then gently explained that the school management did have a problem with the swearing and had instructed me (to instruct them) to remove four out of the five ‘F’ words. I said that I had now passed on my instructions but I could not explain the logic behind them as there didn’t seem to be any.
I expected the students to erupt with frustration. Instead, they basically said “Thanks for arguing on our behalf. But you’re not going to get anywhere, so just forget it. We’ll take the swearing out.”
Did their performances suffer as a result? Yes. Did they lose marks over it? No… At least, not specifically. The marking was far more holistic than a few missing ‘F’ words. But it weakened the performance overall. It was a petulantly tossed pebble that spread ripples…
So, tell me, who had the problem? Not the students. Not the teacher. Not the audience. Only the management.
Also, tell me, cui bono? Who benefits? Who gains from such ‘quality assurance’? The students? No. The teacher? No. The parents? No. Only the management. The insidious spread of their power benefits…
Now the Tories would have you believe that they are the party of decentralization and local autonomy. Their privatization paradigm is ostensibly founded on cutting red tape, freeing creative minds to be innovative, freeing entrepreneurs to create new wealth opportunities. Oh don’t you believe a word of it. The privatization scam in this country is as Stalinist as an apparatchik … as absurd as Kafka… It’s all about power, and nothing else…
See also: Schools, Drama and Rape - A Case Study
ReplyDeletehttp://martygull.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/chris-port-blog-345-schools-drama-and.html