The language used in education shapes policy, practice, and perceptions. Edge’s series asks, What's in a Word? and scrutinises the impact of the terminology we commonly employ.
Who wouldn't want a rich curriculum if the alternative is an impoverished one? Colleges understand enrichment as organised voluntary student activity outside the prescribed curriculum. In calling for an enriched experience for all we are recognising that what is currently on offer is not rich enough and imagining what educational richness might look like. Describing an educational offer as ‘rich’ implies opportunity, abundance and choice. The language of enrichment speaks of people pursuing their interests and passions using the vocabulary of depth, stretch and additionality. All of this should surely apply to the whole educational project rather that one marginal part of it.
For those who pay for their children’s education, what they are buying, amongst other things, is often a rich programme of co-curricular and extracurricular activities such as drama, music, visits, debating, volunteering and sports. For those young people whose experience so far suggests that education has little to offer, a richer, broader or deeper offer can be the key to remotivating and re-engaging them. Many college students do not have the benefit of material riches and know only too well what poverty means with all its humiliations and exclusions. While educators can't themselves solve all the gross inequalities of our society, our public education settings should be places of opportunity and possibility that offer everyone a taste of what the world has to offer.
Association of Colleges (AoC) has been calling for a 16-18 curriculum guarantee which could include opportunities to develop a range of literacies: political, creative and cultural, linguistic, economic, social and emotional, as well as physical and mental health, wellbeing, community contribution and social action, global perspectives, international links and skills competitions. These are not exclusive categories and there are many overlaps with colleges’ study programmes, tutorial and personal and social development offer. Such a guarantee should be more than a checklist. It needs to be based on an educational rationale and make sense to students. We should assume that, given the choice, students on any course we offer might also enjoy writing poetry, making a film, working on a local history project or performing in a musical ensemble.
Our AoC surveys show that colleges are very committed to offering a broad enrichment offer and working with many external partners to develop engaging programmes. These are often built on strong relationships with local and national agencies, including charities, community and other third sector organisations. These take time to build up and considerable staff commitment to develop and sustain. We also have evidence that enrichment promotes the acquisition of wider skills and self-confidence, personal development, community engagement and work-related learning, supporting the development of students as contributing members of society, and their progression to rewarding employment and fuller citizenship. But if we compartmentalise enrichment as a separate category distinct from the ‘core’ we risk reducing the opportunities for personal exploration and deeper study within both.
Our conception of enrichment should be open to all students in all contexts. Ideally, every part of the curriculum should encourage students to pursue different lines of enquiry and make space for self-directed study.
This should be seen as a natural development of the curriculum, which can develop students’ critical understanding of the world and their relationships with others. Clearly, we need to have aims for enrichment, but an excessively instrumental approach to outcomes has its risks. Students don’t participate in an environmental project or a dance company specifically to develop their organisational or employability skills. Confidence will be built, social bonds will be made, personal development will take place, essential skills will be developed and joy will be experienced, and no targets or metrics can fully capture this. The benefits are lifelong, non-linear and unpredictable.
Our conception of enrichment should flow from our educational aims for all students. Far from being an afterthought it should be an expression of an expansive, inclusive, generous and joyful vision of human flourishing.
Written by
Eddie Playfair. Eddie is a Senior Policy Manager at Association of Colleges and was a college principal for 16 years in East London and in Leicester, having previously taught science in colleges and schools in East and North London. AoC is contributing to the government’s development of an enrichment framework and has joined the Enrichment for All coalition. AoC have also recently published the results of their College 16-18 curriculum, CEIAG and enrichment survey.
Next time: Continuing our focus on Enrichment, Fran Wilby considers if how we define enrichment has consequences for how we develop policy to support it.