Is it the battle of STEM(M) v Humanities?

Introduction:

In previous posts I've discussed my educational background because it is a point of reference that shows why I think about education and teaching in the way that I do and why I'm not only passionate about education but also certain aspects of education e.g. choosing subjects/careers, music education, LGBT+inclusivity. In both this post (and the previous one) I'm discussing one such aspect: choosing A Levels, and GCSE's.

Freedom to Choose Subjects You Love:

Why was I horrified that Susan James's parents ruled out the humanities option for university? Apart from the obvious that young people should have freedom of choice when it comes to subjects they wish to study or the career they wish to pursue, it can encourage a condescending attitude towards certain disciplines. This, I think, is wrong not least because it means that all those staff who are working hard to encourage appreciation of their subject👩‍🏫 hoping to encourage pupils into it at a higher level are wasting their time and energy if there are pupils sitting in front of them who, no matter how good they are in the subject, will never choose it at degree level and not necessarily through their own choice but rather through outside interference. That's rather soul destroying. 😪

I had one such example. I was teaching Philosophy A Level (A2) and one student was very talented at it. She wrote amazing essays which had the philosophical structure I was looking for. Her essays were already good enough for  undergraduate level. I approached her about studying Philosophy at university and she was enthusiastic about it but her mother wanted her to become an accountant, despite her grades being worse in Maths than in her other A Levels. When speaking to her mother on parents evening I could see there was no persuading her otherwise. So here was an extremely able, hard working, budding philosopher who was lost to the subject. Worse still, she was going into a profession she wasn't interested in. 

How many people end up doing subjects/jobs they don't want to and have no interest in doing?

To STEM or not to STEM:

I am aware that the government is pushing for more uptake in STEM subjects. This is counterproductive. It's more important to enthuse young people so they wish to do those subjects and once they do it's important to work hard to keep them. Science has taken centre stage over the past two years and I'm not sure it's necessarily made it more popular. 

Even I have become tired of hearing from them and I'm someone who has always liked science and been used to talking about science with my brother and now with my daughter. Despite their inclination towards Physics both were/are equally happy to discuss any field in Science from Space Science to Botany. In both the secondary schools I attended I was told I was talented at Science. In the first senior school it was Biology, in the second one it was Chemistry. My Chemistry teacher was already gearing me up to study the subject at A Level and told my parents as such. This panicked me because I had barely started studying Chemistry. My previous school only offered General Science in the first two years. Anyway, I preferred Biology and was hands-on for any practical but loved Chemistry experiments. I found chemical reactions fascinating. However, despite this I didn't end up in Science despite my apparent talent, (although I was shocking at Physics) simply because my school didn't offer Biology or Botany at advanced level. 

The government has a cynical approach to anyone outside of STEMM (the extra M is for medicine), negatively labelling them as possessing a so-called 'Mickey Mouse' degree (usually something with 'studies' in the title) which is perceived as not directed at a particular job/career. Recently, there has been an even greater push to retrain these graduates and those working in the creative industries into STEMM. We all remember the UK Government advert promoting how ballerinas can quickly retrain in IT and jump into a job in cyber security. However, an example of how this doesn't and won't work is Joshua Burke. Here was a nice young man who became a professional violinist having studied at the Yehudi Menuhin School for 5 years and then at the RCM. He became a member of the London Chamber Orchestra and taught music. So you'd think he was all set. No. A few years later finds him on a graduate medical fast-track 4 year degree at Warwick University. Graduating in 2019, Joshua starts his career as a junior doctor but within a year, during the first lockdown when on a professional break, he takes his own life. I'm not going to speculate why this happened, I never met him so I don't know him. But he sounds like a sensitive, caring, ethical young man who struggled with the ethos of the medical profession. He had put his heart and soul into both careers, which couldn't be more different from one another, yet neither seemed to work out for him. This must have been confusing, and very distressing even more so given the psychological impact that lockdown has on everyone bar the extremely privileged. 

So here's a young person who has retrained, just as the present government wants creative people to do, and it hasn't done him or us any good. On the contrary, Joshua Burke's story is a truly sad one, and he is by no means the only one to whom this happens. As the British Medical Association has pointed out, roughly 50% of doctors suffer from burnout which often brings with it anxiety and depression. A third suffering worsening mental health during the pandemic. This I suggest, may well be the result of the bullying and sexual harassment culture which is said to be endemic in NHS hospitals (Feb 2019 The Guardian: Sarah Marsh). BBC News last September corroborates this by reporting on bullying and racial discrimination issues at the Nottingham University Hospitals Trust. However, it's not as simple as doctors being less than fully fit to do their job, it also has a severe impact on their ability to care for patients. As a result, we, the general public are worse off.

So, does it make sense to attempt to push people into subjects and careers they don't wish to do?

Is it not better to have less doctors but dedicated, fit ones than lots of doctors who cannot work at full capacity. There is, of course, the glaringly obvious point that conditions in hospitals need to substantially improve. Long hours with non-nutritional food from vending machines is a recipe for a lack of productivity which, all too easily, turns into a disaster for doctors, nurses and patients. Providing nurses and doctors with healthy meals on the premises would make a great deal of difference! The same is true where long hours on duty are concerned. Cut the hours or give doctors and nurses rest periods during long stretches of time when on duty. 

The government should not put pressure on young people to go into a favoured few degrees and professions simply because, through Brexit, there's a shortage of vital professionals. These professionals equally need relax time which is what the creative industries provide! 🤗 

So creative people are providing important mental and emotional support for those who are in non-creative professions. That is how a society works. Every one is valued and important and has their part to play for the good of the whole. Otherwise, you have a divided, malfunctioning society. 

STEEMM: Science, Technology, Economics, Engineering, Mathematics, Medicine are, apart from medicine, non-people careers, which come across as soul-less, stuffy, restrictive, and closed-ended. Therefore, they don't appeal to a vast amount of people, not just those who are creative but also those who prefer Humanities; Languages (including Classics) which can fall under Humanities; Social Sciences including Philosophy (Humanities?), Sociology, Political Science, Law, Policy Studies, International Relations, Human Rights, Psychology (a pseudo-science). They also have less appeal for many women, racial minorities, LGBT+ and gender non-conforming people, partly because of their 'snotty' attitude towards them.

Further Education Colleges:

So this is the first problem: Are schools offering enough variety of subjects at A Level?

If not, we should ask the question whether further education should be expanded to resolve this problem. I can't help feeling that 17-18 year olds no longer belong in school. By the time they are 18 they are adults. How can adults still be going to school as pupils? Further education colleges would also provide a better stepping stone for university or apprenticeships.

Why Don't People Stay in STEM?

Is it a perception of science as rather boring?

Is it that it's not welcoming to gender non-conforming individuals?

Is it lack of interesting work?

Is it too fussy over grades?

Indeed, are we all too obsessed with grades?

What about just enthusiasm for and love for a subject/career?

I'm watching 'The Great Pottery Throw Down' (Channel 4) which I'm enjoying enormously. The returning presenter Siobhan McSweeney started out in STEM. She studied Science at University College, Cork but then went on to Central School of Speech and Drama in London and became an actress. She is also a presenter. Nothing wrong with any of that. However, Siobhan followed the STEM route but didn't remain in it. Why not? This one example illustrates how it's not enough to encourage or even push students into Science because, unless they genuine want to do it and it's entirely their own choice, then they won't stay the course. As with many things, it's also not always up to them. If they were not happy studying it or were not given opportunities to have a career in it then all that effort in promoting STEM is a waste of time. There are students who enjoy STEM subjects, the trick is to know how to channel that enthusiasm so it translates into a fulfilling career that means they'll want to remain in it.

Another example is Karl Chu from Britain's Most Expensive Houses programme, aired on Channel 4 and still available On-Demand, who studied Economics then worked for Microsoft as a software engineer before working his way up to investment banks. But his real passion was: shoes!👞So, he left the City and set up an upmarket shoe business in Savile Row called Ascot Shoes. So Karl, like Siobhan, also started in STEM but, in his case, he ended up in the fashion industry. He followed his passion. Isn't this what everyone should be encouraged to do? I doubt this would mean everyone will rush to be pop stars or artists but it will mean people will be enthusiastic about their careers and thus more productive and engaged with life. 

Creative Industries:

In contrast, Andrew Lloyd Webber is a fine example of someone who followed his passion very early on. He has always been passionate about musicals and has not only been hugely productive but also stays passionate about music and music education and brings joy to us all through his music. He's not in STEM, quite the opposite, he went up to Oxford University (for a term as it turned out) to read History but left to pursue music. His passion for musicals generates a great deal of revenue and draws people to London and its cultural life in general which includes galleries and museums. Tourists come to London to see these galleries and museums which make the UK the number 1 country in the world for the most visited museums/galleries because it has 4 (Tate Modern, V&A, National Gallery, British Museum) that rank in the top 10. Andrew Lloyd Webber is also a fantastic advert for the UK as a musical capital. 

Let's talk statistics📈📊: Creative industries in 2019 contributed £116 billion to the UK! In February 2020, around the start of the pandemic, the creative industries contributed almost £13 million an hour to the UK economy! And the government thinks creative arts are a waste of time and don't boost the economy. So 'do STEM that's where the money is', they say! That's what we need! But as Boris Johnson pointed out Peppa Pig is a creative idea that has gone global and had a net worth of £1.4 billion pre-pandemic. In the worldwide retail sales alone e.g. toys it has generated $1.35 billion! This is not counting theme parks, TV programmes, advertising revenue and so on. 

Indeed, in 2019, the government was investing money in apprenticeships to encourage people into the creative industries yet, only a couple of years later, they were pushing those very same people to retrain in something more 'useful'. We can't live like this being subjected to the latest governmental whim. 

Is it, therefore, not far better to allow young people to find the subjects that appeal to them because they'll be better at them, and find them more fulfilling? This will make them happier and happy people tend to work harder and find what they do more satisfying. They are also more likely to help others in the same field. That feeds back into society and the economy. Forcing people to do what they don't wish to do has the opposite effect.

How Does One Choose Subjects at School?

So how does one help a young person find the subject for them be it at GCSE or A Level?

Should it be based on grades?

Should teachers, parents and others have their say too?

In my case, the school was far too interfering. I couldn't do Art GCSE, for example, because it wasn't academic enough which is why we studied Art History in the sixth form because that's an university subject (years 12, 13) quite apart from the fact they did not appreciate my modern art drawings and paintings. However, this is exactly what art colleges want! Representational art is not their thing. Yes, I even thought about going to art college. There was one only a few minutes walk from home and I would go past it and peer through the window longingly. In fact, I still do when in the vicinity! Art college was next on my list after music college. But this is going back a bit. And it only occurred to me because when I started my second secondary school, the out-going art teacher thought I was very talented at art and wanted to teach me privately. My parents didn't seem keen so she offered the lessons for free. Still nothing doing. I think they didn't feel it was right for her to teach for free but couldn't afford to pay for the tuition thenselves.

Or should it be left up to the young person who knows better than anyone else what subject/s they enjoy the most? 

Or should young people do the same subjects as their parents and then follow them into the same profession? 

Or should young people choose one subject from each group: humanities, sciences, languages, creative arts (music, art, dance,) so they have a broad perspective and the skills to then choose any one from the category that is related to it. For instance, if you choose Physics at A Level you could go on to study Astronomy, Space Science, Engineering, Computer Science, Ophthalmology, Mathematics, Nuclear Energy, Photography and more. If you choose History you can go on to study any one of: Politics, Gender Studies, Women's Studies, Law, Classics, Archaeology, Anthropology, Art History, Philosophy, Sociology. And so on. 

Conclusion:

I'm not sure whether we have solved the subject choice issue and how to both satisfy the young person's interest and at the same time make sure there are careers at the end of their study which will enable them to flourish. After all, every subject/discipline has the potential to be a financially rewarding career if the opportunities are there. Maybe that's where the focus should be. 

Do sign up to be a member of this blog, write a comment and tell me what you think about the topic! I'm very interested in your thoughts on this post. I think education needs a rethink, especially at the top end, 16+. What do you think? 

Author: Jana Kaucky

Proofread, edited and IT: Liba Kaucky 

Freedom to choose

Reading back my post (16 Feb) it dawned on me that it wasn't quite clear why I felt the need to study for a BD (Honours), a rare and difficult degree. Well, I didn't think in terms of a BD as such, a BA would do. It was partly recommendation (Rev. J. Lang) and partly having come across people who had studied for one at Heythrop. The drawback was that it was very male dominated with only 10% being women over the age of 18. In my year group, out of ten women who started the course less than half were still there at the end. Not too surprising when three decades later my daughter studies for a Philosophy degree at a secular college (London University) and the same happens! 

So, yes, it was a wish to progress up the career ladder be it as a lecturer; or just teaching in highly academic schools (single degree needed) since Religious Studies is the number one shortage subject; or going into middle/senior management (hence my MA in Education [management]). However, there's a hierarchy of schools that you don't fully appreciate at the beginning of your teaching career. You naïvely think a degree should be sufficient for any secondary school, surely? No. The better the school academically the more qualifications it demands. Single degrees were preferred. Teaching qualifications were not essential since many teachers in private schools were not fully qualified, even until the beginning of the 21st century! 

Fully qualified means you have done one year in a state school and had inspectors sitting in on your lessons and even chatting and observing you as you go about the school e.g. lunch duty. So being fully qualified made me a better proposition for state schools because they only employed those that fell into that category. It's not that I didn't enjoy teaching in state schools. The girls can be more loyal than in a private school but you miss the academic level of education. This is why I think it's unnecessary to possess a degree when trying to become a teacher. A certificate (a 3 year course post A Level specialising in Education, both theory and practice plus subjects you wish to teach) would be sufficient for both primary and secondary schools since you rarely teach anything that stretches you beyond that. Once you have a degree you become dissatisfied, especially if you've attended an academic school yourself. 

My parents, however, never put any pressure on me to do well at school. They didn't tell me what subjects to study whether at Ordinary Level or Advanced Level. Nevertheless, my A Level choices, or lack of, were chaotic! I had wanted to take my Czech O Level to A Level standard. So my mother, delighted I was interested, plucked the books which were on the syllabus out of her library 📚 and encouraged me to start straightaway. However, the school wouldn't allow me to take A Level Czech because they, so the argument went, couldn't supervise/mark my work. So another A Level bit the dust. I did read and study the literature anyway and discussed it with my mother who loved Czech literature. Czech was a subject I had thought of studying at the Slavonic Institute (London University) but Rev. Lang said I wouldn't want to do that because there were communists there but then he said the same thing about the Czech Embassy in London (Notting Hill Gate) which is why we never went there for any events. Besides, what communists? UK communists are not the same as those behind the Iron Curtain. Not that I knew what a communist looked like since I'd never met one and we never travelled to any countries behind the Iron Curtain. Anyway, it was all very annoying because I relied on him for a reference supporting my application to study Czech and to back up my mother's assessment of my Czech. Frustrated 😞 I couldn't do the subjects I wanted to do I asked my mother if I could leave the school and attend a further education college where options were broader but my mother wouldn't hear of it! 

My mother supported any and every subject at school level and beyond at university. I had the same approach with my daughter. Whichever subject she wanted to do at university was fine with me. Whatever career she wants to do is also fine by me. Nothing was or is crossed off! Her father's opinion was not by and large forthcoming about university, career or anything else e.g. her relationships, as far as I and my daughter are aware. And besides, I'm the educationalist not him! So I'm the one with whom she would discuss such things. There was no big family discussion with all of us sitting at a large family table holding hands. We didn't have those discussions about anything. It was just the way it was.

Therefore, I was horrified 😱 to hear Professor Susan James tell us on a podcast that her parents wouldn't allow her to study Humanities at university. What? 😲That's half the curriculum gone up in smoke. She compromised on studying Philosophy (a social science subject although not totally off the Humanities radar) but it should never come to that! 😢

I've known Susan James since early 2010. I've met her in person around campus, sat in on a lecture of hers, went to talks and conferences (all with my daughter) where she was a speaker and also enjoy attending her London Spinoza Circle which has been sadly 😢 interrupted by the pandemic. But I with my daughter have watched the latest circle meeting, which was a workshop in November 2021, on YouTube. 

I have always been hugely supportive of her, her work, as well as her relationship with my daughter whatever it may be at whatever stage or level it may be. My daughter knows this and since we have no secrets I know everything that has gone on so nobody can start giving me any misinformation and plain nonsense. Indeed, I know things before they happen. I knew she was going to 'propose marriage' 💍 (for the first time in her life!) to Susan James well before and just before she did so. I'm not divulging a secret here because Susan James herself loudly and happily 🙂 declared the proposal to a lecture theatre full of international philosophers at an annual conference mid heated discussion with my daughter. 

So why people are still interfering in their relationship is beyond me. It's both tiresome and inappropriate for them to be constantly monitoring their every move or look between them. Liba had, and still has, my blessing. Or to put it another way, I broke a plate (on purpose, to mark the occasion) as my mother did when I announced my engagement. I think Susan James and her have a special connection and I am delighted they do. Just let them be!🤗🌈

Author: Jana Kaucky

Proofread, edited and IT: Liba Kaucky 

About this Government Consultation on Conversion Therapy

I ended my previous blog referring to gay relationships, no matter what age or status or class or age gap, being as beautiful as those between straight people. This blog post continues the LGBTQIAPD2S theme.

I filled in the online government consultation on the conversion therapy ban because it was important to do so especially when I saw how many anti-gay and anti-trans groups were being given advice on how to fill it in to the detriment of LGBTQIAPD2S people. This seems to me to invalidate the consultation right there.

I primarily filled it in to support my genderfluid lesbian daughter but I also filled it in because, being pansexual myself, it affects me too. However, filling it in just annoyed me. 😠 The questions were phrased awkwardly, not easy to answer, and kept asking for examples to support my view. Surely the questions should have been simple and straightforward:

1. Should there be an outright ban on all forms of conversion therapy? Yes/No

2. Should conversion therapy be allowed if consent is given by the individual? Yes/No

3. If you answer is 'No' to Q 1 what exceptions do you think should be allowed and why? Give reasons.

4. Should those who carry out conversion therapy for whatever reason be prosecuted regardless of who they are e.g. parents, religious leaders, psychologists, pastoral care workers, health professionals, cultural leaders, and so on.  Yes/No

5. Are you a member of the LGBTQIAPD2S community? Yes/No

6. Are you an ally of the LGBTQIAPD2S community? Yes/No

Many countries have now banned this abhorrent practice, including Canada and New Zealand both of which are Commonwealth countries! I'm struggling to understand why a consultation was ever needed or suggested. How about acknowledging that conversion therapy is a medieval, outdated, cruel, torturous practice that dehumanizes the individual. Nazis dehumanized various groups in society, namely Jews, gays, Roma, women, and disabled in addition to practising gay conversion therapy. We all decry the suffering inflicted by the Nazis yet we are still prepared to carry on with this conversion therapy process that has a Nazi hallmark: dehumanization, conversion therapy through humiliation and torture, medical experimentation and possible death. 

Worse still, lesbians, gays, non-binary, gender expansive, intersex and trans were still persecuted post Nazi era stretching well into the 21st century!😢 Indeed, the EU didn't acknowledge that gay people were holocaust victims until 2005! 😱

And, despite all this, conversion therapy continues to be legal in the UK 😱even though there is a substantiated link between suicide and suicide attempts by those subjected to the horrific treatment of conversion therapy by fellow human beings. For an excellent article on this, see:

https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/commentary/conversion-therapy-lgbtq-pennsylvania-20220214.html 

Imagine, if you will, that a consultation document was to be circulated asking people to fill it in with supporting evidence whether there should be a complete ban on converting Jews through a process called conversion therapy. There would be a public outcry of anti-Semitism, and rightly so! Why, then, is it different for those in the LGBTQIAPD2S community? They are human beings whose dignity is every bit as important as everyone else's in the world! Their physical, mental and emotional well-being is every bit as important as everyone else's in the world! It's time LGBTQIAPD2S people were accorded the respect they not only deserve but have the right to expect. And if religion is worth its salt, surely religious leaders, pastors/vicars/priests etc should be leading by example by showing respect towards the LGBTQIAPD2S community and protecting it from harm not causing the harm themselves! If they cannot do this then one wonders: what is the purpose of religion? Some pastors have come out defiantly claiming that they will carry on with conversion therapy even if there is an outright ban. Since when are religious leaders above the law?🤔

#Banconversiontherapy now with no loopholes and no exceptions, which includes no religious exceptions! 

For an excellent discussion on this see:

https://lgbtqiapd2sphilosophy.blogspot.com/2022/02/uk-conversion-therapy-consultation-are.html

Author: Jana Kaucky

Proofread, edited and IT: Liba Kaucky 

My Educational Background

I've touched upon my educational background in my previous post. 

So here I'll expand on it to show where I'm coming from.

I went to a non-denominational state primary school and loved it there. At eleven, I, like my brother before me ( Westminster City Grammar School) was due to go to a non-denominational state grammar (Godolphin and Latymer) which I was really excited about. I enjoyed my interview there and found the teachers really encouraging and positive and couldn't wait to start. That wasn't all I was excited about. I was given a scholarship, on the strength of my exam result, to the RCM Junior school to study piano. My father bought me a new piano for the occasion.🎹❤ He was one awesome father! ❤️🙂Life was good. I was happy. That was until Rev. J. Lang stuck his nose in and somehow persuaded my mother to send me to a fee paying convent school that was positive towards Jews. I remember standing outside Velehrad and listening with horror 😱 at what he was saying. Looking at my mother I saw her face. She was not impressed! She was annoyed. Anyway, I ended up going there even though we couldn't afford it. Not only was I deprived of a good school (G&L) but also my RCM place evaporated because Labour came to power and now if you attended a private school you apparently couldn't take up a free place at the RCM and other such-like institutions. Paying for the place was out of the question on top of school fees and extras like sports equipment, science and art overalls and so on. I was distraught. So I continued attending Czech school on Saturdays whilst imagining myself at the RCM instead. I doubt I took anything in!

I enjoyed the (first) convent school especially since I was in the choir, as I had been in the primary school. We entered competitions and cut a record. And best of all we had fun. More fun than was allowed! I didn't know anything about nuns before I went there but they were sweet enough and religion wasn't overdone. In fact, I have trouble remembering any RE lessons in that school or the next convent school which was focused on the academic, more sporty (healthy mind in healthy body was the motto of the headmistress and indeed, I spent many a lunch time on the hockey pitch) very strict and far less fun. But on the upside, religion wasn't something that was shoved down your neck. We had 'retreats' once a year which I, and the other girls, enjoyed because it meant no lessons and a chance of a sneaky nap or two. There were nuns who taught there but there were also many lay teachers.

Both my father and maternal grandmother were staunchly opposed to my attending convent schools and seriously concerned I could become religious or, worse still, a nun! 😱 I didn't enjoy this second convent school which I had to switch to because the first one was becoming a comprehensive and would be even further away from home, and liked it even less when: first, there was no choir and second, I couldn't study Botany at A level simply because I was the only student who wanted to study it. This was despite the fact that there was a willing and able teacher to undertake it. After all, I'd just studied Russian as the only student simply because a member of staff could teach it. So what was the difference? My mother was very good and didn't bat an eyelid that I was learning Russian. She never foisted any of her dislikes onto us. She refused to help me with German which confused me because her Czech was peppered with German sounding words. I later discovered that these words were Yiddish. I thought all Czechs spoke like that. However, I noticed that neither my mother nor my father used these words in public, only at home with family. Children just accept stuff like this without thinking too hard. Interestingly enough, the second convent school did not offer O Level or A Level Religious Studies. That was a relief!

When my uni application went pear-shaped I wondered what to do next. My brother, Josef, had gone to London University to study Physics (Honours) but it didn't go well even though he was very good at science. In my view (and my mother's) he spent too much time at Velehrad wasting time instead of studying. However, he wrote some excellent poetry during this time and later. Since his death, anything my brother, Josef Kaucky, wrote, made or created (e.g. Whatever he wrote, made, drew, photographed) is now under my copyright and I reserve all my rights to his works. So for those to whom he generously gave copies please do not use them in any way (e.g. for profit or not for profit, for distribution or publication of any kind). This is equally true of my works (e.g. written, photography or my artwork) - I reserve all my rights and do not give permission to anyone to use my works in any way, other than my daughter, Liba Kaucky.

Anyway, uni didn't sound that great but I wanted to do further study. As luck would have it, I went for my usual weekly walk with my mother and we happened to go past a college or two. I popped in for a prospectus. I liked the grounds. Well, that's a good enough reason to like somewhere! I applied and started in September. It was a teacher training college (London University) which suited me because I had already been teaching on Saturdays for the past three and a half years. It also so happened that it was, yet again, a Catholic institution but I was no more religious after attending two convent schools than I had been beforehand. At least there'd be no more commuting. My dilemma was which subject to choose. I was going to put myself down for secondary teaching so was restricted to only shortage subjects. Education theory was compulsory for all. So it was a combined degree (B.Ed). In the end, I thought that if I put myself down to do RE I'd get in more easily but adjusted it to RE/English. I was accepted for both and then could choose. Well in theory I could. In practice, the RE department wouldn't let me go without a fight. So I stayed. I've always regretted the decision to allow myself to be 'persuaded' to do the wrong subject. Although not entirely, because I chose English (with drama modules) for my second teaching subject so put it to rights, somewhat. I then backed this up in my MA (Education, Surrey University) later on, when I chose  English Literature as an option.

They say uni days are the best years of your life and that was true for me here. I made friends with a number of girls and we went around with each other. I had a blast. Again religion wasn't much of a feature. The head of my department wasn't religious although he was a priest, I think. Well you'd never know it! He complained bitterly if he was expected to say mass. The nun in the department had been kicked out of one uni (Oxford?) half way through her PhD and had to go to another (Heythrop?). But she made amazing punch and threw great parties at her place.

She was not the only nun who put a capital F in the word fun. There was my tutor in education for the secondary school group. She took fun to another level! They don't make them like her! It was fun all the way! One of my friends was also a nun but she'd go to the pub in clothes that even I raised an eyebrow at! Not out of disapproval, you understand, merely out of concern! It was the strategically placed rips in the jeans that worried me! I felt a duty to go with her to protect her but she was having none of it! And that's not counting the nun who confided in me that she was leaving the Order to marry a priest, who was therefore also going to have to leave the priesthood!

The college gave us a great deal of freedom and all the staff were friendly, approachable and supportive. Students could drop in and chat to them at any time. This was true even of the Principal. If her green light was on outside her door, you could knock and enter for a chat about something you felt was important. No need for constant appointments. These were more for one-to-one tutorials which, I think, are the only tutorials worth having. Students need the challenge of defending their work to a lecturer who is an expert in the area. We had fun but we worked hard too on top of having to undertake teaching practice in schools.

I also had a fantastic personal tutor who was in History and the offer was always there should I want to do another subject other than RE. I chose History as my third teaching subject because of him. Just for fun I also attended Science teaching for Middle School because I had wanted to study Botany (or English) at Uni. So this was the next best thing. Ideally, what I had wanted to do was to become a pianist with teaching music at secondary level as a back-up plan.

After becoming fully qualified as a teacher I returned to study. I wasn't enjoying teaching and wanted to gain further qualifications and lecture. Rev. J. Lang suggested Heythrop (London University) which was Jesuit run but, since he was a Jesuit, I didn't really think of it as a problem and, besides, I knew how to cope in Catholic institutions without it having a religious effect on me. Rev. J. Lang promised to fund me. The fund never materialised. The academic registrar worked wonders and somehow found funds for me so I could continue the degree. This was very sweet. I appreciated it. Apparently, my work was of a high standard so a decision was made to give me the opportunity to continue my degree. Thank you, Heythrop!  Many found the BD too difficut. I didn't because my combined degree had been demanding. My free time was spent playing golf with my boyfriend and badminton at lunch time with a female friend at Heythrop. The golf caused me back problems which were so severe I had to postpone my finals to the following year (during which time I did not attend Heythrop, I merely turned up for the exams based on the three years f/t BD course I had undertaken) because I couldn't sit for long periods of time and each exam lasted 3 hours, and there were something like 9 papers in 2 working weeks. I only took my finals that one time! Which obviously means, no retakes! Still, I learned a great deal and built on my previous degree. I had undertaken a dissertation (with viva) on the Old Testament so now I deepened my knowledge as well as learned Biblical Hebrew. New Testament Greek classes were easier for me because I had attended Theology conferences at Oxford every summer during my first degree. However, when it came to BD options I chose, Philosophy of Religion, History of Religion (19th century which included Darwin) and Schleiermacher (philosopher/theologian). At no point did I feel that I had to subscribe to some dogma or creed. It was very much an academic environment boasting a fantastic library. The lecturers I had were all excellent and one to one tutorials were challenging and highly enjoyable.

I returned to teaching and studied part time at the Institute Of Education (London University) for an MA in RE. Edwin Cox was one of the lecturers. He was famous in this subject and very old-fashioned but loved my style of writing, wished he could write like that except, he added, maybe I should read more of the books set. He was right. I was exhausted from teaching 6 days a week so I cut corners. Something my daughter never does. At uni she read the set reading and then some. After my first tutorial with him he asked me to play a round of golf with him. You never know when stuff you learn may come in handy!

Unfortunately, I didn't complete the degree because I had my daughter half way through the course and the only time I could find to study was after 10pm and through the night. Since she was born at the start of the academic year it meant I was in no condition to attend lectures for a few weeks. It was a nightmare birth! So, I sadly and very reluctantly gave up the MA but the following academic year I started another MA which I did complete. Neither of the two institutions at which I studied my MA's were Catholic!

Despite this, Catholic schools seemed more keen on me. Although, there were exceptions which was great because it meant it became 50/50. I preferred secular schools because World Religions were taken more seriously which meant  I even had the opportunity to teach Hinduism and Philosophy at A Level.  Nevertheless, overall, I didn't enjoy teaching R S unless I was able to teach World Religions, Philosophy and discuss modern day problems and issues and their relationship to religion e.g. FGM. It was much better when, as a Head of Department, I could write the syllabus! But, by and large, I much preferred teaching English with Drama. Although I loved being Head of Music at a comprehensive school on the strength of teaching music on Saturday's for so many years! 🎹🎶🎵🎶🎵

After my MA, I, once again, returned to teaching but also lined up a PhD in Education. I even had a school at the ready that would let me undertake research there. It never happened. I had to give up my job which had been enjoyable because I taught across a wider age range and my daughter had to leave school at which she had made friends. So I ended up being stuck at home educating my daughter. And she ended up stuck with me! I think she has already mentioned, on one of her blogs (see here for footnote** in that post) that this wasn't my idea and one that I strongly fought against! I think she found the change easier than I did. I am not an advocate of home education. Even though I did enjoy teaching her. She was and remains incredibly rewarding to teach. And on the plus side, home education created a strong mother/daughter bond between us that has remained to this day. ❤😘 We have no secrets!❤

However, I did return to teaching (as a supply teacher) for a while and carried on home education simultaneously. By then my daughter was a teenager and self-sufficient. But I found it tiring because it's erratic work which is fine if you have access to a car and don't also home teach.

Looking back, I think what a mess. A mess that was unnecessarily set off by one interfering priest. It's frightening to think how your life can take a turn, usually for the worse, if you allow any level of interference, no matter how big or small!

As can be seen, teaching wasn't a career I chose. It was just something that came easily so I did it. But it's never worth settling for something. If you really want to do something, do it regardless. Don't let others steer your path. Or pressure you!

Given the above, you could be forgiven for thinking I am an ardent Catholic but you'd be wrong. It's easy to look at a list of institutions someone has been to and subjects studied and/or taught then make huge assumptions about that person without knowing them. I'd promised my father (and my grandmother) that I wouldn't become religious and I kept that promise. Besides, I think it's time Jews were allowed to be who they are without fear just as gay people should be free to be who they are and love whomever they love without fear or interference from others! Love is beautiful whether you're gay or straight.❤🌈

Author: Jana Kaucky

Proofread, edited and IT: Liba Kaucky