Participating in the Past: Problems with Archaeological Education
3.2 Problems with Archaeological Education
Within archaeology ‘education’ is obviously not something which can be labelled as exclusively the domain of schools, colleges or the further/higher education sector. Imparting information about the past is a bread-and-butter element for almost anyone involved in the subject, whether professional archaeologist, teacher or local society member, and receiving information is likewise something in which everyone at some stage themselves partakes. Among the responses there were, however, a number of specific comments relating to the formal provision of education (the topic of education and dissemination within the commercial sector is discussed further on).
Of particular concern was the low visibility of archaeology in schools, although there are some outstanding examples of good teaching utilising archaeological evidence. There is little doubt that this is due to the structure and constraints of the national curriculum, in particular the marginalisation and undervaluing of history in general, coupled with the lack of free time available for external activities. This contrasts with the enormous popularity of archaeology in the media. There was also surprise that an archaeology degree may not be seen as a sufficient base for entry to a PGCE course of initial teacher training.
There was little direct criticism of university-level education per se, which probably reflects the substantial increase in the number and variety of courses offered in recent years, both undergraduate and postgraduate, together with part-time opportunities. However, there were concerns about academia in relation to a reluctance to produce popular books, perhaps resulting from the application of research assessment exercises which place little value on such ‘ephemeral’ products. Far greater concern was expressed about reluctance on the part of universities to engage with fieldwork in the UK, or to get actively involved in local projects either as educators or facilitators.
On the broader front there was a general feeling that where courses were being provided by, eg continuing education departments, they were targeted at traditional audiences (see above) and did not effectively reach out into the community to provide basic-level training in archaeological skills, for which there is clearly a considerable demand. Courses were too often seen to be linked to accreditation and course work, which it was suggested puts many people off – in particular those without academic backgrounds – and courses were often seen to be increasingly expensive and beyond many peoples’ pockets. Some universities also restrict courses to their own campuses. There was also a feeling that to learn about aspects of field archaeology, access was needed to real materials. In view of the increasing amount coming out of the ground and now residing in stores up and down the country there should be no shortage of raw material; however, its availability at a practical level was suggested to be another matter.
There was a general perception that outreach opportunities were low on the priority list for local authority archaeologists, commercial units and archaeology in general including local societies and CBA groups.
Local Young Archaeologists’ Club branches, part of the CBA and supported by a number of organisations, although relatively few in number, were often commented upon positively, however they do not cater for the post-sixteen year old group who seem to fall through the provision net.
