Edition 55

22 June 2007 

 

Headlines

 

“F” WORD

 

The “f” word is back. In no less a publication than the TES. Apparently the government wants to make primary schools more – wait for it – “fun”. And the way to make them more fun is to do more topics.

 

There is nothing wrong with occasional topics. There never has been and there never will be. Taught well they provide a wide range of learning experiences. Unfortunately as the basis for the curriculum they do not present a coherent view of the world and nor do they provide a structured approach to what is learned. For older pupils traditional subjects offer greater coherence and better progression.

 

To say, as some do, that subject teaching is “boring” – the “b” word – is ridiculous. How on earth can learning about the Romans be boring? How can doing experiments with light-bulbs not be interesting, or studying the local environment? I have never come across primary aged children who have been bored by these activities.

 

This year marks the fortieth anniversary of the Plowden Report. One of its many shortcomings was the promotion of cross-curricular topics in the classroom which contributed to twenty-five years of confusion. We should learn the lessons of Plowden by not returning to topics but by continuing to excite children about the great bodies of knowledge which inform them about their world.

 

Letter used in the TES 22/6/07

 

 

WRONG SIGNALS FROM GRAMMAR SCHOOLS

 

I dislike the idea of grammar schools but I’m not entirely sure why. They continue to provide an excellent all-round education. They uphold high standards of academic attainment. They contribute to diversity and give parents a choice of schools – some parents more than others it has to be said.

 

But I would go further than Cameron and Willets. Not only would I remove the possibility of grammar schools making a comeback I would phase them out altogether. Not because I’m a vindictive class warrior – I’m as middle class as they come and, needless to say, went to a grammar school which served me well.

 

Nor is my argument for abolition on the grounds of equalising opportunities. Supporters of grammar schools make the case that their existence widens opportunities for pupils who have ability but come from less advantaged backgrounds. There may be something in this even if it is not as true today as it was for previous generations. Though why grammar schools are necessary to provide better opportunities than other schools remains a mystery. Non-selective schools should be perfectly capable of providing top quality teaching in academic subjects as well as other areas of the curriculum.

 

And this lies at the heart of the debate. Education is about every pupil in every school achieving high standards. We don’t need academic excellence for everybody but we do want all our pupils to be proficient in English, maths and IT. We want them to have a good understanding of the great principles of science and how these are applied. We want them to be well acquainted with the humanities, and we want them to be creative.

 

More than anything, perhaps, we hope they will develop sound values and attitudes. They need to learn to value other people and understand that different abilities and interests make us what we are. They should therefore be encouraged to support each other in school – those who excel in their maths should help those who struggle with the subject; those with sporting prowess should assist those who are limited in this direction; and those who are good at making things, or who have a talent for art or music, should appreciate the efforts of those who lack creative flair.

 

There is a place for competition in schools and it has its uses as a motivational tool. But true learning is not competing to see who is top of the class or who acquires the most dazzling set of exam results. It is much more than this and most of the time it should be a co-operative venture. 

 

Grammar schools send out the wrong signals. The impression they give is that some pupils are more valued than others because they possess particular abilities which will enable them to go to university, take a well paid job, be a superior sort of person and lead a superior sort of life. They also convey the idea that the main purpose of education is academic excellence and collecting as many A stars as possible at GCSE and A-level. I’m in favour of A-stars but let’s not get too carried away with them.

 

If all this talk about valuing different abilities sounds egalitarian, that’s probably because it is. We should all value each other’s abilities and the contributions we make to society in our different ways. Of course we need highly skilled surgeons to operate on us, engineers to build the planes we fly in, research scientists to find new treatments for illness. But we also need skilled electricians, dedicated care workers and energetic refuse collectors who throw sacks of rubbish into a lorry.

 

Standards of education need levering up at secondary level. I have no doubt about that. But the way to achieve this is not through selection at the age of eleven. It is to have much higher expectations for all pupils, raise respect for learning, have smaller classes, offer more individual tuition and, as the grammar schools do, encourage an ethos of hard work.

 

The age at which young people should follow specialist courses should be fifteen. At this point they can be allowed to leave school or continue with their studies. If they carry on studying, as most will, they can then decide whether to choose more demanding academic subjects, high quality vocational options, or, perhaps best of all, a combination of the two.

 

We are still uncertain about what we want from our schools.  We know they are places of learning but what should be their learning priorities? We need to think seriously about this and find a sensible balance between the academic and vocational curriculum. 

 

In the grammar school debate, and in all the other debates we have about the purpose of education, we should also reflect on a few powerful words found in the Plowden Report of forty years ago: “The school should be a community within which children should learn to live a good life.” I’m happy to make this my number one priority.

 

 

BLAIR REPORT

 

See this week’s essay for the previous headline on this subject.

 

 

PLOWDEN’S PROGRESS

 

See this week’s notebook

 

***************

  

Edition 54

1 June 2007 

 

Headlines

 

WRONG SIGNALS FROM GRAMMAR SCHOOLS

 

I dislike the idea of grammar schools but I’m not entirely sure why. They continue to provide an excellent all-round education. They uphold high standards of academic attainment. They contribute to diversity and give parents a choice of schools – some parents more than others it has to be said.

 

But I would go further than Cameron and Willets. Not only would I remove the possibility of grammar schools making a comeback I would phase them out altogether. Not because I’m a vindictive class warrior – I’m as middle class as they come and, needless to say, went to a grammar school which served me well.

 

Nor is my argument for abolition on the grounds of equalising opportunities. Supporters of grammar schools make the case that their existence widens opportunities for pupils who have ability but come from less advantaged backgrounds. There may be something in this even if it is not as true today as it was for previous generations. Though why grammar schools are necessary to provide better opportunities than other schools remains a mystery. Non-selective schools should be perfectly capable of providing top quality teaching in academic subjects as well as other areas of the curriculum.

 

And this lies at the heart of the debate. Education is about every pupil in every school achieving high standards. We don’t need academic excellence for everybody but we do want all our pupils to be proficient in English, maths and IT. We want them to have a good understanding of the great principles of science and how these are applied. We want them to be well acquainted with the humanities, and we want them to be creative.

 

More than anything, perhaps, we hope they will develop sound values and attitudes. They need to learn to value other people and understand that different abilities and interests make us what we are. They should therefore be encouraged to support each other in school – those who excel in their maths should help those who struggle with the subject; those with sporting prowess should assist those who are limited in this direction; and those who are good at making things, or who have a talent for art or music, should appreciate the efforts of those who lack creative flair.

 

There is a place for competition in schools and it has its uses as a motivational tool. But true learning is not competing to see who is top of the class or who acquires the most dazzling set of exam results. It is much more than this and most of the time it should be a co-operative venture.  

 

Grammar schools send out the wrong signals. The impression they give is that some pupils are more valued than others because they possess particular abilities which will enable them to go to university, take a well paid job, be a superior sort of person and lead a superior sort of life. They also convey the idea that the main purpose of education is academic excellence and collecting as many A stars as possible at GCSE and A-level. I’m in favour of A-stars but let’s not get too carried away with them.

 

If all this talk about valuing different abilities sounds egalitarian, that’s probably because it is. We should all value each other’s abilities and the contributions we make to society in our different ways. Of course we need highly skilled surgeons to operate on us, engineers to build the planes we fly in, research scientists to find new treatments for illness. But we also need skilled electricians, dedicated care workers and energetic refuse collectors who throw sacks of rubbish into a lorry.

 

Standards of education need levering up at secondary level. I have no doubt about that. But the way to achieve this is not through selection at the age of eleven. It is to have much higher expectations for all pupils, raise respect for learning, have smaller classes, offer more individual tuition and, as the grammar schools do, encourage an ethos of hard work.

 

The age at which young people should follow specialist courses should be fifteen. At this point they can be allowed to leave school or continue with their studies. If they carry on studying, as most will, they can then decide whether to choose more demanding academic subjects, high quality vocational options, or, perhaps best of all, a combination of the two.

 

We are still uncertain about what we want from our schools.  We know they are places of learning but what should be their learning priorities? We need to think seriously about this and find a sensible balance between the academic and vocational curriculum.  

 

In the grammar school debate, and in all the other debates we have about the purpose of education, we should also reflect on a few powerful words found in the Plowden Report of forty years ago: “The school should be a community within which children should learn to live a good life.” I’m happy to make this my number one priority.

 

TRIG HAPPY

 

I don’t know who invented trigonometry but it’s clever stuff. Nor do I know who invented SOHCAHTOA. Amazingly it’s still being used decades after it was taught to me - it should be nominated for best ever educational acronym. Tens of thousands of GCSE students will be jotting it down next week as they happily encounter the trigonometry question in their maths exam.

 

They will also be working out percentages, solving equations, adding and multiplying fractions, finding angles, drawing pie charts and much more. Good luck to them. They’ll be getting plenty of mental exercise.

 

But where are we in the debate about standards? In front of me I have an Alpha Mathematics Book 3, which was part of a primary maths series used in the 1970s.  Alpha 3 was aimed at Year 5 pupils, 9/10 year olds, who had good ability in maths.  Inside my book I find a lot of content which is actually very similar to the work I have just been going over with my GCSE pupils. These are the similarities:

 

simple algebra                                  finding the circumference of circles

adding fractions                                percentages

ratio                                                 bearings

24 hour clock                                    scale drawings

speed time distance                          nets of solid shapes

round numbers                                 volume

degrees in a quadrilateral                  pie charts

  

Is there some cause for concern here? I think perhaps there may be.

 

BLAIR REPORT

 

See Edition 53

 

For Notebook and Essay see Edition 53

 

***************

 

Edition 53

18 May 2007 

 

Headlines

 

The headline below was originally posted to look like an actual report.

 

REPORT ON: Tony Blair

 

                                     TERM: 1997 - 2007

Subject

area and grade

 

Comment

Standards

 

B+

Well done, Tony.  Very good effort all round. Impressive achievements at primary level plus a levering up of GCSE results. Still more to do at the secondary stage – especially with maths and English.  

                                                       

Funding

 

B+

 

Generous. You are to be congratulated for your commitment. But over-generous on the building front - we don’t need every school to be a building site. Quality of teaching is not dependent on the state of the bricks and mortar. As for the method of distributing funds this remains unsatisfactory - you should have given all available money directly to schools by means of a national funding formula.                           

 

Philosophy

 

B

 

Generally sound. You and David Blunkett were right to insist on high standards to ensure that pupils from underprivileged backgrounds had better opportunities. You were right to stress the connection between education and employment. You were right to emphasise the benefits which education brings to society. However, you should have put across the message that education is much more than simply acquiring qualifications and climbing the meritocratic ladder.

 

Role model

 

C

 

Not good. You should have acknowledged the validity of other points of view in your policy deliberations, not just about education but on all matters. Your attempts to spin and justify everything have ultimately been self-defeating. Your method of discourse at Prime Minister’s question time, and the accompanying behaviour of your parliamentary colleagues, would not have been acceptable in the classroom. Much more maturity is required here.

 

Diversity

 

A-

 

This has been imaginative and constructive. Your drive to create new forms of schooling such as City Academies and Trust Schools has generally produced positive benefits. As you yourself have admitted you could have gone further in this direction. You could also perhaps have encouraged the development of small schools offering alternative provision.

 

Structures

 

C

 

Uncertainty in this area. Local authority involvement in education should have been phased out and replaced with privately run advisory services. You should have kept central government initiatives to a minimum and allowed schools to raise standards of attainment in their own way. What actually was the point of introducing the new National Primary Strategy?  

 

Inclusion

 

A-

 

Very good. Integrating pupils with special needs into mainstream schooling has contributed to a much greater understanding of these needs and a greater awareness of our common humanity. Perhaps you could also have given prominence to the outstanding work our special schools do on a daily basis.

 

Behaviour

 

D

 

More firmness needed. The overwhelming majority of pupils have been well-behaved but a minority have been far too disruptive You have made the right noises but this has had no effect. You should have been much more insistent that parents take responsibility for their children’s behaviour.

 

Sport

 

C

 

Unsatisfactory. Still not enough young people getting seriously involved. Not enough inter-school fixtures because teachers have too many meeting to go to. Just as well our voluntary provision is good. Your backing for the Olympics is not the best way to encourage sport for all.

 

Vocational Education

 

C-

You have let this drift, Tony. Greater rigour in the system would have brought the high status this aspect of education urgently requires. The first priority for your successor should be to develop a rigorous and coherent framework of qualifications to replace the confusion which presently exists. 

 

Higher Education

 

B

Interesting. You have come up with ambitious plans for the expansion of higher education. How this should be funded remains problematical. Most of us are in favour of more education but whether we really need the institutional expansion which has taken place is another matter. Wouldn’t it be better to have more Open University type courses available, along with learning credits for everyone?

 

Vouchers

 

C

 

A missed opportunity, Tony. We need them in order to free up the system and allow alternative methods of education to flourish. A bit of deschooling would be well worth trying and might be the answer to the disaffection some pupils feel.

 

School organisation

 

B

Good ideas. You have been right to put the emphasis on teaching and not on management. You could have gone further and compelled schools to reduce the number of meetings they hold. You could have abolished mandatory in-service training and diverted the time to individual tuition. You should have insisted that headteachers have a 40% teaching timetable.

 

Tests

 

B

Over enthusiastic, perhaps. Well done for resisting the arguments to abolish SATs at Key Stage 2. However, you could safely have removed national testing at Key Stages 1 and 3.

 

                                       OVERALL COMMENT:    

 

This is a pleasing report, Tony. You have undoubtedly made good progress and worked hard to fulfil your commitment to Education, Education, Education. If you were staying with us for another term you would no doubt be able to develop your potential still further. You have been pleasant and agreeable, even in the face of some severe verbal abuse from your peers – occasionally justified. Perhaps if your spin masters had been less active in the early days you would have built up a depth of trust between yourself and the people which would have carried you through the difficult times.

 

 

                                      OVERALL ASSESSMENT:

                          

                                      Effort and commitment            A 

                                      Achievement                             B

 

 

Notebook

 

Plowden’s Progress 

 

Should schools be places where children, like plants, are allowed to grow naturally? Or should they be places where their learning is carefully structured by adults? These are among the many fascinating questions explored by Alan Kerr in his account of the Plowden era.

 

To mark the fortieth anniversary of the Plowden Report he has drawn on his lifelong association with primary education to trace the progress of a whole set of ideas which had a profound effect on the classroom. The verdict he delivers on the Plowden effect is firm but fair.

 

This thoughtful and personal book should be read by all those with an interest in education. The issues it addresses will be relevant for as long as children learn and teachers teach.

 

To be published end of May, price £3.50

 

 

Essay

 

This essay first appeared in the Western Daily Press on 15/5/07

 

Plowden's Progress

 

This week tens of thousands of eleven year olds across the region are sitting silently in their school halls. Not because there has been an upsurge in naughtiness and they have to listen to their headteachers admonish them for their behaviour. On the contrary they have been particularly well-behaved over the past few weeks while they have knuckled down to some serious revision. They are sitting silently in the hall because its SATs time again. Our Year 6 pupils are participating in the annual Olympiad for young minds, grappling with an assortment of challenges which are laid before them.

 

The tests belong to a primary school landscape which contrasts sharply with the gentle contours of former times as defined in the Plowden Report. This year marks the fortieth anniversary of the publication of this document  which profoundly influenced what happened in primary classrooms prior to the arrival of the national curriculum and national tests.

 

Published in 1967 the report welcomed what it saw as a revolutionary approach to the education of young children. The committee of enquiry, chaired by Lady Plowden, unquestioningly endorsed a set of  ideas about how children should be educated which stretched back to the Swiss philosopher, Rousseau. According to Rousseau, and those who followed him, children should be allowed to develop as naturally as possible with a minimal amount of adult intervention. In effect they should be left to grow like plants in a garden.

 

The ideas became a philosophy of education. Where they were put into practice they were known as progressive methods. The underlying beliefs were simple and beguiling. Children needed to live “first and foremost as children and not as future adults” as the Plowden Report asserted in one of its most celebrated statements. They needed to explore the world on their own terms, make their own discoveries, exercise their natural curiosity, have plenty of hands on experiences and fulfil their creative potential. To quote from Plowden again, the curriculum was to be thought of “in terms of activity and experience rather than of knowledge to be acquired and facts to be stored”.

 

The term most frequently used to describe this approach to education was child-centred. What did this mean in practice? It was not anarchy, as some commentators liked to claim - children were not running wildly around the classroom doing their own thing. Nor did they spend all day playing and painting. For most teachers child-centred meant guiding rather than instructing pupils, allowing them to work on their own, providing them with practical and creative activities and encouraging them to find things out for themselves.

 

In a typical primary classroom of the Plowden era different children would have been engaged on different tasks: some would have been painting, some would have been doing their maths and some would have been finding out information for their topic. With its emphasis on activity and experience this was an exciting time for children and their teachers.

 

We all know how important it is to capture children’s interests, to harness their curiosity and to provide real experiences for them. We know, for example, that children learn about trees by going outside to look at them and they learn about electricity by setting up a simple circuit to light a bulb.

 

But there were serious flaws in the Plowden philosophy. The most obvious was the lack of direct teaching and explanation. There was far too little teaching going on, which was puzzling as one would expect this to be a key feature of the job description. Whole class teaching was frowned upon since it did not involve children actively making their own discoveries about the world.

 

Another shortcoming lay in the content of the curriculum. Children were not taught traditional subjects in a systematic way. The topic was the great icon of the age – dinosaurs, space, transport, homes.  Interesting as these topics undoubtedly were they did not introduce pupils to the great bodies of knowledge which have advanced our civilisation.

 

Finally, there was insufficient emphasis on the basics of English and maths. These subjects were never neglected and featured prominently in every classroom, but they were not given the priority they required.

 

In the course of my work today I visit many primary schools. They are very different places from those which were celebrated in the Plowden Report. There is still an abundance of creativity, and the atmosphere is as friendly as it ever was, but there is much more direct teaching and much more structure in the way subjects are taught. Noticeably, there are also higher expectations. I see no sign that children are weighed down by the burden of learning. In fact they respond enthusiastically to the challenges presented to them by their teachers.

 

Standards have improved and the tests which pupils are taking this week have contributed to this. It would therefore be a mistake to abandon SATs at Key Stage 2 and even more of a mistake to turn the clock back to a previous era. We should use the fortieth anniversary of the Plowden Report to reflect on what was an interesting, but misguided, experiment in education.

 

***************

 

 

Edition 52

4 May 2007 

  

Headlines

 

STAND UP FOR RESPECT

 

Is there any reason why pupils should not stand up when their teacher enters the room, as they do at Mossbourne, the city academy in Hackney? There are probably very few schools in the state sector where the tradition continues. It’s a tradition associated with a former era in which notions of deference and authority were not the same as those which exist today. Standing up when their teacher came into the room may have seemed a pointless ritual for the vast majority of pupils but at least it was a recognition that teachers deserved respect.

 

Two forms of respect are missing from many schools at the moment: respect for teachers and respect for learning. No one wishes to return to the days when teachers were respected mainly because they were feared. Schools are better places since they have become more pupil friendly. But a friendly atmosphere should not be an excuse for uncivil and inconsiderate behaviour towards adults who are working hard to do the best for their classes. Some of this behaviour is seriously discourteous and it should not be tolerated in any circumstances.

 

As for respect for learning this is largely a discarded concept. It urgently needs reviving. All our pupils, of whatever age, must understand that learning is precious and should never be disrupted. They must also be reminded regularly that other people are paying a huge amount of money for their education and this is something for which they should be deeply grateful. They benefit from their education as individuals and they benefit as members of society.

 

Reintroducing some rituals which revive the idea of respect would be a useful step for schools to take. Let us hope that Mossbourne academy has paved the way for others to follow.

 

 

THE MERRY MONTH OF MAY

 

The merry month of May is the not so merry time for SATs. Each year the drumbeats against the tests grow louder and each year I rush to their defence. Or, to be precise, I rush to the defence of the tests that pupils take at the end of Key Stage 2. The other tests, at the end of Key Stages 1 and 3, can safely be removed from the system and replaced by forms of assessment which teachers devise themselves.

 

Tests at the end of Key Stage 2 are different. By this time children have been in school for six years. Parents have the right to know how much they have learned and taxpayers have the right to know how well they have been taught. The best way to discover this information, and to make valid comparisons, is to give all our Year 6 pupils the same tests under the same conditions.

 

Twenty years ago this July, when Kenneth Baker put his proposals for the Education Reform Act out to consultation, there were those who said that eleven year olds would not be able to cope with the tests. Year after year these people have been proved wrong. Teachers and pupils see the tests as a challenge and concentrate their minds accordingly. The standards are demanding and a real effort is required to reach the expected level of attainment.

 

We can be pleased with the education our primary schools are now delivering. SATs results confirm that standards and expectations are higher than they were twenty years ago. National tests at the end of the primary phase are not a blight on children’s education as opponents of testing claim. They are a sensible method of monitoring progress.

 

Good luck to our Year 6 pupils. Most of them have worked hard and they will be rewarded with success.

 

See this week’s essay: All Quiet on the Classroom Front?

 

PLOWDEN’S PROGRESS

 

Two hundredth anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade. One hundredth anniversary of the scout movement. Three hundredth anniversary of the union of England and Scotland. Twenty-fifth anniversary of the Falklands conflict.

 

Any more? Thousands, probably, including two fortieth anniversaries which deserve a mention. Forty years ago Star Trek first appeared and forty years ago the Plowden Report was published. Perhaps if Mr Spock had been invited to sit on the Plowden committee primary schools would have boldly gone in a different direction. A pity he was otherwise engaged.

 

Alan Kerr’s book marking the fortieth anniversary of the Plowden Report is to be published shortly. It is called Plowden’s Progress.  

 

See Notebook

 

APOLOGIES

 

Apologies for School Report being off air for rather a long time. Reason - pressure of work, which can’t be bad.

 

Notebook

 

Plowden’s Progress

 

Should schools be places where children, like plants, are allowed to grow naturally? Or should they be places where their learning is carefully structured by adults? These are among the many fascinating questions explored by Alan Kerr in his account of the Plowden era.

 

To mark the fortieth anniversary of the Plowden Report he has drawn on his lifelong association with primary education to trace the progress of a whole set of ideas which had a profound effect on the classroom. The verdict he delivers on the Plowden effect is firm but fair.

 

This thoughtful and personal book should be read by all those with an interest in education. The issues it addresses will be relevant for as long as children learn and teachers teach.

 

To be published end of May, price £3.50

 

Essay

 

This essay first appeared in the Western Daily Press

 

ALL QUIET ON THE CLASSROOM FRONT?           

 

Will it be all quiet on the classroom front this week? So quiet that only the familiar sounds of silence disturb the stillness of the exam room – sighs, ticking clocks, rustling paper, scribbling pens.

 

It’s SATs week again for hundreds of thousands of eleven year olds. First introduced to suspicious teachers and unsuspecting children in the early 1990’s they are now as regular in the life-cycle of the primary school as the nativity play and harvest festival. Admittedly they’ve never had the comforting appeal of angels and shepherds, nor the mellow fragrance of the harvest display, but up until recently they have at least generated an air of excitement and a break from the normal school routine.

 

Not now though. The drumbeats of war against SATs are louder and more menacing than any time since they were first introduced. National tests are state-sponsored cruelty, a tyranny to be toppled.

 

So how quiet will it be in primary schools this week? Will our pupils sit down silently and take their tests or will they refuse even to participate in the time-honoured ritual of writing their names on their papers? Will they stroll from their exam rooms and march on the town hall chanting slogans such as “Won’t sit sats”, “Don’t set sats”.

 

Protest marches are the latest in cool after all. Child-centred, active citizenship it could be said.

 

If they get as far as the town hall I’ll be there to greet them. “Hang on a minute, folks,” I’ll say, “Let’s have a think about all this.”

 

“You’ve worked hard all year and you’ve relished being at the top of the school. On the whole you’ve enjoyed your English, maths and science, the subjects you will be tested on. Many of you are better educated than your parents were at this stage in their schooling and in the next few days you will be doing things that your parents, and your teachers, would find a struggle. Writing a top quality story in forty-five minutes, for example, or puzzling over some awkward number problems.

 

“You’re intelligent enough to know that these tests are not perfect measurements of what you have learned and have many limitations. But you also know they can be a useful guide to how you are getting on with your studies. If you can’t do the question on percentages you may need some more practice – useful things, percentages, when you have a mortgage and a walletful of credit cards.

 

“You know that SATs are not the sole purpose of human existence. Admit it you usually forget about them as soon as you hit the playground. But you also know that your education is important both for the opportunities it will give you and for the benefit of society as a whole. Lots of things in life require a bit of effort and discipline, and learning at school is the same. You understand this and invariably you enjoy the challenge.

 

“You’ve spent seven years in your primary school, a long time, and you’ve learned a lot. It’s reasonable, you must agree, to spend just one week taking a few tests so that all of us, yourselves included, can see how you’ve done.

 

“So back to your exam rooms, please. Pick up your pens and do your best. And, one last point, your teachers have been working hard as well. Give them a break. Allow them to supervise your exams and have a few blissful minutes listening to some familiar sounds of silence.”

 

*************** 

  

Edition 51

23 February 2007  

  

Headlines

 

TOO MUCH, TOO LITTLE

 

Children and young people make the headlines yet again. In the autumn the debate was about lost childhoods, now it is about unhappy childhoods brought about by poverty, drink, drugs and sex. The recent UNICEF report placing young people in the UK at the bottom of the table for physical and emotional well-being has quite rightly renewed the whole discussion about how we can best provide for our children. Caring for the present generation and nurturing future generations are the first obligations of any society, or any species for that matter, and self-evidently the issues raised in the report must be considered very seriously. It is difficult, though, not to allow oneself a hint of a smile at some of the more irreverent comments which have greeted the publication of the survey including those which warn of great new waves of immigration as the youth of the world queue up to get a piece of the action over here.

 

Valid and reliable research into what is happening in society is notoriously difficult to carry out. Invariably there are too many variables to isolate and the basic tools for measuring different factors are prone to error however much support they get from complex statistics and sophisticated technology. It is important not to use research studies to generalise about specific cause and effect unless the evidence is clear-cut and the methods used to collect it have been rigorous. If we have strong evidence about the causes of particular problems we can begin to address them. We need to look in detail at a wide range of factors and study the particular effects they have on children and the differences there are in these effects. Amongst these should be included the composition of the family, levels of income, housing conditions, the immediate environment, parents' education and, above all, parental attitudes and expectations.

 

In the absence of hard evidence all of us resort to conjecture as to why we are bottom of the table. It is easy to line up familiar reasons: family breakdown, materialistic culture, lack of discipline, underinvestment in public services and many more. Our personal belief systems inevitably lead us to select those reasons which confirm our instinctive predispositions and this is why our columnists view the situation from very different perspectives. One headline reads "PC generation in the lap of luxury" and follows this up by assuring us that children aren't at the bottom of a poverty table, they are simply in a league of greed and debauchery. Another headline reads "If we want to help children the state has to step in" and a third claims "Our national disease is lack of parental time".

 

My own feeling, and it is probably the feeling of most people, is that the problems are caused by the too much and too little syndrome. Young people generally, and certain groups specifically, are affected by too much of some things and too little of others. There is a need for some equalising to be done, some balancing.

 

There is still, as many have observed, too much child poverty especially in urban areas, and too little investment in housing, open spaces and facilities. Benefits for some families are too low and the minimum wage is wholly inadequate.

 

Too many parents do spend too little time with their children and give them too little guidance. A few give them too little care, too little love and too little basic moral instruction. Some parents, far too many, simply do not take enough interest in what their children are up to and where they actually are when they are out with their friends. Most parents, in fact the overwhelming majority it seems to me, mistakenly spend far too much on their offspring and shower them with an endless stream of material possessions. Good for economic growth maybe but not so good for shaping enduring values.

 

Then there is the whole question of freedom and authority in society as a whole. Is there too much freedom for the young and not enough authority from parents, schools and other social institutions? Is there too little freedom of the harmless sort - kicking a ball around, doing clever stunts on skateboards, riding bikes in safe places?

 

And what about work and leisure? Too much leisure and not enough hard work, perhaps? And the culture of youth? Too much of it and not enough interacting between the age groups?

 

Who is to blame for the present, disturbing situation? It is too easy to point the finger in obvious directions, at parents, teachers and politicians, but that would be a mistake. We should all shoulder the blame as individual members of society. All of us have a responsibility to instil the right values and attitudes into our young people and we have not always been successful. We need to examine the evidence carefully to establish precisely what our priorities should be and begin the slow process of redressing the balance between too much and too little in the areas of greatest concern. And if that requires us to take action such as reducing the amount of money we give to our children to spend on the latest electronic gadgetry, or insisting that our local council closes any premises which sell alcohol to those who are under age, then let's get to it.

 

BEST OF HEADLINES

 

See Edition 50 for some previous headlines from A School Report.