 |
The UK's Leading Education 'Do-Tank' |
Search |
|
The National Education Trust is an independent charitable foundation dedicated to the promotion and sharing of excellent practice and innovation in education. |
| Never work with children or ministers Children - awkward little buggers, aren't they? writes Diane Hofkins Click here for a print version of this article. Children - awkward little buggers, aren’t they? Especially if you’re Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families. The present Government has been trying very hard to improve their lives and their life chances, but English children remain stubbornly miserable compared with most other developed countries according to a UN report, and their childhoods, argue many commentators, are still sadly toxic. Poor Ed Balls. “The vast majority of children and young people feel happy and safe, live in stable family environments, enjoy life, are doing well at school and make a positive contribution to their communities and society,” he said, ticking off all the Every Child Matters guarantees as he published a review of the lives of children and young people. The report, Children and Young People Today, is to be the foundation for the Government’s forthcoming Children’s Plan. The heading on the DCSF press release, “Balls rejects theory of Toxic Childhood but says decisive action is needed to tackle challenges” was a gift to Toxic Childhood author Sue Palmer, who told the Daily Mail, “There is a huge amount of evidence that all is not well with the state of childhood, and not in just the UN report. For the Government to go into denial about it is really very foolish because we have got to be concerned about our children’s future, not try to pretend things are all okay.” To be fair, Balls did concede there are hard-to-solve problems such as “significant numbers” still living in poverty, and the continuing underachievement of children from disadvantaged backgrounds. Some ailments cannot be cured quickly by laws and policies, but others may be exacerbated by them. One report in particular from the latest tranche published by the Primary Review got the DCSF’s goat. It was a review of research evidence on children’s lives outside school and their educational impact, by Berry Mayall of the London Institute of Education. Her study, one of 30 commissioned by the review from academics, points to the increasing “scholarisation” of childhood. In other words, more of children’s free time is being taken up by educational activities – an issue also highlighted in Toxic Childhood. The report, which is part of the evidence being collected by the independently-funded review, says: “Research on children’s ideas about home suggests that children conceptualise their home as a private place, which offers some scope for ‘free time’; many children see clear boundaries between home and school. As children find that more of their time is ‘school time’, their protective stance towards their home may increase. Whilst current moves to increase ‘parental involvement’ and to construct the home as a school-related environment may be productive in some ways, they may be counterproductive if children – and their parents – resist them.” It goes on to make this point: “The scholarisation of childhood presents parents with dilemmas: how far to protect children from its incursions and how far to help them engage with its agendas.” It’s an intriguing question to engage with, but a DCSF spokesperson responded: "Professor Alexander is entitled to his opinions but once again we fundamentally disagree with his views - as will parents across the country. Parental interest in children’s education in the home is vital for their learning. We need parents to make books available, read to their children and take an interest in their homework. Many parents already do this, and unlike Professor Alexander, we think they are right to do so." That they felt it necessary to attribute the researcher’s interpretation of her findings to the review director who commissioned the survey (Robin Alexander), and to convolute her conclusions into their illogical extreme suggests the review is making the DCSF rather anxious. Mayall’s survey points up some other important issues. One, as Ministers have often repeated, is that respect needs to go both ways. “Studies of children’s views of school consistently show that a key theme for children is respect; it is what children most want but find they do not get,” the report says. “Power relations between state school adults and children have remained virtually unaffected by years of reforms and initiatives.” It also demonstrates the damaging effects of cultural misunderstandings. In one research study cited by Mayall, both racism and clashing ideas about education were implicated in Bangladeshi reception children’s failure to do as well as their peers. “The school proposed that children were to be autonomous investigators, using a range of classroom resources to demonstrate to the teacher their readiness for more formal learning and teaching. But the Bangladeshi parents had told their children to sit quietly, be obedient and learn to read and write.” Finally, back to Ed Balls and the vast majority of children who are benefiting from those five guarantees. Surely it is the significant minority who are not happy and thriving who are the point. The Children’s Commissioner, Sir Al Aynsley-Green, has expressed in no uncertain terms his despair about the “sheer awfulness of some children’s lives”. Earlier this month he told The Sunday Times, “There is something perverse about England and English society and its views of children. In our own families we love our children, we care about them passionately. But do we care enough for the children of others, especially on the margins? I don’t think we do.” Diane Hofkins is a freelance journalist, NET leading thinker and a member of the Primary Review advisory board. Her views do not necessarily reflect those of the review or Robin Alexander. |
| Phone (44) (0)207 702 0707 |
Follow us on  |
Support NET
|
Join our mailing list |
Buy NET products online |
| Copyright © National Education Trust 2012 The National Education Trust asserts the moral right to be identified as the author of this web site. Unless otherwise specified, all material on this website may be used for non-commercial purposes, on condition that the source is acknowledged. The National Education Trust is not responsible for the content of external websites. |
|||