Category: Education


(Anti) Social Networking

Filed Under: Education, Risk, Scotsman Articles by Rod Grant — Leave a comment
22 September, 2011

Published, The Scotsman, 15 October 2011 (as an abbreviated interview) and The Edinburgh Evening News, Saturday 3rd December 2011

Is it just me or are there others out there who believe that social networking sites are the most divisive, most abhorrent, least useful innovation of all time? I find myself worrying that I’m just becoming an old fogey who isn’t in touch with today’s ‘yoof’ and that ‘networking’ through various forms of social media is actually a vital cog in society’s wheel. Then I pinch myself and realise that I’m worrying needlessly.

When you find two youngsters texting each other whilst sitting on the same school bus, you begin to see that the world is changing and not for the better. Too many youngsters inhabit their bedrooms for long periods of time ‘communicating’ with others by text, instant messaging or via something called ‘a wall’. It terrifies the living daylights out of me that we have allowed ourselves to come to this.

When I was wee, I used to communicate with my friends by actually meeting up with them and talking to them. If we were going to insult one another we did it face to face, fall out with each other, perhaps indulge in a skirmish, make up and then get on with being friends again. Now, youngsters engage in ‘cyber bullying’ where they can ensure maximum exposure of their taunting to everyone that’s logged on.

We have social network web pages where individuals display all of their talents to a faceless and nameless audience – photographs of nights out, where it is clear that the purpose of the night has been simply about taking photographs that can be uploaded, so that others can marvel at the excitement of the publisher’s life.

Youngsters have become so engulfed in the age of celebrity that they truly believe that they are celebrities themselves, inhabiting a virtual world where one’s personal remarks, ‘likes’ and photographs actually ‘matter’, when the truth is that they don’t and not a soul is interested in your night out a week ago on Friday.

They seem to compete with each other gleefully with regard to the number of ‘friends’ they each have. I know youngsters who are proud to relate that they have “347 friends”. I always reply, instantaneously, “No, you don’t, you have three.”

How sad, too, that adults, often parents themselves, indulge in mocking each other; publishing material that could, quite reasonably, be deemed offensive or inappropriate.

We seem to have lost our sense of balance, our innate humility giving way to a dark desire to be noticed and celebrated. Too many of us clutch at any medium that gives us airspace. I know I’m out of sync with the majority but I really wish social networking sites had never become a reality. I am aware, of course, that now that they are here, they are here forever. My only hope is that they eventually become the domain of the few and that the majority see them for the waste of time they actually are.

People constantly tell me that it is a great way to regain lost friendships but I can’t understand why such friendships should become lost in the first place. The people I want in my life are in my life and those that are not are not for a reason (if you get my drift). The thought of opening the door to any past acquaintance fills me with utter dread and horror. Maybe I’m just a selective hermit or maybe I’m secretly worried I’d end up with no ‘friends’ – whatever the reason, I just can’t see such sites as a force for good when, nearly every day as a Headmaster, I deal with the consequences of their misuse by students not yet mature enough to see the damage their words and pictures can wreak.

Of course, such sites are a massive blessing to the police, University and College Admissions officers, prospective employers and of course, last but not least, to predators of questionable morality. It’s time we all woke up to the reality that such sites promote the very worst of human characteristics.

As I tell my students, don’t publish anything on a website that you wouldn’t let your granny see, because once published it is potentially there forever.

Comment

‘Select’ Universities

Filed Under: Assessment, Education, Relating to University by Rod Grant — Leave a comment
28 July, 2011

Published, Edinburgh Evening News, August 6, 2011

So, only three Edinburgh secondaries have made it into a UK poll revealing the state schools which send the most pupils to the country’s best universities – despite Scottish schools dominating almost half the list. The Capital falls behind other Scottish local authorities, including Glasgow, East Dunbartonshire and East Renfrewshire, taking just three of the top slots. A total of 49 Scottish schools make the top 100. There are seven schools from Glasgow in the top 100, six schools from East Dunbartonshire and six schools from East Renfrewshire.

This news created a little media flurry with concerns being aired over the quality of secondary education here in Edinburgh but, I, for one, do not equate the proportion of students attending ‘select’ universities with high quality secondary education. This would be to suggest that only those students attending universities like Oxford, Cambridge and St. Andrews are achieving full potential. That is absurd nonsense.

Clearly, as the Head of an Independent school, I am often criticized for providing opinion on matters regarding state–maintained schools but that is because I can say precisely what I like and what I believe. My colleagues in the state sector are not afforded that opportunity which is lamentable. So, I hope I speak for many when I say that students select universities on many criteria. And we should not forget that it is actually the student who initially selects the university they wish to attend rather than the other way about. If one of my students is considering a career in sports’ science, for example, I may steer them in the direction of Stirling University; for those considering a degree in fashion or textiles, I may direct them to Heriot-Watt. In other words, the selection of a university should be based on the quality of course offered and not on some notion of generic superiority.

A recent student of my school was accepted to Oxford to study Law and, of course, I was delighted for him. The College he had chosen provided an exceptionally well-rounded degree course in his subject choice. Personally, I do not believe he chose Oxford because it was Oxford, he chose it because it had the best reputation for his particular area of study.

It is quite alarming to read that a councilor suggested that it ‘would be a good idea to look at the other local authorities who have done better to see where we can make improvements’ because this is based on a false premise.

Edinburgh has a high proportion of its students going on to Higher education and that is what really matters, not the particular institutions the students attend. Many of the ‘select’ universities offer a high number of academic degrees which are, quite frankly, not suited to a 21st century global market place. My own degree began its life as English Language and Literature at Edinburgh University, which qualified me for absolutely nothing. Indeed, I was turned down for a job in a well-known bookshop for being over-qualified (at least, that’s what they told me!) but was unable to find a job for which I was qualified. And there’s the rub. Do we not want students to receive an education that prepares them for the world in which we live? And if the answer to that is ‘yes’, then the name of the higher education institution they attend is neither here nor there. Of course, it would be too simplistic to believe that a degree from Cambridge does not appear, at first sight, as highly impressive. However, once that initial good impression is made then it is down to the individuals to sell themselves to potential employers. I have interviewed first class honours graduates from select universities that are eminently unemployable, so there is more to success than the name of the institution on a degree transcript.

We should actually be far more concerned about raising our expectations for our students in terms of driving them to further their education. Too often, we fall into the trap of dismissing a pupil’s ability because that ability is not immediately apparent. Scotland is still highly regarded in terms of its education but we are resting on our historic laurels. Our current education system is in danger of educating creativity out of our pupils. We like conformity, we like right answers, we like hearing the answer we want to hear but we are not so good at allowing mistakes, creating the environment for free expression and for ensuring that our youngsters are given the opportunity to think for themselves.

An essay question that appeared in a University General Paper in the 1970s was set up to create a philosophical debate. Students were expected to write an essay of some 500 words using the title for inspiration. The question was: ‘Is this a question?’

The student who was immediately accepted on the basis of his answer had written, quite simply, ‘Yes, if this is an answer.’

That answer demonstrates the ability to critically engage with a topic and this is the type of thinking to which we should and could be aspiring to for all of our pupils.

We must absolutely stop concerning ourselves with the Universities to which our students are accepted and start concerning ourselves with developing pupils who can think, create and succeed in the face of adversity. And that will require critical engagement of those who teach by those who have the power to make changes. What chance?

Comment

Team Teaching – the facts

Filed Under: Education by Rod Grant — Leave a comment
18 April, 2011

Published, Edinburgh Evening News, 26 April, 2011

I am a big fan of ‘team teaching’. So what do I understand that term to mean and why do I support its underlying philosophy?

Teaching is actually quite a solitary profession where there is often a lack of opportunity to reflect and evaluate our own performance. We can find ourselves teaching a similar curriculum year after year, often in the same school (perhaps even in the same classroom) over a long period of time. There is an inherent danger in this scenario of becoming isolated from our peers and finding ourselves in a comfort zone where we stop taking risks with our teaching styles, start playing it safe and resultantly become a little complacent by going through the motions of teaching. In other words, the risk in isolation is that we stop thinking about our teaching and instead become slaves to routine. The result of that is, of course, not a lack of quality necessarily but definitely a lack of dynamism and a real opposition to change. I have known teachers go through their entire career without being watched by another professional. Their classrooms become their own personal haven of safety, their own world in which they are the director of their own destiny.

Yes, we now have a fairly rigorous system of inspection, but even during that period, not all teachers will be appraised and each school is only inspected once every seven years on average. Yes, we are now in a period where self-evaluation is a central tenet of each school’s development plan, the purpose of which is a greater degree of self-reflection, but these evaluations tend to be teachers’ reflections and views of the whole school rather than of their individual performance. Many teachers are terrified by the prospect of being watched by another professional and yet their fear is largely unwarranted in almost every single case. It is their isolation which creates this fear and actually undermines their ability to learn from others.

Team teaching is used in the very best of schools as an attempt to stop this isolation, to create a safe and purposeful environment for professional dialogue and exchange of ideas. Team teaching is where two or more teachers work together to create a learning experience for a standard number of pupils. This is largely non-threatening for each of the teachers involved but creates the dynamism often lacking in teachers who have retained a singular approach to their teaching. Teachers who do take the opportunity to team-teach often find it revelatory, motivating and a spur to becoming truly reflective once again.

So, at first sight, Edinburgh City Council’s decision to introduce ‘team teaching’ into some of its schools could be interpreted as forward thinking, enlightened and a bold step into a more dynamic period of education.

However, the decision is, in my view, absolutely nothing to do with an enlightened approach to education. Team teaching in some Edinburgh schools will not be team teaching at all. The proposal is that in some of our over-subscribed schools there could be classes of fifty pupils being taught by two teachers in one large space. This would be a retrograde step, and a total disaster for the pupils, teachers and schools involved. It may be dressed up as a new way of thinking but is actually about cutting costs.

What chance that in a year or two some of the under-subscribed schools go through another period of threatened closures as a result of this new policy.

I become increasingly irritated by councillors who purport to have the best interests of Edinburgh’s pupils at heart but whose first question will always be, “Ah, but how much will that cost?” The country really cries out for someone to say, “You know what, we’re trying our best and this solution is the best we can come up with in our current financial predicament.” In many ways, that would be music to my ears. I could see the logic of reduced budgets resulting in uncomfortable choices about how and where and when we teach. I don’t like it when politicians use spin to conclude that they are doing pupils a big favour by this new “team” spirit approach, because it is nothing of the sort.

True team teaching is aspirational and has advantages for all. The team teaching initiative recently announced for some of our schools is about cost cutting, streamlining and has no educational benefit. Indeed, it may prove to be unmanageable and a disservice to the pupils who are unlucky enough to find themselves in a room of fifty pupils trying to gain the attention of one of two teachers. It is not a sensible approach and each of us should be trying to dissuade the powers that be from pursuing it. There has to be a better solution to over-subscription than this. If some schools currently have “accommodation issues” but can house fifty pupils in one space, can that one space not be partitioned into two? It’s not rocket science. Solutions are available; the issue just requires planning, joined up thinking and keeping educational benefit at the centre of the decision making process.

Comment

Head Teachers Could Face Hard Financial Lessons

Filed Under: Education, Scotsman Articles by Rod Grant — Leave a comment
8 December, 2010

Published Edinburgh Evening News, Tuesday 7th December 2010

Education Secretary, Mike Russell, announced he plans more powers for Head Teachers under a review of devolved school management (DSM) to include a review of devolved education funding. He has asked David Cameron, former President of the Association of Directors of Education, to chair this review.
Russell says of the DSM review: “This will include looking at what education funding is devolved to head teachers, how much flexibility teachers have to determine what this is spent on and how devolved school management could work in clusters of schools. I believe this is important in order to empower head teachers.”
As a head teacher of an independent school, I know only too well the benefits of determining how and where to spend the annual budget. It allows a level of autonomy that ensures areas of need can be prioritised. This means money being spent in those areas where the greatest impact and benefit can be felt. This is intrinsically sensible.
Prior to working in the independent sector, I worked in a maintained school in West Lothian. In my first year there, the school ran out of ‘jotters’ for the pupils and teachers were using loose leaf paper, often paid for out of their own pockets, in order to keep the wheels of education grinding on. The Head Teacher at the time was powerless to buy more because she had fully utilised her “resources allowance” and was not allowed to move money from any other part of the budget, even if there was no prospect of all the money being used.
What Head teachers did, therefore, was to ensure all the money was spent, even when the areas being resourced, refurbished or renewed were not really required. This was clearly not a useful policy and lead to under-resource in one area and waste in another.
So, perhaps Russell has got it right. I am just wary of politicians who seem to be making common sense decisions which are purported to be about greater autonomy but which, in effect, are about cost cutting and allowing the Heads to take the blame when their parents are less than satisfied with the cuts that will surely come. I might be being overly cynical and this brave new world may produce a better product for Scotland’s children but there are a number of issues Heads will need to consider.
First, how many Heads have a commercial or financial background? I ask this because I am certain that many Heads will feel a little uneasy about being in charge of their own spending because with this responsibility also comes a higher degree of accountability. I am in the privileged position of having a finance director as part of my school’s management team and therefore the risk of me messing it up is greatly reduced. Heads will need significant support and training if autonomy on the scale I am imagining is to be successful.
This brings me on to whether the review will actually truly devolve all funding or whether they will devolve a percentage of it. My guess is the latter which whilst probably is sensible lessens the ability of Heads to prioritise successfully.
Even if this is the case, I can assure all Heads that a considerable amount of time will be taken up on budgetary implications, discussions, meetings and so on and so forth. This at a time when the job has already become overly administrative in nature and where the backdrop is an education sector going through enormous curricular change.
Heads will need a great many skills in order to balance those prerequisite administration roles with the all-important day job of ensuring our kids get the greatest possible benefit from education we can muster.
The position of Head has become less than popular in recent years, evidenced by the number of vacancies and Acting Head positions around the country. Whilst supporting Russell’s attempt at providing greater levels of autonomy for individual Heads, I am concerned that it will make the job of Head even less attractive than it already is.
However, I am prejudging what Cameron will suggest in his review, which will not provide new guidance until next March. I can only highly commend individual schools receiving a greater say on how they use their budget. The independent sector manages to do just that and is generally successful in balancing the books and spending money in the right places at the right times. What independent schools have as a check on a Head’s decisions is a Board of Governors who ensure the financial probity of a school by rigorous and regular consultation on budget and management accounts, annual audits by independent chartered accountants and a full-time finance director. Will the maintained sector provide the same level of rigour, support and advice for its Heads?
If there is a revolution and the ideas are bold and forward thinking, then it is imperative that Head teachers are given the support and training they will undoubtedly require. Oh, and that will cost and I’m not sure that’s in the agenda…

Comment

Independent School Pupil Numbers 2010

Filed Under: Assessment, Curriculum for Excellence, Education, Scotsman Articles by Rod Grant — Leave a comment
24 October, 2010

Published in The Scotsman, Thursday, 21st October, 2010

The independent schools’ sector has seen a 2.5% decrease in pupil numbers in the Primary years and a 0.9% increase in the Secondary years over the last twelve months. The oft-quoted reason for this is that external economic influences are curtailing the parents’ ability or desire to fund an independent education in their child’s early years. Personally, I do not believe that this argument really stands up to any serious scrutiny. If money was the main determining factor, then we would see pupil numbers drop across the age groups and that is clearly not happening. Indeed, the total number of pupils receiving an independent education has been stable in Scotland for almost thirty years, regardless of the wider economic backdrop. My own school has seen a 13% increase in pupil numbers over the last year and so we need to dig deeper to establish a more robust reason. For me, there is one very good determining factor in the drop in Primary numbers and it is not simply to do with money. It is the fact that there are a high number of quality primary schools in the maintained sector doing an excellent job in difficult times. As a result, the ‘need’ for an independent education can be dissipated by good quality provision in state schools. However, Secondary schools in the maintained sector have a tougher job, having to operate a full inclusion policy, having to serve disparate and wide-ranging catchment areas and having to introduce a new curriculum without knowing what the future examination system will look like. As a result, parents of children, particularly those in Primary 7, will desperately seek an independent education for their child at Secondary level, particularly when moving from an excellent, local primary, so as to avoid a massive regional secondary which is often seen as remote from the small local communities which they serve. With savage cuts to services on their way, it will be the independent sector that picks up the pieces as parents decide that reduced provision is not what they want for the education of their child. With independent schools now offering financial assistance, parents with low or moderate incomes will have a choice to make and my money will be on the Scotsman reporting in a year’s time on an increase in independent schools’ numbers across the board.

Comment

Handwriting – Neither Here Nor There

Filed Under: Education, Scotland on Sunday Articles, Scotsman Articles by Rod Grant — 1 Comment
15 October, 2010

Published Scotland on Sunday, 17th October, 2010

When I was wee, and at the local primary school, handwriting was not taught. In fact, it wasn’t even discussed. This was in the early days of ‘open plan’ comprehensives, where we all wore white polyester polo necks and fetching purple jumpers and where the teachers were either hippies or dyed-in-the-wool dinosaurs. It was a strange mix of people, of methods and of general educational philosophy.
So did the lack of being taught a formal handwriting style damage me in any way? I don’t think so, although my wife may disagree. I can’t help feeling that the importance of perfect handwriting is somewhat overplayed. That is not to say that it does not matter at all. What I do want to see from pupils is legible and easily read pieces of work but I am really much more interested in what a child writes about than the quality of their handwriting.
So much time can be spent in primary schools on the correct formation of letters that it impacts on the learning of other, perhaps more important, literacy skills. And, if I’m being really honest, there is a high proportion of children who just don’t have that innate requirement to do everything ‘neatly’; so much so that the ‘handwriting’ lesson becomes a tedious, disengaging activity that bears no relation to the writing that the same child will produce one hour later during a history lesson.
There is, of course, the notion that in this digital age the requirement to handwrite at all may soon disappear but I personally don’t buy into that argument. For me, it is simply that the quality of handwriting comes pretty far down on my priority list. I want to see pupils think, design, debate, analyse, engage, have fun, explore – the list goes on. The ability to write quality and stylised handwriting is neither here nor there.

Comment

St. Margaret’s Demise a One-off

Filed Under: Education, Scotsman Articles by Rod Grant — 1 Comment
15 September, 2010

Published as an interview, Scotland on Sunday, 12th September, 2010

Small Schools – The Issues

The demise of St. Margaret’s School in Edinburgh has often been perceived as the result of being a small school. This is to hugely simplify the real situation, which was actually to do with a progressively falling roll coupled with an increase in costs.

Actually, most small schools, are completely financially secure because their rolls are static or, in most cases, seeing a gradual increase. Slow growth means that costs can be closely monitored to ensure that a balance between income and expenditure can be achieved.

The fact of the matter is that small schools offer parents an alternative to large city schools. Many parents want an education which is personalised in some way. As the Headmaster of Clifton Hall, my aspiration is to grow my school to around 380 and to then maintain that figure. Clifton Hall’s merger with St. Serf’s was a result of my desire to create an all-through school (3-18) which offered a genuine alternative to the ‘big schools’. The very clear reasoning behind this is my own educational philosophy which is that young people deserve to be known by all staff members by name and by character. My fervent belief is that the most important essence for any school is the quality of relationships within it. The higher the quality, the better the environment in which to learn.

The ‘small’ school, I believe, is here to stay. I can see very little scope now within the independent sector of further mergers or, indeed, of further closures. The sector is incredibly stable and in Edinburgh, at least, offers parents a range of choice unparalleled anywhere else in the UK.

Comment

Curriculum for Excellence 3

Filed Under: Assessment, Curriculum for Excellence, Education by Rod Grant — Leave a comment
11 June, 2010

Published, Edinburgh Evening News, 14th June, 2010

When Is a Curriculum not a Curriculum?

Curriculum for Excellence is the most divisive debate in education in living memory. Its introduction has polarised opinion both in local communities and in education circles.  It has regularly been vilified for its vagueness, for its lack of clarity and for its lack of prescribed content. But, for me, these criticisms miss the point entirely. However, they have come about as a result of expectation: an expectation that teachers will have a prescribed curriculum to deliver. Without this, the security blanket of being told what to teach is removed and this makes even the most able practitioners uncomfortable. So, the biggest mistake of all is that it was named ‘Curriculum’ for Excellence, as it is not a curriculum at all. As well as providing a refreshingly positive methodology, it is a series of outcomes and experiences that all pupils should gain throughout their school years with schools free to develop the content they feel best fits the desired outcome. Whilst that is actually highly desirable, it is also quite a complicated process to introduce, develop and evaluate.

To add further to the confusion, we still have only a limited idea of what the examination system will look like and this makes secondary school teachers extremely nervous. It is simply not good enough to introduce a curriculum, however worthy, if the assessment design is not in place. It is like playing football without goal nets. We still have a lack of quality information regarding syllabi, weighting of marks, length of courses, when pupils will sit examinations and so on and so forth.

Here is one example of the confusion that faces school management teams up and down the country: What is termed third and fourth stage is meant to provide a general and broad education until the end of S3. This being the case, the likely effect is that pupils will actually have a reduced number of examination subjects in S4 as a single year will simply not provide the amount of time required to be presented in 8 subjects (currently the case in S3/S4). So, either schools will present candidates for fewer subjects (narrowing the curriculum) or schools will start preparing pupils from the beginning of S3 (the current situation). Is it any wonder we are confused? Add in to the mix that the Scottish Qualifications Authority in their infinite wisdom has significantly changed the Science syllabi at Higher for the year after next, immediately prior to the changes Learning and Teaching Scotland will announce for the design of the new Higher, and this shows a lack of joined-up thinking that makes Mr. Blobby look like a genius strategist.

In practice, then, primary schools will be doing fabulous work on the new curriculum whilst secondary schools twirl their fingers and await more detail. Parents need to know that teachers, therefore, are not just being ‘dinosaurs’ resistant to change but that they are genuinely concerned about the lack of really important detail.

And yet, there are probably very few teachers indeed who do not believe in the underlying philosophy of CfE. So, all of the criticisms aside, why do I believe in what the new curriculum seeks to do?

Well, it continues to ensure our focus is primarily on helping youngsters to become articulate, literate and numerate but it attempts to go further so that children become better equipped with skills which will allow them to enquire, reflect, problem solve, strategise, analyse and create. It tries to make what children are learning relevant to the world in which they live and, indeed, to a future that we have yet to imagine. It provides context and the opportunity to link learning across the curriculum, not in superficial ways but in meaningful ways.

Further, we need to understand that a national curriculum (and the thinking behind it) is crucial to the development of our young people. These are children who will one day lead their nations and it is therefore essential that they learn in a secure environment, where discipline, self-belief and the value of our fellow human beings is central to the learning process. Without developing an ethos where caring for others or valuing differences in culture or religion is seen as worthy, we create citizens who are intolerant and incapable of perspective. This would be the greatest failure of all. 

 CfE seeks to meet this challenge head on by creating, or at least encouraging, a strong, values-based ethos where children learn in an environment that is thoughtful and mutually supportive.

My fervent belief is that Curriculum for Excellence provides us with the platform for a worthy 21st Century Education and each of us should be applauding it. It is unfortunate, but entirely understandable, that it has not yet galvanized or inspired the profession. Someone, somewhere, really needs to pull their proverbial finger out and engage the profession in a way in which they have thus far failed to do.

Comment

The Problem with Risk

Filed Under: Education, Risk, Scotsman Articles by Rod Grant — 1 Comment
9 June, 2010

Interview Published, The Scotsman, 6th July, 2009

I was born in 1964, so my childhood covered the 60s and 70s. When I think back I am struck by the differences between my era and the world in which children grow up today.

When I was young there were no Play Stations, no X-boxes, no internet, no mobile phones, no hand-held computers, no digital or satellite television, no credit or debit cards; we didn’t even have a remote control for the T.V. or the C.D. player (oh, and of course we didn’t have CDs or DVDs or videos even). In fact, television channels stopped broadcasting at around 11p.m., with BBC1 playing the national anthem.

Indeed, there were only three television stations and children’s programmes were limited to an hour at lunchtime and two hours in the afternoon. Do you remember the shows we waited for in eager anticipation? The list is endless: Trumpton, Camberwick Green, The Flowerpot Men, The Herbs, Hector’s House, Jackanory, Crackerjack, Mr. Benn, Bagpuss, The Double Deckers and my personal favourite, The Banana Splits. And then, as we got a bit older, we watched the delights of The Six Million Dollar Man, Charlie’s Angels, The A-Team, Wonder Woman and The Incredible Hulk. Saturday night was all about Bruce Forsyth’s Generation Game, New Faces, The Price is Right, the Saturday Night Movie followed by news and then Sportscene with Archie MacPherson. We really lived, didn’t we?

And yet, we really DID live because what we lost in not having modern technology and thousands of television channels and endless hours of mind-numbing American kids’ shows, we made up for in our personal freedoms. At only eight or nine years of age I remember a world in which I left my house on Saturdays just as Dickie Davies, with his shock of white hair, was introducing World of Sport. My mum would tell me to be careful when crossing the road and off I’d go. I lived in Prestwick, so my friends and I would gather and run down to the golf course and the beach, exploring local burns, church graveyards, climbing trees, wandering through derelict buildings, shouting at golfers as they addressed the ball on the first tee, and returning home either when it got dark or we got hungry.

Our parents had no way of contacting us, no way of knowing where we might be, and yet trusting our ability to avoid risk and danger. And you know, by and large, we did avoid putting ourselves at risk. Instinctively we knew what to look out for, what to be wary of – we were street-wise and we knew how to keep ourselves safe.

Today, we live in a world that is fearful. Parents have become hugely risk averse, so that their children are exposed to a back garden (under supervision, of course) at best. What really worries me, though, is that children themselves are becoming more and more risk averse. They are surrounded by Play Stations, TVs, computers, the Internet, DVDs, CDs, videos, Music Systems and i-Pods and they communicate with their friends by Instant Messenger and Text Messaging. When faced with the outdoors they often don’t know what to do with it. In my experience, you tell children to go and play in the woods and they are back in ten minutes saying, “We’re bored!”. Indeed, I have myself heard, “What if there’s a bad man in the woods?” How sad that our children have become so fearful. They are now so protected, so surrounded in cotton wool that they are in danger of being unable to assess risk at all. When that happens, and I believe that process has already begun, then our children are in real danger. We risk producing young adults that will be unable to cope with an adult world, either in the workplace or on the street.

So my plea is that each of us is, in some way, responsible for modifying these deep-rooted fears that we all share. We should not place children at unnecessary risk but we must expose them to some risk. Otherwise, we risk their future health and safety and that is something none of us wants.

Being called a name in the playground, being kicked in the shin, being excluded from a group, being made fun of – all of these experiences have happened to us all but in many ways these experiences, in isolation, help us to be prepared for a world where not everyone is kind to us, to a world that does exclude and to a world that will not allow each of us to get our own way. That is not to excuse these events when they occur and we should not tolerate that kind of behaviour, particularly if it becomes systematic and ongoing. However, there are times that we should allow children to fight their own battles before adults jump in, take over and mediate. If we always fight their battles for them children never learn to overcome problems with others and they become reliant on the adults around them. That is really dangerous – for we risk a nation of individuals who are fragile beings, incapable of tolerance, compassion or empathy.

Risk aversion also leads schools to remove trees from playgrounds and diving boards from swimming pools.

Parents can track teenagers with GPS enhanced mobile phones and monitor their email and phones. Young children have only carefully arranged “play dates” rather than risking emotional or physical bruises that may be incurred in the social labyrinth of one’s neighbourhood.

Do we really have to be so afraid? Is the world more dangerous? Despite the sensational stories in the tabloid media, the answer is probably “no.” Reliable statistics are hard to come by, but the risk of abduction seems to have risen at about the rate of population growth for decades and family members commit the vast majority. Physical harm from various activities seems similarly unchanged, although you might be surprised by some ‘dangerous’ activities. In a ‘Google search’ I found a scholarly article analyzing data related to escalator injuries in the population of under-5 boys. Read it and you will start using the stairs.

Childhood has never been risk free, but if we succumb to our fears our children may end up ill equipped to live successfully in adulthood. Protecting children from the risks of trees, diving boards, escalators, uncomfortable social situations and incomplete homework assignments is almost certain to produce adults with deficits.

When assessing the risks to your child’s long-term well-being perhaps the first place to look is in the mirror.

In conclusion, whilst you may not agree with everything I have written, we adults need to take great care, because in protecting our children we DO risk exposing them to a world less forgiving than our own.

Let’s get back to 1964, where my life began; to a time of freedom, for though there were many things wrong with that era, it was a period of history from which we can also learn.

Comment

University Entry Requirements

Filed Under: Assessment, Education, Relating to University, Scotsman Articles by Rod Grant — 1 Comment
9 June, 2010

Published, The Scotsman, 31st May 2010

Am I alone in questioning the importance our Universities attach to the subject of Mathematics? I can understand the need to be numerate, the need to be arithmetically confident and assured, but I am less convinced that we need to aspire to all students achieving success at Maths. I find it incomprehensible that you need Standard Grade Mathematics to study Acting at the University of Central Lancashire, or to study Fashion Design at the University of Glamorgan, Cardiff and Pontypridd.

These examples are not unusual; indeed, you can hardly find a degree course at a British University that does not make Mathematics at Standard Grade an entry requirement. Now, on a personal level, I love Maths and I love teaching Maths but I cannot understand why a student wishing to study drama has to prove competence in ‘the interpretation and use of proportionality between the size of the sector and the angle at the centre of pie-charts’ to be allowed to follow their chosen acting career path.

And perhaps, Maths is not the only subject that needs to be looked at. What about the pupil with a specific language difficulty who fails to achieve Standard Grade English and as a result can then not be considered for a Foundation Degree at the University of Derby in Motorsport Technology. Again, I completely see the need for a level of competence in literacy but I am also heartbroken for those kids who struggle with those required competences but who display a real talent or a real gift for creative or practical subjects.

Our system disenfranchises these young people and discards them from Higher education and it seems to me an entirely illogical way of assessing someone’s ability in their chosen field, particularly when the chosen field is far removed from the enforced entry requirements in English and Maths. Perhaps then there is value in the new Numeracy and Literacy qualifications we are anticipating in the Curriculum for Excellence, but their true value will only be demonstrated if Universities accept these qualifications, thereby opening up Higher education to a wider yet equally deserving audience.

Comment
Powered by WordPress | Theme: Motion by 85ideas.