One book that was published recently has acted as confirmation of the Steiner education my children have been receiving since moving to Brighton four years ago. It may sound extreme, but Detoxing Childhood is a book I think every parent should read.
Last year education consultant, writer and broadcaster Sue Palmer wrote a book called Toxic Childhood which sparked a national debate on how we are raising our children. She and a colleague who specialises in children's mental health, Richard House, wrote an open letter to the Telegraph which was undersigned by 110 childcare experts. The letter touched on the way children are expected to cope with an ever earlier start to formal education, are pushed by market forces to act and dress like mini adults, and are exposed to electronic mediums which contain material often totally unsuitable for children. The open letter brought a flood of support and comment worldwide, and opened the debate on child rearing in the 21st century. Palmer's research appeared to be given further justification when a Unicef report in Spring 2007 declared that British children are the unhappiest in the developed world.
Sue Palmer wrote Detoxing Childhood in an attempt to show how the negative influences on children's development can be defused. The book gives clear, practical advice on how to bring up children in a way that avoids the problems of our 'toxic' world. It is broken down into sections including diet, play, education, childcare, electronic mediums and marketing.
I've read the book from cover to cover and although some of the advice might sound the words of an idealist: "try not to get angry with your kids at all" I believe it is a fantastic reference book for parenthood. The premise of the book is that in today's fast moving, technology-driven society, many children's developmental needs are not being met and in fact the side effect of modern life is 'toxic child syndrome'. Palmer explains this as a combination of factors: children have developed a taste for unhealthy food and a couch potato screen-based lifestyle; often children miss out on traditional 'family time' which is so important for emotional security; growing up in an electronic world instead of a real one means they are influenced as never before by marketeers, unsuitable role models and celebrity culture. The chapters on television and computers are worth reading alone, and I must say after reading the book I have made a real attempt to drastically cut down the amount of time I spend on the internet or texting when they are around. Palmer's recommendations on education are also of real interest and she argues against the 'too much too soon' mentality that prevails in the UK.
Modern children may look and act big, but often they are extremely fragile inside, she says. Concentrating on children's educational development at the expense of other aspects of their psychological and emotional growth can be damaging, and Palmer believes it is no coincidence that Britain has worse problems among teenagers with binge drinking, drug abuse, depression and eating disorders than any other country in Europe.
Interestingly, Palmer's colleague Richard House became interested in Steiner education when his work as a psychologist led him to examine on why adults were, in his words, so screwed up. He looked at education and found many reasons why children would struggle in today's tests and targets system, and ended up doing the training to become a Steiner kindergarten teacher. He, like Palmer, now tours the UK speaking about the effects of contemporary lifestyles on child development, and his recent seminar at Brighton Steiner School specifically about the impact of technology on children gave many parents food for thought. The overall message is, it's not too late: we can take steps to detoxify childhood and take back control of our own and our children's lives, for the sake of everyone's future.
Tuesday 11 March 2008
latest education targets
All this learning to read before you're six malarkey isn't going to go away. When David Cameron put in his oar at the end of last year declaring that under a Tory government all five and six year olds would be tested on their reading ability, all number of studies have been quoted about the potential harm this could do to our littlest ones. No one can deny that it is crucial that kids learn to read, and that they should be able to do this before they leave (primary) school, but why do politicians always assume that the earlier children learn to do this the better?
Evidence has shown that pushing children into formal learning too early can actually be detrimental to them - both educationally and emotionally. This idea that children be tested on their reading at this young age underlines the problem at the heart of state education. In my last column I spoke about the important book written by Sue Palmer, Detoxing Childhood. The central tenet of the publication is that the 'too much too young' mentality which has pervaded society is also causing untold problems in educational terms.
A look at the teaching of reading styles worldwide shows that kids who are taught later, ie. following the successful North European system of starting formal education aged 6-7 rather than 4-5, are naturally behind at the age of 6. But within two years they are miles ahead of the kids that have been hothoused into reading at 4 or 5. And they appear to enjoy reading more when older too...
Another worry I have is that kids who are pushed into formal learning early often suffer from a lack of nurturing by teachers who are stressed out about getting the standards high enough for the next test and the next inspection. The emotional maturity that needs to naturally develop in children from learning through play and learning through watching how adults behave is missed out when the whole focus is on learning to read as quickly as possible in order to pass a test.
All children have the desire to learn. There is certainly no point preventing a child who wants to to begin to form letters and ask their mother or father about reading, but pushing this important process through quickly to achieve goals set by a government is not the answer. I'm also convinced that the faster the speed of teaching a child to read means that surely the teaching will suffer. If this scheme gains momentum, it will simply mean more testing, typical of what successive governments are doing wrong. What is clear to me as a parent and someone with a profound interest in the education of children is that we need policies that will slow down the adultification of children, not the opposite.
For an inspiring treatise about literacy education, I recommend a read of Philip Pullman's University of East Anglia lecture back in 2003. A teacher and lecturer for some 20 years as well as successful children's author, he says: "Something has gone wrong in the state of education, and we can see this very clearly in the way schools deal with books, and reading, and writing – with everything that has to do with literature, and the making of it... Those who design [tests and strategies for reading] seem to have completely forgotten the true purpose of literature, the everyday, humble, generous intention that lies behind every book, every story, every poem: to delight or to console, to help us enjoy life or endure it. That's the true reason we should be giving books to children." The whole lecture can be found at www.philip-pullman.com in the education section and again as an article in the Guardian article where he adds, "I am concerned that in a constant search for things to test, we're forgetting the true nature of reading and writing; and in forcing these things to happen in a way that divorces them from pleasure, we are creating a generation of children who might be able to make the right noises when they see print, but who hate reading and feel nothing but hostility for literature." He's talking about older children here. I wonder what he'd make of six year old's reading tests!
Evidence has shown that pushing children into formal learning too early can actually be detrimental to them - both educationally and emotionally. This idea that children be tested on their reading at this young age underlines the problem at the heart of state education. In my last column I spoke about the important book written by Sue Palmer, Detoxing Childhood. The central tenet of the publication is that the 'too much too young' mentality which has pervaded society is also causing untold problems in educational terms.
A look at the teaching of reading styles worldwide shows that kids who are taught later, ie. following the successful North European system of starting formal education aged 6-7 rather than 4-5, are naturally behind at the age of 6. But within two years they are miles ahead of the kids that have been hothoused into reading at 4 or 5. And they appear to enjoy reading more when older too...
Another worry I have is that kids who are pushed into formal learning early often suffer from a lack of nurturing by teachers who are stressed out about getting the standards high enough for the next test and the next inspection. The emotional maturity that needs to naturally develop in children from learning through play and learning through watching how adults behave is missed out when the whole focus is on learning to read as quickly as possible in order to pass a test.
All children have the desire to learn. There is certainly no point preventing a child who wants to to begin to form letters and ask their mother or father about reading, but pushing this important process through quickly to achieve goals set by a government is not the answer. I'm also convinced that the faster the speed of teaching a child to read means that surely the teaching will suffer. If this scheme gains momentum, it will simply mean more testing, typical of what successive governments are doing wrong. What is clear to me as a parent and someone with a profound interest in the education of children is that we need policies that will slow down the adultification of children, not the opposite.
For an inspiring treatise about literacy education, I recommend a read of Philip Pullman's University of East Anglia lecture back in 2003. A teacher and lecturer for some 20 years as well as successful children's author, he says: "Something has gone wrong in the state of education, and we can see this very clearly in the way schools deal with books, and reading, and writing – with everything that has to do with literature, and the making of it... Those who design [tests and strategies for reading] seem to have completely forgotten the true purpose of literature, the everyday, humble, generous intention that lies behind every book, every story, every poem: to delight or to console, to help us enjoy life or endure it. That's the true reason we should be giving books to children." The whole lecture can be found at www.philip-pullman.com in the education section and again as an article in the Guardian article where he adds, "I am concerned that in a constant search for things to test, we're forgetting the true nature of reading and writing; and in forcing these things to happen in a way that divorces them from pleasure, we are creating a generation of children who might be able to make the right noises when they see print, but who hate reading and feel nothing but hostility for literature." He's talking about older children here. I wonder what he'd make of six year old's reading tests!
SATs RIP
One tiny victory that almost went unnoticed in the Commons last month is likely to have produced a huge sigh of relief for parents and teachers nationwide:
At last the dreaded SATs for seven year olds met their end, after 12 years of threatened boycotts from teachers and heads, and exam misery for many children. Ever since the inception in 1992 of the Standard Attainment Tests, parents and teachers were against them, for a variety of reasons.
There was widespread concern that children of that age should not feel pressured to do hour long exams in silence. Children who found testing unpleasant (and I suspect the majority of kids that age cannot like it) were shown to become stressed and unhappy at being compared to their classmates - in effect being branded as failures. Studies showed that 42% of children said exams made them feel unhappy and many developed problems with sleeping, tiredness and lethargy, tears, irritability or social withdrawal. Meanwhile parents, who were worried about their children being tested but unable to do anything about it, realised that when little Arthur achieved ‘the expected level’ in his Sats, the result was actually fairly meaningless in the great scheme of things. They would have preferred a chat with the teacher about whether he was happy and what his strong and weak points were.
The government’s dogmatic adherence to testing and standards also made many teachers unhappy about spending so much time preparing the children for the test rather than actually teaching. They could see that children being prepped for tests were so busy doing ‘rehearsals’ that the rest of their education suffered - all so that politicians could meet targets and keep the treasury happy. In an NUT poll in 2003 82% of teachers voted to boycott Sats.
Finally education minister David Miliband has seen sense – although unsurprisingly, the test has not been abolished completely. Under the new system there will be a ‘flexible assessment’ of each child at seven. They will still do a test but it will form part of an overall picture, with more emphasis on teachers’ judgement, and more flexible and informal tests, taken at any time in the year, starting next year. Let us hope that the culture of testing which stifles the enjoyment of learning is on the wane and the same flexibility will eventually be shown to 11 and 14 year olds too. Children need their childhood after all.
At last the dreaded SATs for seven year olds met their end, after 12 years of threatened boycotts from teachers and heads, and exam misery for many children. Ever since the inception in 1992 of the Standard Attainment Tests, parents and teachers were against them, for a variety of reasons.
There was widespread concern that children of that age should not feel pressured to do hour long exams in silence. Children who found testing unpleasant (and I suspect the majority of kids that age cannot like it) were shown to become stressed and unhappy at being compared to their classmates - in effect being branded as failures. Studies showed that 42% of children said exams made them feel unhappy and many developed problems with sleeping, tiredness and lethargy, tears, irritability or social withdrawal. Meanwhile parents, who were worried about their children being tested but unable to do anything about it, realised that when little Arthur achieved ‘the expected level’ in his Sats, the result was actually fairly meaningless in the great scheme of things. They would have preferred a chat with the teacher about whether he was happy and what his strong and weak points were.
The government’s dogmatic adherence to testing and standards also made many teachers unhappy about spending so much time preparing the children for the test rather than actually teaching. They could see that children being prepped for tests were so busy doing ‘rehearsals’ that the rest of their education suffered - all so that politicians could meet targets and keep the treasury happy. In an NUT poll in 2003 82% of teachers voted to boycott Sats.
Finally education minister David Miliband has seen sense – although unsurprisingly, the test has not been abolished completely. Under the new system there will be a ‘flexible assessment’ of each child at seven. They will still do a test but it will form part of an overall picture, with more emphasis on teachers’ judgement, and more flexible and informal tests, taken at any time in the year, starting next year. Let us hope that the culture of testing which stifles the enjoyment of learning is on the wane and the same flexibility will eventually be shown to 11 and 14 year olds too. Children need their childhood after all.
Little James is full time at school now. Well he is four and a half, a big boy after all. It’s wonderful, we drop him off for breakfast club at 8am on the way to work and we don’t need to collect him until 6! Well, the after school club’s marvellous you see – he really loves it. He seems happy enough anyway – he’s been full time at nursery since he was three months anyway, bless him. And of course the school ‘holiday’ club is really good as well so he can go there at half term and we can carry on working. Sometimes I feel like we hardly see him at all!
Sorry for butting in with a blindingly obvious question but, isn’t this a child we’re talking about here? And, no I’m not making it up.
The government’s latest education attempt – their Ten Year Strategy on Childcare details plans of what Tony Blair calls “The biggest expansion of nursery provision since the second world war”.
“Extended Schools” offering childcare from 8-6 every weekday are to become the norm, so we can work even longer hours while state education churns out mini workers for Britain’s future….
How can we afford to go down this route when studies have shown that the more time children spend in childcare from a young age the more likely they are be aggressive and unruly? *
“Children can easily catch up on cognitive skills later on but they can’t catch up on emotional development,” says Penelope Leach sensibly. Wouldn’t you rather have someone like her advising government?
You only have to type ‘violence in schools’ into an internet search engine to discover the wars being fought in schools up and down the country. It makes shocking reading. And don’t get me started on bullying. Why can’t those in charge of childcare see any link?
What is Blair thinking? In his speech to the Daycare Trust last November he says, “The more parents are involved with their children the more it helps them learn, the higher their aspirations are and their self-esteem.” And yet here he is preparing the way for a scenario where parents are less and less involved. And look what good it’s doing the children. The number of children being excluded from schools for anti-social behaviour is spiralling out of control (government figures put it at 10 plus a day) and Conservative party leader Michael Howard has approved plans for boot camps called ‘Turnaround Schools’ outside of mainstream education to contain unruly pupils. Mmm that should do it…
Ever since the 1880 Education Act in which the Victorians managed to make going to school a legal requirement for young children, (so parents wouldn’t have to spend precious time educating and rearing the pesky things) children have spent less and less time with their families from an increasingly early age.
Unsurprisingly the home education movement is growing, and so is the number of people considering non-mainstream education for their kids. Mine are very happy at their Steiner school – a place they area allowed to be children for longer. While not everyone has the freedom to make such choices, I believe it’s time there was a major shakeup in the schooling of young children and more nurturing environments provided for little ones.
Little James probably makes his parents very proud. He may indeed appear to be a very independent and mature child by the time he’s in formal learning at five, but does he have any choice in the matter?
*A 10 year study by the University of Minnesota showed children who had been in childcare for 30 hours or more a week developed behavioural problems.
Jan 2006 CE
Sorry for butting in with a blindingly obvious question but, isn’t this a child we’re talking about here? And, no I’m not making it up.
The government’s latest education attempt – their Ten Year Strategy on Childcare details plans of what Tony Blair calls “The biggest expansion of nursery provision since the second world war”.
“Extended Schools” offering childcare from 8-6 every weekday are to become the norm, so we can work even longer hours while state education churns out mini workers for Britain’s future….
How can we afford to go down this route when studies have shown that the more time children spend in childcare from a young age the more likely they are be aggressive and unruly? *
“Children can easily catch up on cognitive skills later on but they can’t catch up on emotional development,” says Penelope Leach sensibly. Wouldn’t you rather have someone like her advising government?
You only have to type ‘violence in schools’ into an internet search engine to discover the wars being fought in schools up and down the country. It makes shocking reading. And don’t get me started on bullying. Why can’t those in charge of childcare see any link?
What is Blair thinking? In his speech to the Daycare Trust last November he says, “The more parents are involved with their children the more it helps them learn, the higher their aspirations are and their self-esteem.” And yet here he is preparing the way for a scenario where parents are less and less involved. And look what good it’s doing the children. The number of children being excluded from schools for anti-social behaviour is spiralling out of control (government figures put it at 10 plus a day) and Conservative party leader Michael Howard has approved plans for boot camps called ‘Turnaround Schools’ outside of mainstream education to contain unruly pupils. Mmm that should do it…
Ever since the 1880 Education Act in which the Victorians managed to make going to school a legal requirement for young children, (so parents wouldn’t have to spend precious time educating and rearing the pesky things) children have spent less and less time with their families from an increasingly early age.
Unsurprisingly the home education movement is growing, and so is the number of people considering non-mainstream education for their kids. Mine are very happy at their Steiner school – a place they area allowed to be children for longer. While not everyone has the freedom to make such choices, I believe it’s time there was a major shakeup in the schooling of young children and more nurturing environments provided for little ones.
Little James probably makes his parents very proud. He may indeed appear to be a very independent and mature child by the time he’s in formal learning at five, but does he have any choice in the matter?
*A 10 year study by the University of Minnesota showed children who had been in childcare for 30 hours or more a week developed behavioural problems.
Jan 2006 CE
January 2005
With education issues constantly in the media spotlight, and concerns over testing, exclusion and bullying in schools nationwide, it’s hardly surprising that a lot of parents are thinking about how best to prepare their young for their future in this world.
Steiner Education is the leading and fastest growing International Curriculum, with more than 800 schools worldwide and rising. Brighton Steiner School caters for children aged from 16 months to 16 years.
Within the Early Years Curriculum the emphasis is placed on the rounded development of the young child. The emphasis is on play, developing imagination and acquiring social skills - the building blocks for problem-solving and communication skills that are vital to academic success. In Parent and Toddler group (16 months-3yrs) the aim is to provide a friendly introduction to Steiner education for parents and a welcoming space for their little ones to play. The Playgroup and Kindergarten, catering for 3-4 and 4-6 year olds respectively, are also warm and homelike. They contain a kitchen area, sofa and small sized chairs and tables, and a seasonal nature table. Toys are simple natural ones such as baskets filled with wood, fir cones and pebbles, soft coloured materials and play frames. The children create houses, magical castles and secret dens using these props and their own imagination.
Creating a good, strong, daily rhythm helps children to feel safe and know what is expected of them, so few verbal instructions are needed: rather they copy and imitate the teachers.Under sevens are full of movement and do not want to sit still for long. Therefore an important aspect of the curriculum is creative play and engaging in social activity.
Healthy foods are encouraged right through the school – from toddler to teenager – with pre-packaged foods in lunchboxes discouraged. Children in the kindergartens and playgroups make their own bread, and their mid-morning snack is a different grain each day. In the Kindergartens children help to make vegetable soup, learning how to cut up vegetables and stir the soup.
Certain activities which may be considered ‘frills’ in mainstream schools are central in Steiner schools: art, music, drama and foreign languages, to name a few. In the younger classes, all subjects are introduced through artistic mediums, because the children respond better to this than to dry lecturing and rote learning.
Steiner teachers are dedicated to creating a genuine love of learning within each child. By freely using arts and activities in teaching academic subjects, teachers develop an internal motivation to learn in the students, rather than relying on competitive testing and grading.
One new parent’s experience of Brighton Steiner School speaks for itself: “Now out of the State system which was clearly not working for him, my son is no longer treated as a child who is not meeting targets. His confidence has grown and he comes home chatting excitedly about what he has learnt. Having left his primary school barely able to read, and hating the reading he was forced to do, he is now a competent and enthusiastic reader.”
Brighton Steiner school runs regular tours and Open Days for prospective parents. The next Early Years Open Day is on March 4. For more information call 01273 386300 or visit the website www.brightonsteinerschool.org.uk
With education issues constantly in the media spotlight, and concerns over testing, exclusion and bullying in schools nationwide, it’s hardly surprising that a lot of parents are thinking about how best to prepare their young for their future in this world.
Steiner Education is the leading and fastest growing International Curriculum, with more than 800 schools worldwide and rising. Brighton Steiner School caters for children aged from 16 months to 16 years.
Within the Early Years Curriculum the emphasis is placed on the rounded development of the young child. The emphasis is on play, developing imagination and acquiring social skills - the building blocks for problem-solving and communication skills that are vital to academic success. In Parent and Toddler group (16 months-3yrs) the aim is to provide a friendly introduction to Steiner education for parents and a welcoming space for their little ones to play. The Playgroup and Kindergarten, catering for 3-4 and 4-6 year olds respectively, are also warm and homelike. They contain a kitchen area, sofa and small sized chairs and tables, and a seasonal nature table. Toys are simple natural ones such as baskets filled with wood, fir cones and pebbles, soft coloured materials and play frames. The children create houses, magical castles and secret dens using these props and their own imagination.
Creating a good, strong, daily rhythm helps children to feel safe and know what is expected of them, so few verbal instructions are needed: rather they copy and imitate the teachers.Under sevens are full of movement and do not want to sit still for long. Therefore an important aspect of the curriculum is creative play and engaging in social activity.
Healthy foods are encouraged right through the school – from toddler to teenager – with pre-packaged foods in lunchboxes discouraged. Children in the kindergartens and playgroups make their own bread, and their mid-morning snack is a different grain each day. In the Kindergartens children help to make vegetable soup, learning how to cut up vegetables and stir the soup.
Certain activities which may be considered ‘frills’ in mainstream schools are central in Steiner schools: art, music, drama and foreign languages, to name a few. In the younger classes, all subjects are introduced through artistic mediums, because the children respond better to this than to dry lecturing and rote learning.
Steiner teachers are dedicated to creating a genuine love of learning within each child. By freely using arts and activities in teaching academic subjects, teachers develop an internal motivation to learn in the students, rather than relying on competitive testing and grading.
One new parent’s experience of Brighton Steiner School speaks for itself: “Now out of the State system which was clearly not working for him, my son is no longer treated as a child who is not meeting targets. His confidence has grown and he comes home chatting excitedly about what he has learnt. Having left his primary school barely able to read, and hating the reading he was forced to do, he is now a competent and enthusiastic reader.”
Brighton Steiner school runs regular tours and Open Days for prospective parents. The next Early Years Open Day is on March 4. For more information call 01273 386300 or visit the website www.brightonsteinerschool.org.uk
Although I usually focus on education in an early learning context, I feel I must mention a study carried out by the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) recently which caught my eye. Government-backed research has revealed that one in three bosses is forced to send staff for remedial training in literacy and numeracy, costing the economy £10 billion a year. Figures for last year show that just 46 per cent of school leavers managed good passes in both English and maths GCSE. Yikes. The sheer scale of substandard English and maths is incredibly worrying in a society where the government’s stated priorities are “Education, Education, Education”.
It’s no wonder the media features so many articles about how we are failing our children. But what’s encouraging is the continuing level of interest and commitment by parents and even those inside the system to improve matters. Looking on the internet at various education talkboards, I came across so many intelligently argued, thoughtful comments about education, I wanted to share them:
“I'm the head teacher of a large London Primary school and we've all jumped onto this ridiculous educational treadmill of targets and tests. But our children are worth so much more: the task of educating them is not about’ can they reach level 4, but can we make them into the responsible, caring, adaptable emotionally literate people of the future who will change the world? Why are we not standing up against the current tide of endless assessment and pressure? Learning should be fun, relevant, inspiring, and equipping children with the life skills they need. Childhood and young adulthood should be the best times of their lives when children flourish and grow, and are not made to feel inadequate because they don't fit the prescribed model. Let's break out of the current educational shackles and enable our children to love learning!”
Hurrah! The next woman took steps to change what was happening:
“I became so concerned at how I see the way the education system manipulates and fails our children that I decided to train to be a practitioner within an educational system that celebrates individuality and helps each child to develop confidence in their own unique talents. (Steiner education) A system that only values the passing of exams and tries to herd all children towards a dubious degree qualification, leaving the ones who cannot make it to flounder and feel failures, is I feel, ignoring the potentiality of a society rich with talented, competent and confident citizens.” And lastly,
“Yes, we are failing our children. The present system could not really be described as 'Education' and it does not prepare them for life. It should be realistic, relevant, enjoyable and at times challenging. But the last should not be the relentless pressure of statistically based targets but worthwhile tasks that give students the chance to experience the elation felt when achieving something that took time and effort. Life is not a series of bite- sized tasks guaranteeing immediate gratification and the opportunity to opt out when the going gets tough. We must help our youngsters to cope with boredom and difficulties both in and out of school. Life isn't always fun, but in a caring and encouraging environment we can nurture individuals to become confident about the future.” Amen to that. With people like this standing up and being counted, I feel confident that things will change for the better, that the government will eventually see that the one size fits all notion of education is something from the past. Roll on the future!
It’s no wonder the media features so many articles about how we are failing our children. But what’s encouraging is the continuing level of interest and commitment by parents and even those inside the system to improve matters. Looking on the internet at various education talkboards, I came across so many intelligently argued, thoughtful comments about education, I wanted to share them:
“I'm the head teacher of a large London Primary school and we've all jumped onto this ridiculous educational treadmill of targets and tests. But our children are worth so much more: the task of educating them is not about’ can they reach level 4, but can we make them into the responsible, caring, adaptable emotionally literate people of the future who will change the world? Why are we not standing up against the current tide of endless assessment and pressure? Learning should be fun, relevant, inspiring, and equipping children with the life skills they need. Childhood and young adulthood should be the best times of their lives when children flourish and grow, and are not made to feel inadequate because they don't fit the prescribed model. Let's break out of the current educational shackles and enable our children to love learning!”
Hurrah! The next woman took steps to change what was happening:
“I became so concerned at how I see the way the education system manipulates and fails our children that I decided to train to be a practitioner within an educational system that celebrates individuality and helps each child to develop confidence in their own unique talents. (Steiner education) A system that only values the passing of exams and tries to herd all children towards a dubious degree qualification, leaving the ones who cannot make it to flounder and feel failures, is I feel, ignoring the potentiality of a society rich with talented, competent and confident citizens.” And lastly,
“Yes, we are failing our children. The present system could not really be described as 'Education' and it does not prepare them for life. It should be realistic, relevant, enjoyable and at times challenging. But the last should not be the relentless pressure of statistically based targets but worthwhile tasks that give students the chance to experience the elation felt when achieving something that took time and effort. Life is not a series of bite- sized tasks guaranteeing immediate gratification and the opportunity to opt out when the going gets tough. We must help our youngsters to cope with boredom and difficulties both in and out of school. Life isn't always fun, but in a caring and encouraging environment we can nurture individuals to become confident about the future.” Amen to that. With people like this standing up and being counted, I feel confident that things will change for the better, that the government will eventually see that the one size fits all notion of education is something from the past. Roll on the future!
Education is in the news most days, but it often makes grim reading. Reports show that many children suffer stress or depression due to early testing and exams, that bullying is still on the rise, truancy has reached epidemic proportions, and ‘school phobia’ has become a medically recognised phenomenon. These are worrying times for parents.
So when some positive news hits the stands, it must be time to celebrate. The recent (March) announcement that the government is pledging £1.5m to increase music provision in primary schools is a welcome sign that perhaps, at last, “the times they are a changin’ “.
The government has been increasingly under fire for focusing on literacy and numeracy above all else, with a study for the National Union of Teachers in 2002 showing that English and maths lessons were taking up half the teaching week in primary schools. Art represented just 65 minutes and music 45 minutes a week.
Perhaps we can breathe a collective sigh of relief that the powers that be have finally realised there is more to educating children than monitoring the standards of their reading and writing. Already the 13 LEAs trialing the pilot music scheme, in which professional musicians give lessons to 4-11year olds, have reported increased self-esteem, happinesss and confidence amongst pupils in the scheme.
To non-mainstream schools the importance of music (and other creative arts) is paramount. Many independent schools provide creative outlets for pupils, while Steiner schools have always taught music and singing as part of their curriculum. What is encouraging is that this £1.5m initiative represents a sea-change in the attitude of those who guide State School policy. School Standards Minister David Miliband and Ofsted chief David Bell are behind the new initiative, which promises that over the next five years all primary pupils will have access to music and the opportunity to learn a musical instrument.
The official reasoning is that providing creative environments can raise academic standards, but I’d like to think this sort of initiative will increase the happiness quotient too. Amen to that.
So when some positive news hits the stands, it must be time to celebrate. The recent (March) announcement that the government is pledging £1.5m to increase music provision in primary schools is a welcome sign that perhaps, at last, “the times they are a changin’ “.
The government has been increasingly under fire for focusing on literacy and numeracy above all else, with a study for the National Union of Teachers in 2002 showing that English and maths lessons were taking up half the teaching week in primary schools. Art represented just 65 minutes and music 45 minutes a week.
Perhaps we can breathe a collective sigh of relief that the powers that be have finally realised there is more to educating children than monitoring the standards of their reading and writing. Already the 13 LEAs trialing the pilot music scheme, in which professional musicians give lessons to 4-11year olds, have reported increased self-esteem, happinesss and confidence amongst pupils in the scheme.
To non-mainstream schools the importance of music (and other creative arts) is paramount. Many independent schools provide creative outlets for pupils, while Steiner schools have always taught music and singing as part of their curriculum. What is encouraging is that this £1.5m initiative represents a sea-change in the attitude of those who guide State School policy. School Standards Minister David Miliband and Ofsted chief David Bell are behind the new initiative, which promises that over the next five years all primary pupils will have access to music and the opportunity to learn a musical instrument.
The official reasoning is that providing creative environments can raise academic standards, but I’d like to think this sort of initiative will increase the happiness quotient too. Amen to that.
Love him or hate him, former professional ‘geezer’ Jamie Oliver HAS managed to start a food revolution – of sorts. Tony Blair himself has announced he agrees with Jamie and has pledged more money for schools and the setting up of a School Food Trust to monitor food standards. As part of a £9.4bn primary school improvements programme, money will be poured into improving catering facilities and staff levels. Gimmicky election stunt or not, let’s make sure he delivers. When governments increase funding it’s not always obvious exactly where the money is going, so we do need to keep an eye on what our children are being served up at school over the coming years. The proof will be in the pudding, or in the quiche or maybe even the salad…
School Dinners was riveting television with a social message, and there are so many positive things that have come out of it as well as a much-needed look at childrens’ diet today. The link between diet and physical health, and the scary projections of child obesity are well-documented (government figures show one in five children are obese now, and that by 2020 50% of kids will be – eek!), but the link between food and behaviour is less well known. The sight of calm, happy pupils working away in the afternoons without causing trouble compared to what many teachers are used to: grumpy pupils bouncing off the walls, pumped full of chemical additives, is certainly food for thought.
The school dinners issue is hardly new: in 1907 parents and teachers were campaigning for better food for the nation’s youth, and independent studies for years have been showing that fat, salt and sugar levels in school meals and processed foods are far in excess of recommended amounts. But Jamie’s Feed Me Better campaign has opened the floodgates, and is producing results. Groups of parents are launching campaigns for better school meals all over the country, and there are an increasing number of alternatives being introduced to cheap council provided fodder. Feed Me Better has really caught the imaginations of children too – at last, a political issue the youth of today have an opinion about!
Jamie’s crusade is also a positive example of a celebrity actually doing something useful with his credentials. With two kids under his belt he’s got something worthwhile to rail against, and his celebrity status has enabled him to achieve something he really believes in. How many pop stars or actors can we say that about? OK, I know about Sting and Bob Geldof, and a few mad old actresses who run animal sanctuaries, but you know what I’m talking about.
Cutting down the amount of junk food eaten by kids is going to be hard because it’s become a way of life. A lot of parents are giving heavily processed food to their kids, not just schools. A ban on junk food advertising to kids should help, but boycotting irresponsible food manufacturers would really hit them where it hurts.
It’s going to be a long and tricky path to enlightenment, but it’s time to seize the day!
School Dinners was riveting television with a social message, and there are so many positive things that have come out of it as well as a much-needed look at childrens’ diet today. The link between diet and physical health, and the scary projections of child obesity are well-documented (government figures show one in five children are obese now, and that by 2020 50% of kids will be – eek!), but the link between food and behaviour is less well known. The sight of calm, happy pupils working away in the afternoons without causing trouble compared to what many teachers are used to: grumpy pupils bouncing off the walls, pumped full of chemical additives, is certainly food for thought.
The school dinners issue is hardly new: in 1907 parents and teachers were campaigning for better food for the nation’s youth, and independent studies for years have been showing that fat, salt and sugar levels in school meals and processed foods are far in excess of recommended amounts. But Jamie’s Feed Me Better campaign has opened the floodgates, and is producing results. Groups of parents are launching campaigns for better school meals all over the country, and there are an increasing number of alternatives being introduced to cheap council provided fodder. Feed Me Better has really caught the imaginations of children too – at last, a political issue the youth of today have an opinion about!
Jamie’s crusade is also a positive example of a celebrity actually doing something useful with his credentials. With two kids under his belt he’s got something worthwhile to rail against, and his celebrity status has enabled him to achieve something he really believes in. How many pop stars or actors can we say that about? OK, I know about Sting and Bob Geldof, and a few mad old actresses who run animal sanctuaries, but you know what I’m talking about.
Cutting down the amount of junk food eaten by kids is going to be hard because it’s become a way of life. A lot of parents are giving heavily processed food to their kids, not just schools. A ban on junk food advertising to kids should help, but boycotting irresponsible food manufacturers would really hit them where it hurts.
It’s going to be a long and tricky path to enlightenment, but it’s time to seize the day!
Often, I find doing background research for this column really fires me up – so many attempts by the government to bring formal education still earlier into children’s lives, to speed everything up. The latest White Paper on education is inevitably criticised and denounced by parent groups and various unions. Then a report on the damaging effects of formal learning being started too early is rejected by a study which ‘proves’ that children who enter nursery education are more likely to be high achievers. And so it goes on.
I’m sure every parent has a view on this issue, but the widespread dismay that follows news about early testing would seem to indicate that the pendulum has swung to a more liberal and nurturing approach. Despite this, the latest announcement from education secretary Ruth Kelly is that the government is on course to introduce the curriculum to younger and younger children. She told delegates of the Institute for Public Policy Resarch thinktank in April:
"We want to see an increase from 48% of children reaching a good level of development at age five to 53% by 2008…it means an extra 30,000 more children ready to learn at age five every year."
Talking about children’s education like this is impersonal. It is the voice of a politician (who has probably not set foot inside a classroom since their own childhood) setting targets, rather than an educationalist or someone who is genuinely interested in children. As a gentleman by the name of Rodney from Wales said on an education forum recently: “We talk of children failing when in fact we should be asking, how are we failing them? Where are the opinions of the education experts, sociologists and others who may be in a position to offer an interpretation of where things are going wrong?” Spot on, Rodney – I wish there were more people like you in charge. But the government continues to struggle on, forcing in new education proposals in an attempt to win over an ever more unconvinced electorate.
I wonder if Kelly or any other education secretaries have ever consulted any of the organisations dedicated to children’s well-being before making decisions? The Alliance for Chilhood, though undeniably wholesome and possibly a bit too tree-huggy for some, has some lovely tracts on childhood. If you fancy a wonderful read about the need for a more unhurried attitude to childhood – and education, check out a piece written by Sally Jenkinson in 2000: http://www.allianceforchildhood.org.uk/Brussels2000/Jenkinson.htm
It’s just as relevant today as it was six years ago, 60 years ago, and probably will be 60 years into the future. The internet is such a rich source of philanthropic thoughts on childhood. A friend has Notes On An Unhurried Journey by Professor T Ripaldi pinned up in her kitchen, which encourages the reader to remember that childhood isn’t preparation for life, it IS life. “…We have forgotten, if indeed we ever knew, that a child is an active, participating and contributing member of society from the time he is born...” - a lesson all too easily forgotten in today’s society.
The ‘Bright Future Report’ is inspiring too:
“A truly child-nurturing society would be one where children were fully integrated rather than separated and where their needs were understood and were regarded as at least of equal importance as those of adults. We seem to have lost sight of what it feels like to be a child and of the connection between the child and the adult self.”
And check out the newly relaunched Brighton Steiner School site www.brightonsteinerschool.org.uk/ – the photo gallery there says more about the sort of approach that’s needed in education than any politician. Trying to fit children into one template is never going to work - we need to embrace alternative education in all its glorious idiosyncracies.
Catherine Eade
I’m sure every parent has a view on this issue, but the widespread dismay that follows news about early testing would seem to indicate that the pendulum has swung to a more liberal and nurturing approach. Despite this, the latest announcement from education secretary Ruth Kelly is that the government is on course to introduce the curriculum to younger and younger children. She told delegates of the Institute for Public Policy Resarch thinktank in April:
"We want to see an increase from 48% of children reaching a good level of development at age five to 53% by 2008…it means an extra 30,000 more children ready to learn at age five every year."
Talking about children’s education like this is impersonal. It is the voice of a politician (who has probably not set foot inside a classroom since their own childhood) setting targets, rather than an educationalist or someone who is genuinely interested in children. As a gentleman by the name of Rodney from Wales said on an education forum recently: “We talk of children failing when in fact we should be asking, how are we failing them? Where are the opinions of the education experts, sociologists and others who may be in a position to offer an interpretation of where things are going wrong?” Spot on, Rodney – I wish there were more people like you in charge. But the government continues to struggle on, forcing in new education proposals in an attempt to win over an ever more unconvinced electorate.
I wonder if Kelly or any other education secretaries have ever consulted any of the organisations dedicated to children’s well-being before making decisions? The Alliance for Chilhood, though undeniably wholesome and possibly a bit too tree-huggy for some, has some lovely tracts on childhood. If you fancy a wonderful read about the need for a more unhurried attitude to childhood – and education, check out a piece written by Sally Jenkinson in 2000: http://www.allianceforchildhood.org.uk/Brussels2000/Jenkinson.htm
It’s just as relevant today as it was six years ago, 60 years ago, and probably will be 60 years into the future. The internet is such a rich source of philanthropic thoughts on childhood. A friend has Notes On An Unhurried Journey by Professor T Ripaldi pinned up in her kitchen, which encourages the reader to remember that childhood isn’t preparation for life, it IS life. “…We have forgotten, if indeed we ever knew, that a child is an active, participating and contributing member of society from the time he is born...” - a lesson all too easily forgotten in today’s society.
The ‘Bright Future Report’ is inspiring too:
“A truly child-nurturing society would be one where children were fully integrated rather than separated and where their needs were understood and were regarded as at least of equal importance as those of adults. We seem to have lost sight of what it feels like to be a child and of the connection between the child and the adult self.”
And check out the newly relaunched Brighton Steiner School site www.brightonsteinerschool.org.uk/ – the photo gallery there says more about the sort of approach that’s needed in education than any politician. Trying to fit children into one template is never going to work - we need to embrace alternative education in all its glorious idiosyncracies.
Catherine Eade
The statistics for school exclusions, bullying, anti-social behaviour and other problems in classrooms nationwide make alarming reading. Countless studies have proved a link with junk food and behavioural problems, but there was still outcry from many quarters recently when Ofcom announced it was to ban junk food advertising from children’s TV programming. Surely the health of our children is more important than advertising revenues – isn’t it? Those who moaned that the future for children’s television programming would be ‘bleak’, ignore the fact that excessive TV viewing is linked with obesity and bad behaviour too.
In this column some time ago I applauded Jamie Oliver, who got the issue of children’s food high on the public agenda with his TV programme Jamie’s School Dinners. Soon after he handed in his Feed Me Better petition, former education secretary Ruth Kelly pledged £280m for better school dinners, and set up an advisory body, the School Food Trust.
Oliver’s efforts are still paying dividends. New legislation covering school food came into force last autumn, stipulating that school dinners in England must exclude crisps, chocolate, fizzy drinks and ‘low-quality’ meat. School children must be served at least two portions of fruit and vegetables with every meal and deep-fried food is restricted to two portions per week.
From September 2007, schools will not be allowed to sell confectionery, savoury snacks (unless they're free from added salt, sugar or fat) or sweetened drinks in tuck shops. They must sell a variety of fruit and vegetable products, such as fresh juices, and must provide access to free, fresh water. And from 2008, primary schools will need to stipulate the vitamin content of school meals. This new awareness about food is great news for parents – and society as a whole – and a sign that ‘we are what we eat’ is finally being taken seriously. Steiner schools worldwide have always had a ‘no processed foods’ rule, but it is pleasing to see that the state is catching up at last.
Recently I watched a documentary about a primary school which tried cutting out all food additives for two weeks. A class of hyper-active kids whom teachers were finding nearly impossible to teach were transformed into calm, kind, happy children within days of switching to an additive free diet. Their social skills improved, they found it easier to concentrate at school, displayed higher IQ’s than before, and teachers were finding it hard to believe they were the same children. (See www.fedupwithfoodadditives.info/factsheets/Factschools.htm for the schools that have tried this and what they’ve experienced.)
It’s made me far more obsessive about reading the labels, even on foods I would have previously considered ‘healthy’, and I found many sites on the internet that are mines of information. These three are really worth a look.
www.snackcheck.co.uk provides information about the nutritional content of popular snacks, and features a nutritional analysis tool to compare products. You might be surprised to see that the bar that helps you work rest and play has a nutritional rating of 0 for example, while that well known drink, Carbonated Water, Sugar, Caramel Sulphite Ammonia (E150d), Phosphoric Acid (E338), Undefined Flavouring, Caffeine has a nutritional rating of minus 30. Even seemingly innocuous little snacks can contain Monosodium Glutamate (MSG), which studies have linked with hyperactivity and attention deficit in children. It’s eye opening to see the ingredients right there on screen, particularly if you’re not in the habit of looking at labels.
Another interesting site is the Hyperactive Child Support Group website www.hcsg.org.uk which is a campaigning body, lobbying government and food manufacturers. For 28 years this group has been voicing its concern over the increasing use of chemical additives in our children's food. Pressure on food companies has resulted in some reducing or removing chemicals from products.
The mother of all food additive websites is Australian pressure group the Food Intolerance Network’s www.fedupwithfoodadditives.info . This was set up by food intolerance expert Sue Dengate, a mother and former teacher who researched how food was affecting children’s behaviour and came up with some shocking results. The site gives comprehensive lists of foods to avoid if your child is displaying behavioural problems, has a lot of tantrums, or has asthma, eczema, ADHD and other common childhood complaints, and Dengate has written many books on the subject. I must admit I had never given a second thought to preservatives in bread before I read her research.
Parents concerned about the low nutritional, high chemical content of so many foods on the market today know the effect of boycotting junk food. If campaigners and individuals continue to put pressure on food manufacturers to act more responsibly, perhaps we could look forward to a time where the food manufactured for children is actually good for them. CE
If you have room for a little boxed out table,please include it, but not to worry if no space,
Thanks,
Catherine
Additives to avoid
from www.fedup.com.au
COLOURS
102,104,107,110,122,123,124,127,128,
129,132,133,142,151,155
natural colour 160b (annatto)
PRESERVATIVES
Sorbates 200-203
Benzoates 210-213
Sulphites 220-228
Nitrates, nitrites 249-252
Propionates 280-283
SYNTHETIC ANTIOXIDANTS
Gallates 310-312
TBHQ, BHA, BHT 319-321
FLAVOUR ENHANCERS
Glutamates incl MSG 620-625
Ribonucleotides 627, 631, 635
Hydrolysed Vegetable Protein (HVP)
ARTIFICIAL FLAVOURS
No numbers since they are trade secrets
In this column some time ago I applauded Jamie Oliver, who got the issue of children’s food high on the public agenda with his TV programme Jamie’s School Dinners. Soon after he handed in his Feed Me Better petition, former education secretary Ruth Kelly pledged £280m for better school dinners, and set up an advisory body, the School Food Trust.
Oliver’s efforts are still paying dividends. New legislation covering school food came into force last autumn, stipulating that school dinners in England must exclude crisps, chocolate, fizzy drinks and ‘low-quality’ meat. School children must be served at least two portions of fruit and vegetables with every meal and deep-fried food is restricted to two portions per week.
From September 2007, schools will not be allowed to sell confectionery, savoury snacks (unless they're free from added salt, sugar or fat) or sweetened drinks in tuck shops. They must sell a variety of fruit and vegetable products, such as fresh juices, and must provide access to free, fresh water. And from 2008, primary schools will need to stipulate the vitamin content of school meals. This new awareness about food is great news for parents – and society as a whole – and a sign that ‘we are what we eat’ is finally being taken seriously. Steiner schools worldwide have always had a ‘no processed foods’ rule, but it is pleasing to see that the state is catching up at last.
Recently I watched a documentary about a primary school which tried cutting out all food additives for two weeks. A class of hyper-active kids whom teachers were finding nearly impossible to teach were transformed into calm, kind, happy children within days of switching to an additive free diet. Their social skills improved, they found it easier to concentrate at school, displayed higher IQ’s than before, and teachers were finding it hard to believe they were the same children. (See www.fedupwithfoodadditives.info/factsheets/Factschools.htm for the schools that have tried this and what they’ve experienced.)
It’s made me far more obsessive about reading the labels, even on foods I would have previously considered ‘healthy’, and I found many sites on the internet that are mines of information. These three are really worth a look.
www.snackcheck.co.uk provides information about the nutritional content of popular snacks, and features a nutritional analysis tool to compare products. You might be surprised to see that the bar that helps you work rest and play has a nutritional rating of 0 for example, while that well known drink, Carbonated Water, Sugar, Caramel Sulphite Ammonia (E150d), Phosphoric Acid (E338), Undefined Flavouring, Caffeine has a nutritional rating of minus 30. Even seemingly innocuous little snacks can contain Monosodium Glutamate (MSG), which studies have linked with hyperactivity and attention deficit in children. It’s eye opening to see the ingredients right there on screen, particularly if you’re not in the habit of looking at labels.
Another interesting site is the Hyperactive Child Support Group website www.hcsg.org.uk which is a campaigning body, lobbying government and food manufacturers. For 28 years this group has been voicing its concern over the increasing use of chemical additives in our children's food. Pressure on food companies has resulted in some reducing or removing chemicals from products.
The mother of all food additive websites is Australian pressure group the Food Intolerance Network’s www.fedupwithfoodadditives.info . This was set up by food intolerance expert Sue Dengate, a mother and former teacher who researched how food was affecting children’s behaviour and came up with some shocking results. The site gives comprehensive lists of foods to avoid if your child is displaying behavioural problems, has a lot of tantrums, or has asthma, eczema, ADHD and other common childhood complaints, and Dengate has written many books on the subject. I must admit I had never given a second thought to preservatives in bread before I read her research.
Parents concerned about the low nutritional, high chemical content of so many foods on the market today know the effect of boycotting junk food. If campaigners and individuals continue to put pressure on food manufacturers to act more responsibly, perhaps we could look forward to a time where the food manufactured for children is actually good for them. CE
If you have room for a little boxed out table,please include it, but not to worry if no space,
Thanks,
Catherine
Additives to avoid
from www.fedup.com.au
COLOURS
102,104,107,110,122,123,124,127,128,
129,132,133,142,151,155
natural colour 160b (annatto)
PRESERVATIVES
Sorbates 200-203
Benzoates 210-213
Sulphites 220-228
Nitrates, nitrites 249-252
Propionates 280-283
SYNTHETIC ANTIOXIDANTS
Gallates 310-312
TBHQ, BHA, BHT 319-321
FLAVOUR ENHANCERS
Glutamates incl MSG 620-625
Ribonucleotides 627, 631, 635
Hydrolysed Vegetable Protein (HVP)
ARTIFICIAL FLAVOURS
No numbers since they are trade secrets
plastic? boycott it!
Family boycotts plastic - by Catherine Eade
When I told my children we were going to stop buying plastic packaging until further notice they didn't bat an eyelid. We had been looking at the front page story in this paper on February 3 which revealed that a 'plastic soup' twice the size of the US was floating around in the Pacific Ocean. 'Why don't we give it up for Lent?' suggested my eight year old, Joel as were making pancakes for tea and my daughters agreed. (Although my youngest, Alice, confided in me later that she would find a shortage of yoghurt for 40 days quite challenging. I promised her I'd make some.) What they, and I, didn't know was what an impact a plastic ban would have on our family of five in terms of our every day lives.
I'm not talking about refusing plastic bags, I’ve been doing that for years, no, this pledge meant every food item I normally bought for my family would be scrutinised for plastic. Recycled and recyclable cardboard, jars, tins and glass bottles I deemed acceptable, anything made of or containing plastic or some other unrecyclable material would be rejected.
The ten metre deep vortex of plastic rubbish highlighted by the Independent was first discovered by a sailor, Charles Moore, in 1997, back when I was having my first child and not particularly aware of much else. It is now the largest mass of rubbish in the world, totalling an estimated 100 million tonnes, and kills hundreds of thousands of birds and animals every year, as well as introducing toxic waste into the food chain.
Some of the plastic in this giant swirling rubbish dump has been there for 50 years as it does not bio-degrade, and toothbrushes, lego and cigarette lighters are just some of the items that have been found in the stomachs of fish and sea birds. Plastic is believed to constitute 90 per cent of all rubbish floating in the oceans: the UN Environment Programme estimated in 2006 that every square mile of ocean contains 46,000 pieces of the stuff.
The next day - Ash Wednesday, the beginning of Lent - was my first foray into a supermarket with the intention of buying only unpackaged foods, or at least foods that were not encased in plastic. Yes I know that for anyone with a modicum of environmental awareness supermarkets are not the place to shop. But between them, Asda, Morrison, Tesco and Sainsbury’s account for three quarters of our grocery shopping in the UK. My aim was to see how easy it would be as an 'average' shopper to reduce the amount of packaging bought, and Tesco was my first port of call.
My first realisation was that much organic fruit and veg is actually more packaged than non-organic, so it was back to standard loose potatoes, apples and oranges and the rest. After five minutes in the fruit and veg aisle my trolley was beginning to look like a greengrocer's barrow, with things I might in the past have bought in a bag rolling around in a riot of colour. It looked great to me but I noticed I was getting a few funny looks as I strolled round closely examining packets, shaking and replacing them, with apples, apricots and avocadoes, potatoes and pears parading in all their naked glory in my trolley. One disappointment was that the paper mushroom bag had a plastic insert, another example of thoughtless over-design.
I left the dairy aisles almost empty handed: All the cheeses were in plastic wrapping - some unnecessarily on plastic trays inside plastic wraps. I setttled for an organic cheddar in a sort of greaseproof paper printed with trees, figuring (hoping) it must be bio-degradable and making a note to self to check when I got home. Out went margarine or spreadable butter in favour of a paper wrapped block of butter, easy. No yoghurts today though.
Tins of tomatoes and beans were OK but jars turned out to be a different matter: yes the glass can be recycled but all those lids! Some were tin, which I could recycle with the cans, but an amazing number of lids are plastic. To add insult, many jars also have a ‘tamper proof’ plastic seal around the lid. Lids on plastic bottles and tetrapaks were all plastic so no squash or juice for the kids here - or milk. How would I get round that one?
Porridge oats in a 75% recycled cardboard box were the only cereal item without a plastic inner bag so in they went. Porridge is a staple breakfast in my house anyway but I wondered how soon they would get bored of it without the odd morning of cornflakes or rice crispies. Eggs were the answer. My usual seedy brown bread in a plastic bag was replaced by a French stick in a paper bag and some flour so we could bake our own, but when I got to the frozen section I realised things were getting tricky. No frozen peas or sweetcorn - my handy vegetables of choice when the kids are hungry and I have to whip up a meal fast. I vowed to buy fresh peas and corn from the local grocer, where I could top up my meagre haul with cucumbers, lettuce and other salad items which were not tightly bandaged in plastic.
At the checkout the sulky teenager didn't bother to hide his annoyance as new potatoes and satsumas rolled off the weighing area. I gave an apologetic smile and explained, but I don't think he was particularly impressed. A couple of days later I found the same problems in Asda and Morrisons, leaving with a small bag of non-packaged goods to fill some gaps in my food stash. By this time I confess I had given up on finding milk without a plastic lid and bought some, although my research had revealed that some milk companies are planning to drop the handle on pint and two pint plastic bottles in favour of a more lightweight design.
Just like when you split up with a partner and every song you hear on the radio is a love song, now that I was trying to avoid plastic it was everywhere I looked. My shopping habits changed dramatically. Carrying my organic cotton bag around with me I became a much more random, opportunist shopper. In the Co-Op next to my kids' school I nipped in when I spotted an unwrapped cucumber. I bought cheese wrapped in paper at the deli down the road and took the kids to the proper ‘green’ grocers who were happy to tip everything into my bag. I ordered a local organic vegetable and fruit box with earth still caked to its cargo and cooked vegetables I wouldn’t normally buy such as turnips and celeriac. Basically I reverted to the kind of shopping I had always done pre-kids, before the supermarkets' lure of one stop shop convenience got me hooked.
By the end of week one I had already fallen off the plastic wagon: an unforseen loo roll shortage meant a visit to our corner shop for recycled toilet rolls - wrapped in plastic 'recyclable where facilities exist'! I gave the kids money for ice creams that lovely sunny weekend as we lounged on the beach and they came back with ice lollies - didn't they used to be wrapped in paper way back when? As well as milk one day I also bought a replacement toothbrush for my husband. Maybe I could have found an alternative but with running a household, working freelance and parenting three children, I didn't have masses of time left over that day.
By the start of week two to their credit the kids hadn’t complained about the relentless porridge breakfast diet, but the cats slunk off in disgust when I produced boxed cat crunchies instead of their usual vetinary approved stuff in a big bag. My larder of existing food was looking depleted, but I was determined to improve on last week's record. I count myself very lucky that my childrens’ school (Brighton Steiner School) has a policy of no pre-packaged food in lunchboxes, so there was no big change in their lunches. The school in fact has a dry wholefood goods shop where items can be ordered, and I pored over the catalogue, ordering in bulk to save packaging that way. I also wrote something in the school’s weekly newsletter mentioning the ‘plastic soup’ and asking for tips.
A few parents got in touch: One told me that she and her partner had not shopped in a supermarket (bar the more ethically minded Co-Op) for three years, which I found inspiring. Their packaging levels had dropped dramatically and they were actually saving money as they stuck to what they needed and weren’t tempted by spontaneous purchases.
Another friend told me that when she stopped buying fruit and veg in plastic she was able to put out just one carrier bag of rubbish per week – not bad for a family of four – and that she was now getting rid of things like bubble wrap and jiffy bags through Freecycle, snapped up by eBayers. The manager of the school shop told me she was looking into decanting some dry foods into brown paper bags instead of plastic.
My crusade began to seem more worthwhile and ten days in I felt I was making a (small) difference just by telling people about it as they had begun to think about their plastic buying habits too. My children were enjoying cooking with me more, making different types of bread, their own pizza dough and experimental cakes. My husband even offered to make pasta from scratch but the pasta cutter had gone rusty from lack of use.
I phoned and emailed several food companies asking whether I could recycle their packaging and was mostly fobbed off with the reply that yes it was recyclable 'where facilities exist'. They don't. Not where I live anyway. I phoned the local council and the 'household waste depot' and was told only plastic bottles could be taken there for recycling. What is so frustrating is that there are so many types of plastic packaging which seemingly can't be easily recycled. Only the simplest, marked 'PET 1' on most plastic bottles, is taken by kerbside recyclers.
Why has plastic become so widespread as a packaging material? All food manufacturers I contacted gave the same reason: Plastic has proved the most successful material for wrapping food because it keeps it fresh and is durable enough to prevent leaks and spills during transportation. Longer distances between food producers and consumers has led to a greater demand for packaging, as has the increase in working families, the spread of microwaves and freezers, and smaller family units.
Insufficient packaging is a major contributor of food waste. A shocking statistic from the Industry Council for Packaging and the Environment (INCPEN), is that more than six million tonnes of food from UK households alone goes to waste each year. Yes you read that right. Making the case for plastic, the British Plastics Federation says in Britain, where use of plastic is widespread, food waste accounts for just 3% of food produced, compared to the developing world where it is 40%.
Plastic is now engrained in consumer’s buying habits and is unlikely to disappear overnight – not until the oil runs out anyway. But alternatives do exist: London Bio Packaging is one of a handful of new companies which manufacture packaging made from plant materials that break down in compost or landfill within 6-8 weeks. Director Charlie Vaughan-Lee told me that since starting up two years ago the company now has 650 companies using its bio-degradable packaging, with many London offices using the compostable cornstarch coffee cups. He also explained that 'degradable' does not mean bio-degradable - buyer beware.
Vaughan-Lee namechecked M&S as one company which is pro-actively working to reduce packaging, and on a visit to Sainsbury’s I discovered that most of its SO Organic range of fruit and vegetables uses compostable packaging.
So it’s not all doom and gloom: A number of organisations exist that encourage consumer brands to embrace recycled and biodegradable materials - among them WRAP and Waste Watch, while the plastics waste management industry has set itself the task of moving towards more environmentally sound practices with its organisation Recoup.
Packaging is an area in which the consumer has a lot of power. Our tiny family experiment may seem insignificant but like all contributions towards environmental change, it could make a big difference if widely adopted. But the trashing of the oceans will continue as long as our dependency on plastic continues. To achieve more sustainability it is not just the packaging that requires alteration but our lifestyle and consumption habits.
As I finish the second week of our experiment I give in and buy oatcakes and rice cakes wrapped in plastic. As lunchbox fillers and emergency snack food I find them essential in our house, and when Lent is over I may revert to buying packaged dried fruit and nuts and pasta if I can't find alternatives. So I have already proved that I can't live 100% without plastic, but maybe 98% will do for now. I am cheered by some of the alternatives to plastic that are being offered when you look around, if appalled at the number of people I see walking round with plastic bags.
I am spending significantly more on certain things, but not buying as much generally, which has to be a good thing. A knock on effect has been that I am more scrupulous about turning off lights around the house and switching appliances off at the plug. Yesterday I even ordered some products from the Ethical Superstore – complete with carbon offset delivery service - an online store offering a range of products with the minimum of packaging, plus cereal in recycled paper bags, hurrah!
I’m also planning to buy myself a sustainable wooden toothbrush. “When you want to replace it just burn it in your wood burner or throw it onto your compost heap!” But I still haven't got round to making my own yoghurt - that's on the agenda for next week...
Plastic facts
· Packaging represents the largest single sector of plastics use in the UK. The sector accounts for 35% of UK plastics consumption, and plastic is the material of choice in nearly half of all packaged goods.
· On average, every household uses 500 plastic bottles each year, of which just 130 are recycled. The UK disposes of an estimated 13 billion plastic bottles per year.
· According to a 2001 Environment Agency report, 80% of post-consumer plastic waste is sent to landfill, 8% is incinerated and only 7% is recycled.
· Packaging accounts for 60% of household waste and 11% of household waste is plastic, 40% of which is plastic bottles
· Over 60% of litter on beaches is plastic
· More than 80% of plastic is used once and then thrown into landfill sites
· We produce and use 20 times more plastic today than we did 50 years ago
· Plastics consumption is growing about 4% every year in Western Europe
· Plastic food packaging uses around 4% of all crude oil produced compared to 86% for transport and heating
· Reprocessor demand for plastics outstrips supply three times over
Source: FOE, Waste Online, Recoup, BPF
When I told my children we were going to stop buying plastic packaging until further notice they didn't bat an eyelid. We had been looking at the front page story in this paper on February 3 which revealed that a 'plastic soup' twice the size of the US was floating around in the Pacific Ocean. 'Why don't we give it up for Lent?' suggested my eight year old, Joel as were making pancakes for tea and my daughters agreed. (Although my youngest, Alice, confided in me later that she would find a shortage of yoghurt for 40 days quite challenging. I promised her I'd make some.) What they, and I, didn't know was what an impact a plastic ban would have on our family of five in terms of our every day lives.
I'm not talking about refusing plastic bags, I’ve been doing that for years, no, this pledge meant every food item I normally bought for my family would be scrutinised for plastic. Recycled and recyclable cardboard, jars, tins and glass bottles I deemed acceptable, anything made of or containing plastic or some other unrecyclable material would be rejected.
The ten metre deep vortex of plastic rubbish highlighted by the Independent was first discovered by a sailor, Charles Moore, in 1997, back when I was having my first child and not particularly aware of much else. It is now the largest mass of rubbish in the world, totalling an estimated 100 million tonnes, and kills hundreds of thousands of birds and animals every year, as well as introducing toxic waste into the food chain.
Some of the plastic in this giant swirling rubbish dump has been there for 50 years as it does not bio-degrade, and toothbrushes, lego and cigarette lighters are just some of the items that have been found in the stomachs of fish and sea birds. Plastic is believed to constitute 90 per cent of all rubbish floating in the oceans: the UN Environment Programme estimated in 2006 that every square mile of ocean contains 46,000 pieces of the stuff.
The next day - Ash Wednesday, the beginning of Lent - was my first foray into a supermarket with the intention of buying only unpackaged foods, or at least foods that were not encased in plastic. Yes I know that for anyone with a modicum of environmental awareness supermarkets are not the place to shop. But between them, Asda, Morrison, Tesco and Sainsbury’s account for three quarters of our grocery shopping in the UK. My aim was to see how easy it would be as an 'average' shopper to reduce the amount of packaging bought, and Tesco was my first port of call.
My first realisation was that much organic fruit and veg is actually more packaged than non-organic, so it was back to standard loose potatoes, apples and oranges and the rest. After five minutes in the fruit and veg aisle my trolley was beginning to look like a greengrocer's barrow, with things I might in the past have bought in a bag rolling around in a riot of colour. It looked great to me but I noticed I was getting a few funny looks as I strolled round closely examining packets, shaking and replacing them, with apples, apricots and avocadoes, potatoes and pears parading in all their naked glory in my trolley. One disappointment was that the paper mushroom bag had a plastic insert, another example of thoughtless over-design.
I left the dairy aisles almost empty handed: All the cheeses were in plastic wrapping - some unnecessarily on plastic trays inside plastic wraps. I setttled for an organic cheddar in a sort of greaseproof paper printed with trees, figuring (hoping) it must be bio-degradable and making a note to self to check when I got home. Out went margarine or spreadable butter in favour of a paper wrapped block of butter, easy. No yoghurts today though.
Tins of tomatoes and beans were OK but jars turned out to be a different matter: yes the glass can be recycled but all those lids! Some were tin, which I could recycle with the cans, but an amazing number of lids are plastic. To add insult, many jars also have a ‘tamper proof’ plastic seal around the lid. Lids on plastic bottles and tetrapaks were all plastic so no squash or juice for the kids here - or milk. How would I get round that one?
Porridge oats in a 75% recycled cardboard box were the only cereal item without a plastic inner bag so in they went. Porridge is a staple breakfast in my house anyway but I wondered how soon they would get bored of it without the odd morning of cornflakes or rice crispies. Eggs were the answer. My usual seedy brown bread in a plastic bag was replaced by a French stick in a paper bag and some flour so we could bake our own, but when I got to the frozen section I realised things were getting tricky. No frozen peas or sweetcorn - my handy vegetables of choice when the kids are hungry and I have to whip up a meal fast. I vowed to buy fresh peas and corn from the local grocer, where I could top up my meagre haul with cucumbers, lettuce and other salad items which were not tightly bandaged in plastic.
At the checkout the sulky teenager didn't bother to hide his annoyance as new potatoes and satsumas rolled off the weighing area. I gave an apologetic smile and explained, but I don't think he was particularly impressed. A couple of days later I found the same problems in Asda and Morrisons, leaving with a small bag of non-packaged goods to fill some gaps in my food stash. By this time I confess I had given up on finding milk without a plastic lid and bought some, although my research had revealed that some milk companies are planning to drop the handle on pint and two pint plastic bottles in favour of a more lightweight design.
Just like when you split up with a partner and every song you hear on the radio is a love song, now that I was trying to avoid plastic it was everywhere I looked. My shopping habits changed dramatically. Carrying my organic cotton bag around with me I became a much more random, opportunist shopper. In the Co-Op next to my kids' school I nipped in when I spotted an unwrapped cucumber. I bought cheese wrapped in paper at the deli down the road and took the kids to the proper ‘green’ grocers who were happy to tip everything into my bag. I ordered a local organic vegetable and fruit box with earth still caked to its cargo and cooked vegetables I wouldn’t normally buy such as turnips and celeriac. Basically I reverted to the kind of shopping I had always done pre-kids, before the supermarkets' lure of one stop shop convenience got me hooked.
By the end of week one I had already fallen off the plastic wagon: an unforseen loo roll shortage meant a visit to our corner shop for recycled toilet rolls - wrapped in plastic 'recyclable where facilities exist'! I gave the kids money for ice creams that lovely sunny weekend as we lounged on the beach and they came back with ice lollies - didn't they used to be wrapped in paper way back when? As well as milk one day I also bought a replacement toothbrush for my husband. Maybe I could have found an alternative but with running a household, working freelance and parenting three children, I didn't have masses of time left over that day.
By the start of week two to their credit the kids hadn’t complained about the relentless porridge breakfast diet, but the cats slunk off in disgust when I produced boxed cat crunchies instead of their usual vetinary approved stuff in a big bag. My larder of existing food was looking depleted, but I was determined to improve on last week's record. I count myself very lucky that my childrens’ school (Brighton Steiner School) has a policy of no pre-packaged food in lunchboxes, so there was no big change in their lunches. The school in fact has a dry wholefood goods shop where items can be ordered, and I pored over the catalogue, ordering in bulk to save packaging that way. I also wrote something in the school’s weekly newsletter mentioning the ‘plastic soup’ and asking for tips.
A few parents got in touch: One told me that she and her partner had not shopped in a supermarket (bar the more ethically minded Co-Op) for three years, which I found inspiring. Their packaging levels had dropped dramatically and they were actually saving money as they stuck to what they needed and weren’t tempted by spontaneous purchases.
Another friend told me that when she stopped buying fruit and veg in plastic she was able to put out just one carrier bag of rubbish per week – not bad for a family of four – and that she was now getting rid of things like bubble wrap and jiffy bags through Freecycle, snapped up by eBayers. The manager of the school shop told me she was looking into decanting some dry foods into brown paper bags instead of plastic.
My crusade began to seem more worthwhile and ten days in I felt I was making a (small) difference just by telling people about it as they had begun to think about their plastic buying habits too. My children were enjoying cooking with me more, making different types of bread, their own pizza dough and experimental cakes. My husband even offered to make pasta from scratch but the pasta cutter had gone rusty from lack of use.
I phoned and emailed several food companies asking whether I could recycle their packaging and was mostly fobbed off with the reply that yes it was recyclable 'where facilities exist'. They don't. Not where I live anyway. I phoned the local council and the 'household waste depot' and was told only plastic bottles could be taken there for recycling. What is so frustrating is that there are so many types of plastic packaging which seemingly can't be easily recycled. Only the simplest, marked 'PET 1' on most plastic bottles, is taken by kerbside recyclers.
Why has plastic become so widespread as a packaging material? All food manufacturers I contacted gave the same reason: Plastic has proved the most successful material for wrapping food because it keeps it fresh and is durable enough to prevent leaks and spills during transportation. Longer distances between food producers and consumers has led to a greater demand for packaging, as has the increase in working families, the spread of microwaves and freezers, and smaller family units.
Insufficient packaging is a major contributor of food waste. A shocking statistic from the Industry Council for Packaging and the Environment (INCPEN), is that more than six million tonnes of food from UK households alone goes to waste each year. Yes you read that right. Making the case for plastic, the British Plastics Federation says in Britain, where use of plastic is widespread, food waste accounts for just 3% of food produced, compared to the developing world where it is 40%.
Plastic is now engrained in consumer’s buying habits and is unlikely to disappear overnight – not until the oil runs out anyway. But alternatives do exist: London Bio Packaging is one of a handful of new companies which manufacture packaging made from plant materials that break down in compost or landfill within 6-8 weeks. Director Charlie Vaughan-Lee told me that since starting up two years ago the company now has 650 companies using its bio-degradable packaging, with many London offices using the compostable cornstarch coffee cups. He also explained that 'degradable' does not mean bio-degradable - buyer beware.
Vaughan-Lee namechecked M&S as one company which is pro-actively working to reduce packaging, and on a visit to Sainsbury’s I discovered that most of its SO Organic range of fruit and vegetables uses compostable packaging.
So it’s not all doom and gloom: A number of organisations exist that encourage consumer brands to embrace recycled and biodegradable materials - among them WRAP and Waste Watch, while the plastics waste management industry has set itself the task of moving towards more environmentally sound practices with its organisation Recoup.
Packaging is an area in which the consumer has a lot of power. Our tiny family experiment may seem insignificant but like all contributions towards environmental change, it could make a big difference if widely adopted. But the trashing of the oceans will continue as long as our dependency on plastic continues. To achieve more sustainability it is not just the packaging that requires alteration but our lifestyle and consumption habits.
As I finish the second week of our experiment I give in and buy oatcakes and rice cakes wrapped in plastic. As lunchbox fillers and emergency snack food I find them essential in our house, and when Lent is over I may revert to buying packaged dried fruit and nuts and pasta if I can't find alternatives. So I have already proved that I can't live 100% without plastic, but maybe 98% will do for now. I am cheered by some of the alternatives to plastic that are being offered when you look around, if appalled at the number of people I see walking round with plastic bags.
I am spending significantly more on certain things, but not buying as much generally, which has to be a good thing. A knock on effect has been that I am more scrupulous about turning off lights around the house and switching appliances off at the plug. Yesterday I even ordered some products from the Ethical Superstore – complete with carbon offset delivery service - an online store offering a range of products with the minimum of packaging, plus cereal in recycled paper bags, hurrah!
I’m also planning to buy myself a sustainable wooden toothbrush. “When you want to replace it just burn it in your wood burner or throw it onto your compost heap!” But I still haven't got round to making my own yoghurt - that's on the agenda for next week...
Plastic facts
· Packaging represents the largest single sector of plastics use in the UK. The sector accounts for 35% of UK plastics consumption, and plastic is the material of choice in nearly half of all packaged goods.
· On average, every household uses 500 plastic bottles each year, of which just 130 are recycled. The UK disposes of an estimated 13 billion plastic bottles per year.
· According to a 2001 Environment Agency report, 80% of post-consumer plastic waste is sent to landfill, 8% is incinerated and only 7% is recycled.
· Packaging accounts for 60% of household waste and 11% of household waste is plastic, 40% of which is plastic bottles
· Over 60% of litter on beaches is plastic
· More than 80% of plastic is used once and then thrown into landfill sites
· We produce and use 20 times more plastic today than we did 50 years ago
· Plastics consumption is growing about 4% every year in Western Europe
· Plastic food packaging uses around 4% of all crude oil produced compared to 86% for transport and heating
· Reprocessor demand for plastics outstrips supply three times over
Source: FOE, Waste Online, Recoup, BPF
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
