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