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.

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!