The Delusion of Appearance

by Toby Payne-Cook

A tie, a cheap, ill-fitting suit and a little bit of hair gel can go a long way. For so long as I can remember I have always been baffled by uniform, dress code and the delusion of someone’s appearance being somehow indicative of the person behind the mask.

Let’s do those havens of middle class, social climbing, shifty characters first: golf clubs. “No denim?” ranted my mother in the 1980s, “have you seen how stylish Princess Diana looks in jeans and a pair of Manola’s? Meanwhile you let in those styleless crimpolene coated Devon dumplings in? It’s ridiculous!” It is ridiculous. Denim, somehow associated with scruffy layabouts rather than the fashion icons of the 20th century.

I went to posh schools. But my day to day uniform was just grey trousers, a shirt and a jumper. Practical. Ties on a Sunday for chapel. Black tie for sixth form balls. I conformed. By the time everyone was getting excited by university black tie balls I had decided that formal wear was a mirage. Why put on a dinner jacket to get riotously pissed? Ridiculous. Manners matter, how you speak to people matters; how relaxed and comfortable you make other feel matters but pomp, circumstance, ceremonial guff and the 1922 laws of etiquette committee matter not one jot, my good fellows and felloweses.

Let’s go nightclubbing. Scrub up. Splash on the aftershave. Iron a nipple caressing, skin hugging, bright white T-shirt, black trousers (no jeans, of course), hair gelled to the hilt, shiny leather shoes. Oooooh, don’t you look smart tonight, Baz. Two hours later he has head banged three people for looking at, or not looking at his bird, he can’t quite remember; started three fights and drawn a knife. On the following Monday, he’s there at the coffee machine in his cheap, ill-fitting suit, tie and cuff links. I really hate cuff links. Smart as, ready for the week of cheap hotels, sales conferences and his audition for the Apprentice.

I’ve never felt comfortable around the Baz’s of this world: the provincial dress coded niteclub; the high street pub with bouncers at the door; the cabaret night in a shit restaurant in Cyprus eating a hot roast dinner in June, chanting, “I hate Germans” and drinking too many bottles of Lambrusco.

The places I’ve always felt safest, and consequently happiest, in the company of others have been down in the mosh pit at a punk gig; in a shitty basement dive with no dress code mad dancing to the Beastie boys or mingling with the multiply pierced, tattooed and great unwashed at Glastonbury or Reading in the 1990s.

Personally, I’m not into any form of uniform. A little bit grungey, me. Tatty old pumps, faded jeans, untucked, straggly checked shirt. That’ll do. Definitely no Verve-alike or Reni-esque beanie hat either. No faux hip hop baseball cap and chain. Maybe a few hippy beads. On the high street, a heavily pierced and tattooed appearance may cause heads to turn but at Glasto, Cropredy, Reading or Donnington it is Baz with his cheap, ill fitting suit or shiny niteclub shoes who’d look out of place.

While we’ve all become more casual at home and at play over the last few decades; our professional appearance is still governed by the economic and societal forces of the mid-late twentieth century. Just as our education system is too.

I really don’t give an arse if you’ve got a tattoo, or a piercing, a Prince Albert; dreadlocks, long hair, spiky hair, no hair, folkie beard, whatever because all of it is skin deep. But we live in a society where skin deep matters: Black, brown, yellow, pink, white. Boy or girl. Massive big tats. Fake tan or pasty white. Ginger minger. We make (not me, not you, but we) assumptions from people’s appearances ALL the TIME. We label people. Sometimes people label themselves with a football shirt or a symbol or a band t-shirt too.

As a chemist, I am familiar with Johnstone’s triangle: how chemistry has three sides: the macroscopic, observable, bulk properties; the symbolic and the abstract – unfathomable to most – submicroscopic fundamental concepts of atoms, molecules and chemical bonding. Anyone can look at a powder and describe its appearance: a white, free-flowing, crystalline solid. Or a white powder, if you prefer more layperson speak. Get out your mass spectrometer, your nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometer, your powder x-ray diffractometer, your fourier-transform infra-red spectrophotometer, your differential scanning calorimeter and piece all the information together and you may be able to identify the inner mystery of your white powder: is it sodium chloride (table salt), glucose, sucrose, lactose, talcum powder, heroin, cocaine, amphetamine, baking soda, plain flour, cornflour, sildenafil citrate (Viagra), salbutamol sulphate (Ventolin), PMG acid (glyphosate), calcium sulphate, dicalcium phosphate, microcrystalline cellulose, magnesium sulphate, magnesium stearate, titanium dioxide, powdered milk?

Just as the inner chemical properties of any white powder can differ greatly, so can the inner characteristics, interests, knowledge and experience of any given human. We are far more diverse on the inside than we are on the outside. Yet we never really get to this, hung up as we are about what everyone looks like, and how they conform to our prejudices.

I am not passing comment on the recent #edutattoo debate (though I hope it’s fairly clear where I’m at) but yet again we have let what is on the surface, on the outside skew our judgements and perception of people when it is what we are on the inside that determines our behaviour and ultimately our individual worth in the great tide of humanity…

As a final thought, I do find it interesting how many people campaign for freedom of expression, freedom of appearance, freedom of speech while secretly harbouring that there is only one correct way to think about politics, education, religion or morality. Surely, we should value, respect and give far greater credence to diversity of thought than we do?

Groupthink, polarisation, tribalism, entrenchment and social conditioning are almost acceptable mindsets in modern society and education systems play a significant part in that. It is hardly surprising that we start to believe everyone should look the same as us when we’ve already resigned ourselves to thinking the same way as everyone else.

On writing (and education)

by Toby Payne-Cook @CREducATE on Twitter

I have no authority to write this (long) blog post: I am not a (published) writer, though I aspire to be. I am not a journalist. I am not an English teacher, nor a university lecturer. I am not a primary teacher, though I did teach writing as part of English lessons in a Year 6 class during my teacher training on my (7-14) PGCE in 2013-2014. Since then I have taught science to children from Year 5 (aged 9) through to Year 8 (aged 13). Like I said, I have no authority on this matter.

Why am I compelled to write this now? There are three reasons. Mainly because experienced, published, talented authors who care deeply about education have been unfairly criticised by too many teachers in recent times. Secondly because I believe there is a disproportionate focus (both in time and teaching) of writing rather than reading, discussing and experiencing in school (this sometimes even happens on world book day with writing workshops from published authors – not always subjected to great quality control – rather than celebrating reading and books and stories). And finally because our overly measured school accountability and assessment systems have driven too many aspects of education for too long; sometimes taking the joy out of stories, books, learning and discovering new ways of seeing the world.

What am I going to write about?

First, I’m going to list some caveats and considerations relating to this post. I’m also going to explain my perspective and approach to this personal analysis.
Second, I’m going to comment on the three Rs of Reading, ‘Riting and ‘Rithmetic and why we may have got them disproportionally jumbled in our education system.
Thirdly, I’m going to dig into the current disdain (admittedly from a vociferous, defensive minority of the minority of teachers on Twitter) for professional experts: writers, scientists etc commenting on or contributing towards the education of children.
Fourthly, I’m going to list, explore and elaborate upon the four reasons for teaching children how to write at school.
Fifthly, I’m going to consider the four variables affecting a child’s (or adult’s) development and “success” in writing at school (and beyond).
Finally, I’m going to express my views on how education needs huge reform and where we keep going wrong. My views are definitely beyond the general consensus and status quo, and they are meant as a challenge – as a set of questions for consideration. I’m quite happy for them to be rationally and eloquently rebuffed but I’m not happy to have them dismissed out of hand.

    I am writing this thought piece as an impartial outsider: uninvested in any particular pedagogy, curriculum, published book, seminar series, event organisation, political ideology or research interest. I cannot guarantee it to be devoid of bias, as we humans can only really be what we see and experience, however curious and open-minded we may be. I am not writing as an English lecturer, English teacher or primary teacher. I am not writing as a teacher. Conversely, I am not writing as a published author nor someone peddling a creative writing course for children or adults.
    I am writing it as a forty-eight year old human being: white, British, male who was privately educated in the late 70s, 80s and very early 90s; basically a privileged country boy easy to dismiss out of hand. Please try not to do this, as it is a form of inverse, stereotyped prejudice based on a handful of slightly flawed individuals in frontline politics.
    I am writing it to challenge your thinking, values, perceptions, entrenchment, self-promotion and self-preservation.
    I am writing it thinking I am not absolutely right on this, nor thinking you are absolutely wrong on this.
    I am not writing it as an attack on the great many hard working, caring and utterly brilliant primary or secondary school teachers out there.
    Nor am I writing it as an attack on writers, published authors, university lecturers, journalists or political commentators.
    But, I am writing it as an attack on our education system in which so many of us are complicit. Albeit reluctantly, in many cases. The short-termist electioneering of our political system has to bear virtually all the responsibility for this and I do not affliate myself with any lazy definitions of Tory wanker, Leftie idealist, Champagne socialist, Elitist liberal, Hippy Green, Traditionalist, Progressive or revolutionary. I try desperately hard to see education, and its purpose, from all perspectives.
    Anyone who has read my blogs before, discussed these ideas in person with me or closely observed my Twitter activity will know that I am a self-proclaimed non-conformist, perhaps a little anti-establishment and that I veer towards, hippy idealist; utopian dreamer. In order to keep my job as a teacher, I conform to all sorts of ridiculousness just to keep my employer happy(ish) and so that I can sleep at night without undue stress, and indeed a roof over my head. I entered teaching from industry which gives me a whole different perspective to schooling which many teachers don’t have (this doesn’t make me better or worse than you).
    I really love teaching, I particularly love the relationships one develops with the children. Yes, I (mostly) love my subject (science) too but honestly if I really loved science above all else, I’d still be a scientist wouldn’t I?
    Sometimes I love teaching a challenging, complex concept. This requires absolute focus from the children and I empathise with the traditionalist style of teaching for this. Other times I love setting the children free to discuss, to explore, to group work, to create, to unshackle themselves from the educational conditioning of previous learnt classroom expectation, structures and pedagogies. What I love most, and I believe the children love most, is when we just have a bloody good chat or discussion. I might read a story, or write one and then read it. We’ll then discuss it. Sometimes they might dig deeper via an independent piece of research (with provided information, sources and success criteria from me) and produce some beautiful, deep project work.
    If we believe Twitter, school education descends into two camps: 1) traditionalist, all stuff and no fluff or 2) progressive, all fluff and no stuff. Both of which are surely bollocks? Both ideals are exacerbated by the dominance of exams, accountability and measurement in the system. Previous incarnations of Ofsted encouraged a dominance of fluff (group activities, minimal teacher talk, beautifully presented books ‘showing’ evidence of progress, ridiculous plenaries). The Govian reforms encourage an excess of easily testable knowledge (stuff) in our curricula and thrash the dead horse of the segregated subject model of education.
    I understand why the Govian model is so attractive to policy makers at the DfE. It is easy to demonstrate the “raising of standards” – whatever that means, with some fudged statistics. It is easy to demonstrate and measure “progress” and to conduct educational research with improved outputs at GCSE or A level as measures of success. It is easy to be duped into thinking that the better grades from high ranking, selective, elitist independent schools are the reason for the disproportionate academic and economic successes of their alumni.
    So, my penultimate caveat and consideration which underpins this extensive thought piece is this: why do we teach, why do we educate in the first place? Do we educate to optimise grades (and by tenuous extrapolation life chances) at 16 and / or 18? Or do we educate to inculcate a love of learning and to help us make meaning in our lives? Or do we educate to improve, or control, society? Or do we merely educate young people to enable adult society to function; to enable the economy?
    I’m sure for many of us, it is a complex fusion of all those. My view and purpose as a teacher is to educate the future 30 year old. To infuse children whether 7, 11, 14 or 18 with insight, opportunity and experience which enables the best possible version of themselves to become a thriving, contributing; fulfilled member of adult society aged 30 (and beyond). I sometimes believe that our excessive measurement of children’s “learning” and “incremental progress” whether by teacher assessment, exams or a combination of the two aged 7, 11, 16 and 18 actively works against “The Toby Thirtysomething Model” of why we educate. We unintentionally put people in boxes that they find it very hard to escape or transcend.
    I strongly believe that the sole purpose of formal (academic) education is to develop the human mind to its full potential; to develop it to such a point where it can think freely and make informed, rational decisions which benefit both the individual, families, communities and society as a whole. That’s it. (I acknowledge my intellectual bias here, another big problem with the education system – it is designed, staffed and run by people with above average intellects and their consequent bias towards the importance of academics and exam qualifications).
    “Developing the mind to its full potential”, it turns out, is virtually impossible to measure and very hard to police. And therein lies the problem.
    My final caveat is more of an observation. We become wiser with age. We have greater perspective, experience and insight but with that comes greater cynicism and reduced compliance. When we’re fresh out of school, starting work, in our twenties and into our thirties we tend to be more compliant, we have a bit more drive and energy too and sometimes that combination can make us rather earnest. The modern teaching profession is dominated by people in their twenties and thirties. This is probably true in all professions. One reason for this is cost. We can pay twenty-five year olds a lot less than forty-five year olds, but – I believe – a greater reason is compliance and, sometimes, naive, wide-eyed enthusiasm and compliance for a system that has become fundamentally flawed. So, when a curmudgeonly old bastard like me, or an experienced teacher, writer, professional from another sector snipes against the system which is currently looking after your twenty or thirtysomething, career developing self quite well it is your natural, subconscious instinct to refute their wisdom, insight and challenge to everything you currently hold dear. Put simply, younger, less life experienced employees are easier to manage and will work harder for less pay. I know I did. We’ve let simple economics and work politics get in the way of building a better, fairer more transparent and honest society for all. This is unlikely to ever change, but hippy idealists like me can dream…
    However we dress up primary school education, however we choose to assess it, however we choose to teach it, however thoughtfully crafted our curriculum is we cannot deny the fundamental importance of Reading, Writing and Arithmetic in our journey through school and life.
    Illiteracy (the inability to read or write) is uncommon in school leavers today, while it was much more prevalent prior to the 1950s, when many children left school at fourteen and educational outcomes weren’t the clunky, bureaucratic beast they’ve become today. In my Devon childhood in the 1970s and 1980s I met, conversed and – during summers 1991, 1992, 1993 – worked on farms with several wonderful people whose literacy was negligible. While in economic terms this was obviously a barrier for them, the world was quite different back then and many illiterate people led quite happy, fulfilling lives as farm or construction labourers, lorry drivers or in retail or manufacturing. Life was simpler. Not better. Not worse. Local communities were stronger. The interdependency of people from all walks of life more prevalent. Yes, as Mr Doolittle makes clear in Bernard Shaw’s Pygmalion, the undeserving poor were frequently suppressed with a dearth of opportunity to transcend their childhood demographic but I’m not sure we’ve really succeeded in fixing social injustice, as much as we like to pretend we have. While it is of course preferable for everyone to acquire the ability to read or write, it really is a very modern phenomenon for the whole populous. Highly educated teachers and members of intellectual cognoscenti sometimes forget that.
    Ask any member of the traveller community and they will tell you that arithmetic, or numeracy, is the most important as you cannot trade or do business without it. As a teaching assistant and primary school governor in Kent, before starting my PGCE, I fondly remember a student from a traveller background who was attentive, conscientious and mid-attaining in his maths lessons but completely switched off, frequently refusing to work, in reading or literacy lessons.
    In the modern age numeracy is, without question, a life enabling skill of great importance but I think we can probably all agree that of the three Rs, Reading is the most important. Without the ability to read well, the other two will remain elusive. Without the ability to read well, conventional schooling will remain elusive. Without the ability to read well it is virtually impossible to access the secondary school curriculum. Without the ability to read well it is very hard to interpret exam questions. Without the ability to read well, education is severely perturbed. And crucially, without the ability to read well, it is virtually impossible to write well.
    So that leaves us with writing as the least important of the three Rs. It is of course immensely important, but it is less important than reading and arithmetic in their ability to unlock the doors to learning in primary school, in secondary school, in our chosen employment and careers and in enriching and enhancing our daily lives.
    After school, there are many avenues through life (not mine and not yours reading this, I know) where writing is only of marginal benefit. In an increasingly bureaucratic world, avoiding filling in forms is a challenge but there is generally a friend or relative on hand to assist with these tiresome matters.
    So, of the three, why has writing come to dominate the school day? Exams, assessment and making books look pretty for SLT or Ofsted innit?
    Now, I know there are many great teachers and schools out there who understand this, who place a far greater emphasis on the development of reading than others. Reading the tweets, blogs, articles, books / listening to the talks of clearly awesome teachers like @Teacherglitter @smithsmm @Suchmo83 @MrTRoach @greeborunner @mssfax @HuntingEnglish @AGMcConville and @GiftedLondon it is easy to get the impression that English teaching in primary and secondary schools is in extremely good hands. The first two’s (@Teacherglitter and @smithsmm) passion for and knowledge of young children’s literature shines through in particular. The link between stories, reading, illustration and the consequent discussion thereof to the teaching and development of the art of writing is clear.
    So maybe the perpetual primary school write-a-thons are merely a laborious and repetitive tool to persuade children to read more, to see more, to explore more. I think this is probably the case with the very best teachers but it really isn’t universal is it?
    A little personal background – when I was a scientist with Pfizer from 2001-2011 I spent a lot of time visiting schools, sometimes Year 10, frequently Year 12 and occasionally Year 5 or 6. While I spent some time talking about my career and what I actually did – day to day – as a “real scientist” I was invariably asked to design a workshop which the children could work on in groups. While I enjoyed the creativity of this task design, the tasks themselves had very little to do with actual science (as specialist knowledge and understanding about the pharmaceutical research and development process was lacking in the students!) and were more about decision making or creative thinking or teamwork or presentation skills in the era of “all fluff and no stuff” in education. I greatly enjoyed being unleashed from the lab bench or project meeting and the children enjoyed a break from routine.
    Upon compulsory redundancy from Pfizer in 2011, I led a small educational charity in Hertfordshire acting as a STEM brokerage for schools. We administered the government (target driven) STEMNET contract and ran lots of KS2 and KS3 science and engineering workshops. These workshops – rather like mine mentioned above – consisted of a working scientist or engineer talking about their job in massively over-simplified layman’s terms for two or three minutes followed by the students designing a balloon rocket or some such thing across the lab. The workshops were typically led by very lovely yet frequently stereotypically socially inept retired male engineers with beards. Conversely, there was on occasion an impossibly beautiful, super smart, irritatingly over-enthusiastic CBBC-esque young female hotshot engineer volunteering which ticked the #WomeninSTEM target box but didn’t really enlighten the children.
    When visiting as an outsider, some of the teachers were great. Really welcoming and inquisitive. But there were a few who clearly thought, “oh, great here’s another person sexing up science careers while I’ve got to control the pesky Year 9s in period 5 on a Thursday while teaching waves in physics.”
    Two things became clear to me then: 1) If I really wanted to inspire the scientists of the future, the best way to do that was to teach. To infuse the curriculum teaching with my industry insight and experience could be great. (So that’s what I decided to do). 2) A quick whizz bang interactive workshop from a practicing scientist or engineer may provide a morsel of insight into life beyond school but it really isn’t going to make a huge difference to the majority of children, other than getting them out of PE with that lecherous creep Mr Shaw.
    With so much curriculum to get through, I now understand the irritation to teachers of timetable disruption from yet another enrichment activity or day of variable quality.
    If you are a bloody brilliant English teacher, I’m sure the same feelings can easily well up: “I’m busting my gut here teaching these pesky SPAG rules and then in you swan with your big ideas and publishing deal, excite the kids, make me look boring and then piss off.”
    But this lack of trust and irritation from the disruption is an artefact of the subject pedagogical knowledge being perceptibly king, “I know these kids, I know what they’ve got to do to get an 8, or grade 5 at GCSE or an exceeding in their SATs, what do you know about that matey?” The grades, the assessment, the targets, the progress tracking have become all important; losing sight of the inspiration, the opening of minds and sheer unbridled joy of a different face telling the children a different story.
    If the godforsaken gap is ever going to be closed (it won’t) then an extra intervention session with the slightly scary but ever friendly TA ain’t going to cut it. What could help is variety of text, of teacher, of insight, of experience and of activity. The major difference between middle class grammar kids or affluent private school kids and those of less privileged; more disadvantaged pupils, is not the quality of teaching or increased timetable allocation rather the richness and variety of experiences and adults they are exposed to; also the amount of time they spend informally interacting with highly knowledgeable adults both at school and at home.
    So let’s trim the box tick curriculum. Let’s stop worrying about whether Chantelle knows how to construct the perfect sentence by year 5 and fill her school experience up with variety, inspiration, joy and shedloads of beautiful, brilliantly written and illustrated books to fire the imagination. Let’s read more stories together, let’s discuss more concepts, vocabulary and stories together and let’s regularly bring in anyone else who cares deeply about children’s futures – but don’t get them to do some contrived workshop. Just read to them, talk to them. Like all good writing: show, not tell.
    I think there are four main reasons.
    A). This is currently the most important and the main reason we spend hour upon hour, day upon day on this: To enable children to produce quality written work across academic school subjects. Now, I don’t really have particular beef with this but we must realise that this biases the whole education system towards those more gifted in writing. The ability to write well is assessed not just in English language, English literature and History GCSE but also in Geography, Biology, Art, DT, RS and to a lesser extent Chemistry and Physics. If constructing sentences and paragraphs, spelling or technical vocabulary recall is challenging for you, you are going to fare worse than someone with a greater command of the English language. Hence the relentless focus on spelling, punctuation and grammar at primary school. And yet beyond school the ability to write well is not a major requirement beyond academia or the teaching, medical, legal and communications professions. Our obsession with terminal written assessments at 11, 16 and 18 actively discriminates against those with more mathematical minds, those with dyslexia or a related learning difficulty and those with great oral understanding who can’t articulate themselves on paper.
    B) To write in a professional capacity. Reports, memos, letters, articles, research papers, bids, proposals, speech transcripts. This is a good reason for teaching writing in school. Well written letters or reports are going to aid your career. I’m not sure every ten year old needs to develop the ability to structure a letter or report well. But every seventeen year old probably does – to varying degrees, depending upon their post school pathways.
    C) To inspire, identify, encourage and develop those with genuine writing talent. Good writing is an art form. A pleasure to read. The ability to write eloquently, descriptively, analytically and fluidly is a gift. Reading a well crafted letter, piece of academic writing in a journal article, newspaper column, essay, short story or novel is a pure, incandescent delight. There is no greater joy in teaching than reading a passage of beautifully crafted prose. While this is a possible outcome of schooling for a handful of children, it is unrealistic that everyone has the capability, motivation or tenacity to become a talented writer. When such a talent is discovered it is paramount that they are not stifled by forcing an arbitrary set of rules upon them, which may be relevant for the ‘average’ child but not always pertinent to the advanced learner. This is a sure fire course for a breakdown in trust between teacher and pupil. This is where professional creative writers become irked by the relentless educational focus on the rudiments of writing, the easily testable and comparable science of writing if you like, and forgetting that high quality creative writing is an art form, with very few rules.
    D) To encourage writing for pleasure, as a hobby, or as a mechanism for deeper learning in topics of interest. An essay is one of the best learning devices we have as educators. Unfortunately, the dominance of written exams in our education system has somewhat tarnished the reputation of the essay. Essays have become associated with the assessment of knowledge rather than as tools to enable the deeper embedding of knowledge and understanding. The ability to sequence and structure our thoughts on paper, to construct arguments and counter-arguments is a great tool for acquiring deeper understanding of a topic. This aspect of writing can be acquired, taught and practiced outside of English lessons. History is perhaps the most famous essay orientated subject, but essays can become useful learning devices (for advanced learners from 10+ or in A levels or IB at 16+) in science, economics, politics, geography, art and, of course, philosophy too.
    In modern education it is commonplace to hold teachers accountable for pupil learning and progress. This has, in my opinion, stifled; weakened and eroded autonomy, spontaneity and trust in teachers. As a consequence, and this has happened in virtually all heavily monitored professions, it has left us with a safe, cautious, sometimes fearful profession. The modern teacher’s role more about delivery* of the curriculum rather than enlightenment, inspiration, opening minds or unlocking potential.
    *I hate this word as applied to teaching. Really, really hate it. Of course a teacher can be a pivotal figure in a child’s education. A brilliant teacher (and no one teacher can be brilliant all the time and for all pupils – as there is a symbiosis between teacher and pupil – but let’s say 20% are brilliant most of the time for most pupils) can make a huge difference to a child’s pace of development. A bad teacher (and there are presumably a few of these sloshing about the system, in the minority, let’s say 20%) can hold a pupil back a little but the damage is probably less significant than we often think, as in any given learning situation the teacher is only one of four (approximately) equally weighted factors. But I believe that no matter how brilliant or awful the teacher, they are only one of four, approximately equally weighted factors which affect pupil achievement in formal education, which includes “success in writing.” So what are the four factors? A). The pupil’s innate brain architecture – their propensity for cognitive, creative and fine motor development. This is always a controversial one as there are still many teachers who like to believe they are starting with a blank canvas. We are not. Anyone who has had more than one child, or has spent a lot of time with young nephews and nieces or the children of friends, or spent time studying child development, or has worked regularly with young children can tell you how remarkably different the behaviours, characters and motivations of young children are. The age old nature / nurture debate rolls on with questions like, “is my son’s hand-eye co-ordination exceptionally good because I spent hours in garden playing catch, cricket, football and rugby passing from an early age?” or “did my son demand so much of my time when he was younger because he had an innate talent for hand-eye co-ordination?” Cause and effect. It’s a bit like, “Does reading the Daily Mail make me a bigot?” or “Do I read the Daily Mail because I’m a bigot?” There is little doubt in my mind that there is some truth in the 10,000 hours principle. The more you practice something, or the more you think about something, it is more likely that you will excel in that area. No one gets to be the top of their game in music, sport, art, writing, debating, learning, thinking etc without doing an awful lot of it. Conversely, talking to the carbon atoms in the graphite of your pencil ‘lead” for hour upon hour upon hour about how they could re-arrange themselves into a different configuration won’t make them into a diamond. So, we must have different genetically inherited architecture in our brains at birth. The way we are loved, cared for and spoken to in our first 6 months – 2 years may prime (or de-activate) that architecture in some way. Geneticists (e.g. Kevin Mitchell @WiringTheBrain), child psychologists (e.g. Oliver James @oliverj_psych) and neuroscientists (e.g. David Eagleman @davideagleman and Daniel Levitin @danlevitin) can shed much more light on this than I can ever do here. But what is clear is that the children teachers receive into EYFS (2+), KS1 (5+), KS2 (7+), KS3 (11+) or KS4 (14+) classes or groups will have markedly different innate propensities for learning.
    note that I don’t write innate ability. B). The intrinsic motivation and interest of the pupil This factor is strongly linked to both A above and C below. If a child has an innate propensity for curiosity, or – if you prefer – a brain primed and thirsty for information then they will be hungry to learn. If knowledge, discussion, varied activities, books, being read to, reading and cultural enrichment is part of their family and/or community culture then it is likely they will be intrinsically motivated to learn in subjects or topics that resonate or they find interesting – or that the teacher makes interesting. Basically, if a child wants to learn they will learn – unless of course they have some challenges with their executive function (but I’m not getting into emotional or learning difficulties or processing / short-term memory barriers here). Now, motivation and achievement are inextricably linked as Christian Bokhove (@cbokhove) has written about. Unpicking this can be challenging, which is where the importance of D) The Teacher kicks in. C) The pupil’s life experience beyond school This is the big one. This factor probably determines a far greater proportion than my postulated equal weighting of 25%. This is the one we really need to address if we want to improve educational outcomes for the disadvantaged. In education, we spend far too much time tinkering with curriculum, pedagogy, formal assessment, inspection frameworks and obsessing about (the highly subjective) quality of teaching but neglect to acknowledge that it is what goes on outside school, outside formal education which has a far greater effect on our economic, emotional, professional and personal success and fulfilment in life.
    *note that I don’t use the trite and unquantifiable word, happiness. The philosophy professor A.C. Grayling has described ‘happiness’ as an epiphenomenon – an abstract feeling consequent on a number of other factors, one of them being fulfilment, another being a personal sense of purpose.
    School seems like this great big, all consuming, transcendent, enabling, make or break force on our “life chances” but really – for the vast majority of pupils – it can only ever be complimentary to whatever happens outside school. This is why all the current talk of catch up and lost learning is so infuriating. Children will have had an absolute maximum of two years of their fourteen years of schooling disrupted and a human generation is approximately 25 years long, not 1-2 years of academic education…
    As a child, of the 52 x 7 x 24 hours in a year (8736); only 38 x 5 x 5 hours are spent in formal classroom based teaching (950) which is just 11% of each year. Even if we allow 10 hours sleep per night (when most of our “learning” probably occurs in terms of it becoming embedded and sorted within the canyons of our minds) and 2 hours for eating, washing and sitting on the loo per day (8736 – [365 x 12]) = 4356 hours then the proportion of contact time with a teacher in formal, school based education is only 22%, leaving a whopping 78% of waking hours to fill with the influence of our families, friends and communities.
    What happens in that 78% of time is surely a far greater determinant of our educational outcomes than the 22% of time controlled by a teacher, a curriculum or a school.
    The amount of time we spend talking and discussing varied topics with adults varies greatly.
    The amount of time we spend reading, or being read to, varies greatly. And the quality of what we read and have read to us varies greatly, and the amount of time we spend talking about books, films, documentaries and TV programmes varies greatly.
    The amount of time we spend roaming the streets, shopping centres, parks and fields surrounding our homes varies greatly.
    The amount of time we spend in our rooms alone (possibly on social media, gaming or watching TV) varies greatly.
    The amount of cultural enrichment (museum, gallery, theatre visits) in our childhoods varies greatly, as of course it does in adult life too.
    The amount of time we spend with siblings or friends, close to us in age, varies greatly.
    The amount of time we spend exercising, exploring nature, walking and talking about it varies greatly.
    The amount of time we spend pursuing group or club hobbies and interests (e.g. sport, craft, dance, music, art, drama, cubs, scouts, brownies, girl guides) varies greatly.
    The way we are spoken to and the nature of family and community gatherings and social events varies greatly.
    The amount of time we spend engaging with different cultures, people, nations and landscapes via travel or community varies greatly.
    All of the above have an immeasurable impact on our “teachability” and our attitudes to school, teachers and learning.
    There is no one right way of raising a child (there are a few wrong ways) and alien cultures or the middle class-ification of society should not be enforced and mandated (e.g. the National Trust 50 things to do before you’re eleven and three quarters) but we know that a variety of enriching life experiences will enhance what we see and feel, giving us more to draw upon in the classroom, particularly when developing our writing. In the absence of travel and cultural visits, books and stories are the best and easiest way of attempting to “level” this playing field.
    D) The teacher
    A teacher’s job is to unlock the doors of learning. They can only lead a horse to water, they cannot force it to drink. The most skilled and experienced teachers unlock more doors more frequently than the least skilled and experienced teachers. Some might say that the art of teaching is persuading a student (or class of students) to grapple with an idea, a concept or a fact that they don’t really want to, or don’t see the point of. The learning activation energy of some children is negligible whereas for some others, weeks and months of trust building with consistent boundaries are required. Children respond to different teachers in different ways, just as teachers respond to different children in different ways. Some teachers believe it is purely their role to explain the content and the consequent pupil task designed to practice or embed it. I personally believe it is my job to develop a positive relationship between the pupil and the subject or topic and then to infuse them within it. Sometimes nothing sticks. Sometimes something does. Sometimes it is years later when we recollect the significance of that specific lesson from year 5, or year 7, or year 12 which seemed unfathomably abstract or unmemorable at the time.
    We rarely remember what or when exactly a teacher taught us a specific fact or concept for the first time but we’ll remember how they made us feel about ourselves and about the subject they were teaching. So, yeah they have the potential to be a great, positive influence on our lives, to unlock the doors to learning, to broaden our horizons and to open our minds but how significant the part they play in our ability to write well, or not, is up for perennial debate.
    Multiplying the four factors
    If we assign a score of 1 for poor, 2 for average or typical and 3 for brilliant to each of the four categories and multiply the numbers together e.g.
    1 x 1 x 1 x 1 = 1
    or in any order 1 x 1 x 1 x 2 = 2 or, again in any order 1 x 1 x 2 x 2 = 4
    then writing is never likely to be a strength of yours and your overall achievement in our current education system is going to be poor. You will likely become a member of the third of the population with very few “passes” at GCSE and you will likely feel like a failure or that the education system, hell bent as it is on such a narrow measure of our capabilities and talents, has failed you. What a crap start in life.
    Conversely a score of 3 x 3 x 3 x 3 = 81, or 3 x 3 x 3 x 2 (in any order) = 54 or 3 x 3 x 2 x 2 (in any order) = 36 would suggest great talent and capability in writing both in school and beyond. Such an individual is likely to be a high achiever in our current education system and beyond.
    A score between 1 x 2 x 2 x 2 = 8 and 2 x 2 x 2 x 3 = 24 is going to place you amongst the majority of the populace. Able to write competently, sometimes well but probably not find either writing or formal academic education particularly enthralling.
    Our whole education system is top down. Top down and driven by exams.

Just like an essay, an exam is a great learning device, enabling us to practice recalling facts and concepts from our minds, thus embedding them deeper into our “schema.” But we have shifted exam as learning tool to exam as measuring tool. Not so elegant.

As these written exams demand quality writing to excel in, writing dominates the primary English curriculum time, and probably a hefty chunk of most subjects up to GCSE. At A level or IB it is a given that one’s writing skills will be sufficiently developed to cope with the articulation, explanation and communication of ideas / concepts / facts / theories / arguments required.

Now, this is where my insight and experience is seriously lacking, as several primary teachers may scream at me and say, no we have prioritised reading over writing. Great, with a healthy slab of SPAG too, driven by SATs, no doubt.

Even in our current exam driven system where so much factual, descriptive writing is required the way many children seem to be “taught” to write is via the medium of creative writing. Frequently this is story writing, but it could be description of a fictional character or a fictional setting or a fictional diary entry / letter in response to a class text. It can at times seem like we are teaching children to become writers rather than teaching them to write.
Much of this is wonderful. And brilliantly taught.

But from my personal experience at school, my children’s experience, my primary school governor (2009-2013) insight, my Year 6 teaching practice on PGCE and my insight and observation of children at the school I have taught in for nearly 7 years, I remain baffled by the amount of time children – from a young age – spend writing stories in primary school.

I totally get how rewarding it is to read a wonderful piece of children’s writing. I totally get how we can pride ourselves on the quality of work we inspire, cajole and extract from the children we teach. I set tasks, extension activities and project work in science from Year 5 – 8, to enjoy it too. I absolutely love reading children’s writing whether creative or descriptive. And for the most gifted writer’s in our classes it is right that we give them as much opportunity to hone, practice, apply and develop their gift. But do we stifle, hinder or just waste huge amounts of curriculum time trying to coax extensive passages of writing from ALL children, regardless of the quality and skill of their writing in terms of vocabulary, grammar and sentence construction.

I wasn’t a writer at school. I studied science and maths A levels and a chemistry degree. I wrote loads of reports in industry but only became interested in writing as a hobby in my thirties and now as an aspiring author in my late forties. There are four reasons why I write:

1) To help me learn, to grapple with information, write about it and help cement my understanding in my mind.
2) It is cathartic and therapeutic. An escape from reality. It is an expressive outlet for my creative mind.
3) To communicate. I have a fundamental need to communicate with others, even if it is just two of you reading this. We are communicating. Making a connection. Let’s chat over a beer or coffee or bottle of wine soon!
4) Because I now read a lot. I have experienced a reasonable amount of life through lived experience, conversation, observation and through reading. Reading has enriched my imagination and inspired me to write.

Teachers know this. It’s why they harp on about reading books. It’s why they teach us the rudiments of writing. As they know that the ability to read well, opens our eyes to the world and that the ability to write well is a great method for exploring knowledge, ideas, arguments, research and also a wonderful way to communicate our ideas to the world.

But do we try and make everyone into a reader and a writer too soon? Do we become fixated on this and lose sight of the fact that many modern humans don’t and won’t ever develop a love for reading or writing? Do we dismiss the very obvious fact that many modern humans only discover the joys of reading well into adult life? Do we disregard the fact that the majority of modern adult humans don’t need to, or want to, write on a regular basis?

Are we as teachers driven by our own biases about literature, learning and academic study? Do we let our ideologies skew our views on and style of classroom teaching?
Yes, I think we do. To varying degrees. And I don’t really want to stop that.

Schooling should be as much about exposure to a variety of teacher’s characters, passions, knowledge and experience as it should be about building cognitive, cultural and creative foundations for life.

BUT…schooling and teachers have become increasingly constrained by what they can do and what they can teach in the limited amount of time available. BECAUSE we have become obsessed by measuring and comparing the outcomes of school education as a random end point, rather than as just the beginning. School education should be a platform for thriving, fulfilled, purposeful individuals ready to contribute in myriad ways to a fairer, better society.

The need to track, measure, assess and make tangible progress has diverted education from being a powerful, enabling force towards a soulless, standardised, stifling sausage factory.

Everything must be evidence. Therefore everything must be easily testable.

So we have condensed the art of writing into the testable rudiments of writing. We have converted writing into a science rather than an art. It has become formulaic and laden with rules.

So what should we do? (We won’t do it, and remember I have no authority, but here is what I think anyway…)

• Children should start formal education later. Or EYFS (mornings only) should roll on until the end of Year 1. Creating, playing, role play, exploration, exciting visitors and visits, story-telling, loads and loads and loads of story time. Walking, sport, craft, local community clubs etc in the afternoons. Starting formal education earlier and earlier and earlier DOES NOT MAKE A JOT OF DIFFERENCE AGED 18, 24, 30 or 50. It probably doesn’t even make a jot of difference aged 11. And so what if it does?
• Apart from learning spellings, the meaning of loads and loads and loads of words, times tables and number bonds and practising fine motor skills, mark making and letter formation (not so fixed on the whole cursive thing) the vast majority of school timetables should be about reading, be read to, story telling, exploring, discussing (big ideas with big words and not patronising children by removing vocabulary or ideas perceived as too difficult or challenging – infuse, infuse, infuse) until the end of Year 3.
• Through year 4 and year 5, reading (and being read to), oracy and discussion WITH A DIVERSITY OF ADULT CHARACTERS, GENDERS, ETHNIC ORIGINS, EXPERIENCE, EXPERTISE, PROFESSION OR TRADE, AGE should still dominate over writing and independent doing tasks (aren’t independent doing tasks at this age really just designed to keep kids busy and quiet rather than keep them learning)?
• Starting in year 4 and ramping up through year 5, 6, 7 and 8, the art of sentence construction should be regularly practiced – in all subjects (not the science of it, please, though this can be mentioned).
• Starting in year 5 and ramping up through year 6, 7, 8 and 9, the art of paragraph construction should be regularly practiced – in all subjects.
• Until the end of Year 9, 50% of all “learning time” should be either reading, being read to, discussing big ideas, topical science, environmental issues, political, economic, social and ethical issues. The boundaries between subjects should be blurred. English lessons can be dominated by scientific vocabulary (sometimes). Science lessons can involve a lot of writing, reading or oracy and dialectic discussion (sometimes). Stories, discussions and books, visits and visitors should be curated by teachers but a variety of responsible, professional adults should be involved.
• Starting in year 6 (and only once varied sentence construction and paragraph construction is close to being mastered – otherwise keep going with that) children can start to write multi-paragraph stories.

Basically, I am advocating the following in our reformed education system (up to Year 9, aged 14).

• More reading
• More being read to
• Much more discussion
• Infuse, infuse, infuse, infuse, infuse.
• Experience, experience, experience.
• Vocabulary, vocabulary, vocabulary.
• More variety of visits and visitors to our schools – not workshops – just to talk, discuss and show…
• Delay the writing and crafting of stories until varied sentence construction and varied paragraph construction have been mastered (children skilled in oracy can tell them before they write them*)
• Also, importantly, delay the writing of stories until you’ve done a lot of reading, discussing and experiencing. Until you’ve got something to write about…
• But never hold anyone back. If a child CAN construct a perfect sentence in year 2 or 3, let them. If they can write brilliant stories with well constructed paragraphs composed of well-crafted sentences in year 5 then let them fly…
• Variety. Variety. Variety.

And finally let us not be driven by terminal assessments which can label us with false positives or false negatives. Let’s provide children with a rich, varied educational experience to enable them to flourish as fulfilled, purposeful adults. We can profile them on a three or four point scale in knowledge, skills and dispositions whenever we see fit but let’s remember that school education is just the beginning. Never the end.

Our political and economic desire to indelibly label, channel or pigeon hole children’s writing, reading, mathematical ability or anything else at age 11, 16 or 18 is bonkers.

*As an aspiring ‘writer’ most of my ‘writing’ is done in my head on whilst walking. The physical act of typing or handwriting the story probably less than 20% of the time spent thinking about it.

On Twitter

by Toby Payne-Cook

I am forty-eight years old. I love meeting new people. I am a non-conformist. If someone says something is black, I am tempted to suggest it is white, and vice versa. My errant worldview is a contorted melange of myriad shades of grey. I’m provocative. I’m opinionated. I love a good rant. I’m also rather partial to laughter and a sense of the ridiculous.

But underneath the mixed up personality I present to the world is someone, I hope, who is self-aware, kind, tolerant, empathetic, romantic and full of love. I hope that I act with integrity and honesty; sometimes brutal and self-sacrificing at times. This person is also wracked with self-doubt, is over-sensitive and craves affirmation, attention and love.

The person described in the top paragraph was made for Twitter. The person in the second paragraph should stay well away from its toxic algorithms and misrepresentation of people’s inner being.

I’ve largely enjoyed my Twitter odyssey since October 2018 and I have definitely “met” a handful of genuinely brilliant, wonderful fellow humans. All along, I have known that the behaviours and views of people on Twitter are – in the most part – skewed, distorted and frequently narrow versions of themselves. There are very few people who reveal themselves deeply and directly on such a platform.

But more recently, I’ve noticed something very strange. I’ve noticed how pervasive and disruptive it is. I’ve noticed that people on twitter fall into four fairly distinct camps:

  1. The downright silly. The funny. The insightful. The witty. (<10%)
  2. The self-promoters and self-appointed curators of humanity. (~50%)
  3. The reactive, sensitive and downtrodden. (~40%)
  4. Those fools who try to bridge all three of the above camps. Including me, I hope. (<5%)

There are of course three other camps beyond the all consuming Twitterverse:

5. The vast majority of humans who have never, nor will ever, go near such a dangerous, harmful technology.

6. Those who’ve been on Twitter and have been damaged by it, hounded off it, broken and hopefully glued back together after irreversibly leaving its toxic shores.

7. The intermittent addicts. Those who know it is shit. Those who hate what it does to them. Those who leave, often making a great big song and dance about it but then return because there’s approximately six people on Twitter who they’ve never met in the flesh but they really like and they somehow give their life meaning and a sense of belonging and they can’t quite live without its frippery, fun and fuckwittery. This category applies to me and overlaps with those in category 4) above.

One of the things that astounds me most about my fellow twitter users (and I am not immune to this either, otherwise I’d be in category 5 or 6 above) is how easily influenced and persuaded we are by the content we encounter on the platform. And I mean persuaded for or against. Most twitter users have grown up in the internet age but some of us can remember a time before all this sharing, over sharing, opinionating, ranting and narcississing. Matthew Syed recently called it out in a great article in the Times, in a wondrous repose to the soundbite, misrepresented, headline grabbing, like seeking godawful ‘journalistic’ style of Piers Morgan on TV media but also spent sometime unpicking the toxicity of Twitter.

We all know this.

Yet so many of us, even the self-proclaimed intelligentsia (yes that includes me, and probably you if you are reading this) somehow overlook this. We argue irrationally about the flies swarming around the crusty pile of shit and completely ignore why the flies are there in the first place. Our behaviour; our manners; our decorum; our angst; our defensiveness; our sensitivity; our victim status; our disillusion; our aggressive, manipulative quote tweeting and most significantly our outrage are all surface features of our deeper emotional and psychological experiences and perhaps our innate characters too.

I have recent personal experience of separation, pending divorce, from my wife of twenty years. There are many brilliant, wonderful aspects to her but the final straw for me was how we kept having the same surface argument (for most of our marriage) without ever addressing or acknowledging the subtext. This applies to the vast majority of arguments. We are so often really arguing about something else while picking a fight about something utterly futile on the surface. We misrepresent something the other person has said (or not said) in the futile, surface argument; cajole our followers and it all kicks off. The surface spat is never the real issue. The real issue is that person in the “other team” has either wronged you, or one of your close affiliates in the past or more likely the ‘other’ has very different, deeply held educational, political or moral values to you.

I hope that I have the wisdom, life experience and wherewithal to realise this most of the time and just watch from the sidelines. I regularly retweet or quote articles I largely agree with, or that subscribe and conform to my nuanced, subjective worldview. This positively enhances my echo chamber, I concur. But I abhor, and I hope I don’t do it, the negative quote tweet: when we send around someone else’s perfectly valid, well reasoned idea or article and append a negative, disparaging, disdainful comment to compound our own twisted version of the truth. Those who do this, and I follow and quite like / admire a few of them, seem to have arrived at a position of unwavering confidence that their views, values and life experience are more “right” than those of their nemesis. I really don’t like this.

There will be many who tell me that is what Twitter is for. It is for debate and dialogue and developing ideas. And that we all know the terms of engagement in advance. And if we don’t like it, we can piss off and join the growing army of number sixes above.

I’m afraid I disagree.

People are falsely strengthened in their position. Extreme views become normalised. You have to pick a side.

Twitter is a great tool for developing confirmation bias. For finding kindred spirits with very similar worldviews. It is a pretty rubbish tool for debate. Debate may even be a pretty rubbish tool for debate. A random, spontaneous conversation over coffee, beer, wine or herbal tea likely to find oneself and your opponent far more open-minded and mentally agile than on the left or right of the speaker or chairperson.

Twitter is a game for many. The blocking, the muting, the follows and unfollows. It is a good game. Particularly when played with sound mind. But the self-righteousness gets a bit much sometimes.

I follow a broad spectrum of educators and teachers on here. Most of the ones I really care about follow me back. There are one or two interesting, smart, clever, witty, Gibbesque people who are widely followed with a significant influence who don’t follow me back. There are one or two fundamentally juxtaposed, smart, clever, witty, vehemently anti-Gibbesque people with a significant influence who do follow me back (probably because my echo chamber and worldview is skewed in this direction). What I find absolutely astonishing is how both – apparently smart – different sides of these polarised educational insights, experiences, politics and values so rarely acknowledge that their beef is not with what was said or unsaid; inferred or not even mentioned at all – rather it is with that person’s fundamental values, morals or their remarkably similar and hypocritical, condemnable Twitter behaviour and affront.

Yes, I am referring to the ongoing spats between the uber-traditionalist, secondary teaching, behaviourists and the child development experts and EYFS warriors. I find it impossible to see the world exclusively from either extreme. But, on balance, I think the manners, behaviour and decorum of the child development experts and EYFS warriors to be closer to the behaviour I would like to see from genuinely open-minded, considerate and decent human beings.

So, I – nor anyone I admire or follow on Twitter is the Twitter police, or the curator of the Twitter rules. And I, nor you individually, have the power to influence or change any of this.

But, I’ll tell you what harm it does. It diminishes my trust in teachers. It does not present teachers engaged with #Edutwitter in a collectively positive light. It alienates me from all the good aspects of #Edutwitter. It moves me from number 4 to number 7 and towards number 6. It makes me want to scream – check yourselves people.

And worse, it diminishes my trust and faith in people.

Coming Next:

My next blog post will pick up on another recent area of infuriating Twitterspattery. That of writing. Teaching writing. Inspiring writing. About writing. Writers, poets, English teachers, exams, primary school teachers. Clearly, I am Jackie Weaver on this topic – I have no authority but I do have opinions, experience and I hope my own distinct brand of obtuse wisdom to share!

My Life in Books

“Books are the best way we have of feeling the world.”  – Me, today.

This is a reflection on my reading life triggered by a tweet by @EdRoundtables. 

I’d like to dedicate it to all people whose love of books and reading was stifled, or not enabled, by the process of school education.  I am one of them.

I would also like to dedicate it to all the teachers in primary and secondary schools (not just English teachers) who succeed in nurturing a love of reading and books in children not naturally inclined to gorge voraciously on books.  You are, I think, a rare breed.  I aspire and try to be one of you. 

Finally, and most importantly, I dedicate it to all the writers who write books that demand to be read.  Who write books that make you think.  Who write books that make you feel.  Who write books that change the way people engage with this crazy, complex, culture we all have the power to shape, change and improve.  I’m trying to be one of you too.

I remember my reading life starting with Peter and Jane, circa 1978, when I was six years old.  I had to read out loud in class.  Standing at the front.  I didn’t like that.  Funny now, because I absolutely love reading out loud.  I’d quite like to be a performance poet; perhaps get a little over the top with some Edward Lear at the Edinburgh Fringe: ‘O lovely pussy, O pussy my love, what a beautiful pussy you are.’  I digress.  Mum gave me a load of Enid Blyton.  No, thanks.  I preferred building camps in the semi-derelict barns or ogling some hot tractor action on the farm next door.  I quite liked the Mr Men books:  Mr Noisy, Mr Nonsense and Mr Chatterbox could have been written for me.  Dad didn’t really read books.  Worked hard in the garden.  Or watched the news.  The Telegraph (for him) and the Daily Mail (for Mum) were delivered to our rural farmhouse daily.  Mum read the Thornbirds.  I don’t remember her reading anything else.  There were a lot of books in the house, gathering dust.

Peter and Jane put me off reading for a while.  I was more mathematical back then.  I remember mastering long multiplication with Mrs New.  She was cool.  All in black.  Black Mini Cooper too.  Must have been a Stranglers fan.  Then I left my class full of Sarahs, including Sarah Norburn the sparky local dentist’s daughter.  I went to an independent prep school in September 1980, aged just eight.  Five miles down the road.  I was one of very few day pupils.  Most boarded.  Lovely, rural outdoorsy place.  Long day.  Woodwork club.  There were eight classes in total, from age 8 to age 13.  I was put into class 2.  Three weeks later bumped up into class 3.  Ruler on the back of the hand if you didn’t get ten out of ten in your times table test.  Never got the ruler.  Never got the cane either.  My weedy arse wasn’t going to see that pesky thing.  My friend Nicky Skinner didn’t care: six of the best most days.  September 1981, a year later:  class 5 of 8, aged 9.  Classes grouped by ability, not age.  I was one of the youngest in the class.  Timid little thing.  Scared of the sporty jocks.   Great visual memory, so great at spelling.  I remember achieving 100/100 in the annual Hamilton spelling competition.  Phenomenon.  Autumn.  Zephyr.  Assimilate.  Necessary.  Mississippi.  Abominable.

I was ‘good’ at French and Latin too (or just good at remembering stuff).  Etymology.  I liked words but didn’t like reading.  The first class 5 book I remember in English with Mr Schott, great big bearded and friendly guy, was Tarka the Otter by Henry Williamson.  Devon book in a Devonshire school for a Devonian boy.  Boring.  My Mum read it for me.  Next was Mrs Frisby and the Rats of NIMH by Robert O’Brien.  I liked that.  It was the first book I read cover to cover.  Mr Schott probably should have picked up on that.  Instead he tried to persuade me to read The Lantern Bearers by Rosemary Sutcliffe.  Now that is meant to be a great book but I wasn’t really into the idea of historical fiction back then, or now.  Though, I do feel compelled to attempt the Wolf Hall (Hilary Mantel) trilogy.  Cider with Rosie by Laurie Lee followed.  I quite liked that but, like Tarka, Mum read more than me.

Then it was 1982, I was turning 10; an innocent, ignorant, white, middle class boy growing up in the isolated, bucolic bliss of rural North Devon and I was thrust into George Orwell’s 1984.  I’d like to read it again now.  It may resonate.  Back then, well, it put me off reading for a long, long time.  I was living in a Utopian enclave, so such a bleak, urban Dystopia was simply too alien.  Intellectually, I withdrew into my own imaginary world.  My father wasn’t farming anymore but we were surrounded by boggy, lush pasture dispersed with cows.  I was fascinated by tractors.  As well as drifting through my Devonian dreamworld, I had an insatiable thirst for information, statistics and data.  The roots of my scientific mind were nurtured by collecting tractor specification leaflets from agricultural merchants at country shows.  I can still remember the early and mid 1980s model numbers and their respective horsepower.  I remember gorging on factbooks and a children’s encyclopaedia I was given for Christmas around that time.   It was around then that I fell in love with maps, my Philips World Atlas and geographical data (land area and population of countries).  I wanted to be fed with facts.  I made up my own stories.  My Dad told some crackers too.  We talked endlessly about everything around the kitchen table.  We ate TV dinners in front of Top of the Pops and Tomorrow’s World.  When I tried reading fiction, I remember not being able to read the words fast enough to feed my brain with the information it craved.  I was a curious dreamer.  I wish now that I’d gorged on books.  But I didn’t. 

I was about thirteen and three quarters when Adrian Mole turned thirteen and three quarters.  I fancied Pandora too.  I enjoyed Sue Townsend’s first two Mole books (and a much later one – the Cappuccino years – on honeymoon in 2000).  Once my adolescence struck, and now at an all boys boarding school in Dorset, there wasn’t much of a reading culture amongst my peers.  I was an academic scholar at a not very scholarly place, so to satiate my confusing surges of testosterone, I flicked through Vogue and Tatler magazines (I was very posh back then) and stuck innumerable black and white photographs of Cindy Crawford, Christy Turlington and Paulina Porizkova on my wall and in my mind.  

My housemaster taught English but never taught me.  He was dramatic, eccentric and a role model outside the classroom.  My English teacher – for three years to GCSE in June 1989 was Mr “Nanny” Arthur.  He was a proper old school schoolmaster.  An angry, red faced bachelor with a very accurate board duster pelting arm.  I liked him.  Was he a good teacher?  Episodically, yes.  Semantically, no, I think.  We read Macbeth.  I remember it well.  Great lines.  Great drama.  Our first mandatory book for English literature was The Old Man and the Sea by Ernest Hemingway.  I hated it.  Too macho, too masculine.  Like 1984, five years earlier, this did nothing to inspire me to read for pleasure.  I appreciated our second book much more, revelling in its descriptive, flowing prose.  It was Thomas Hardy’s, Under the Greenwood Tree (or the Mellstock Quire).  I still remember Tranter Reuben and the flighty Fancy Day.  While, I appreciated it, it wasn’t enough to spur on a gorging of the pastoral classics.  I know the story of Tess (thanks to the BBC and the beautiful Gemma Arterton) which is too bleak to dive into, but I have dabbled in the beginning of Far for the Madding Crowd in recent years and will stick with it one day.  I like the way Hardy writes about real places but renames and fictionalises them.  That has inspired my own writing.  I’ve created the Hexworthy peninsula in North Devon which is essentially the Hartland peninsula with some south Pembrokeshire coast between Manorbier and Stackpole Quay infused.

My first personal choice for GCSE English Literature was the aforementioned Cider with Rosie by Laurie Lee. I could relate to the rural, pastoral nostalgia of the book and the quality of Lee’s descriptive writing about childhood and rural scenery was beguiling.  My second choice was the shortest novel I could find on the dusty bookshelves at home by a famous author:  The Virgin and the Gypsy by D.H Lawrence.   Lady Chatterly’s Lover looked a bit too long!  I don’t remember much about it, though I recall it being a slow burner, yet quite compelling.  I was very much reading it out of necessity rather than pleasure. 

Outside the classroom and a hundred miles away, back at home in Devon, Dad was slowly rotting from cancer.  So, my adolescent years were unconventional and perturbed.  He died in November 1988 when I was just sixteen.  Music and countryside walks became my refuge.  From 15 in 1987 to 23 in 1995 I obsessively gorged on the music press:  Q magazine, Select magazine, the NME and then Uncut.  That was my sole reading material.  I read a lot of it.

Dad’s demise propelled me towards the idea of medicine for a career.  So I chose Maths, Biology and Chemistry for A level.  With the possible exception of Biology, none of those subjects required or nurtured reading as a hobby.  Thirty years on, while I enjoy the logic and can see the beauty in Maths, I wish I’d studied History instead.  To learn to read and research deeply, to learn to construct the perfect essay:  those skills (or procedural knowledge) would have greatly benefitted my scientific career and possibly set me on a writing path earlier in life.  I think it a travesty that those with significantly above average cognitive ability, or blessed with curiosity and interests across a broad palette of subjects and ideas specialise so narrowly at 16+ in this country.  For those who choose to use their mind professionally or leisurely, to pigeonhole people as scientists, mathematicians, historians, writers, linguists or artists aged sixteen, before they have the feintest idea who they are or what they could become aged thirty, forty or fifty is bonkers.  To be a great scientific thinker, I think we both need to understand the science of art and the art of science, for example.  If someone had harnessed my late found love of the written word earlier in my life, aged 17, introduced me to philosophy and broadened my mind in general rather than funnelling me into an avenue of economically driven societal control then my life would have been culturally and literary richer for longer.  I remember my first supervisor in science industry in 1993/94 (the late, great Duncan Bryant of RoySocChem molecular spectroscopy fame), who was particularly well read and deeply intellectual saying that the majority of scientists (NOT ALL) are cultural philistines.  I can confirm this by the amount of them whom I’ve met with appalling taste in music!

In the sixth form at school, I won the chapel reading prize.  This was, of course, a prize devised for someone who wasn’t brilliant at any of the usual school accolades:  sport, music, art, drama, academics.  I am blessed with a loud voice, great projection, variety of tone and love of the Olde English language in the King James Bible and Milton’s Paradise Lost.

By the time I was twenty-four, in 1996, I was employed as a product development chemist (medicine didn’t work out) in industry.  I have a fond memory of Christmas at home in Devon in the mid to late nineties.  I was into books by then.  Not gorging on them, but referring to them; to feeling them; to sitting next to a roaring fire and flicking through them.  The Rough Guide to Rock and a wonderful book of photographs taken, mostly in black and white, by James Ravilious (son of Eric), documenting a now bygone rural way of life in Mid North Devon from 1972 to 1989 called A Corner of England, were two of the best Christmas presents I’ve ever received.  The Rough Guide to Rock led to the Rough Guide to Classical and, latterly, the Rough Guide to Jazz too.   A Corner of England may even be my single Desert Island Book, so rich are its images and so evocative of a simpler, more real and honest, tougher no doubt but probably happier too, way of life.  My love for and soul infusion with rural North Devon and its wild rugged coastline led me to reading the seminal work by W.G. Hoskins, ‘The Making of the English Landscape’ and then delving into Oliver Rackham’s Illustrated History of the Countryside.

In 1997 (aged 25) I went on a hellish holiday to Cyprus with friends.  The high point of the holiday was escaping the Limassol strip in the south and chilling out in Latchi on the edge of the Akamas peninsula in the North West.  Soon afterwards a friend discovered Stuart Browne’s novel ‘Dangerous Parking’ which started in Latchi.  I loved it.  It was the first full novel I’d read since school – full of debauchery, great music, humour and sadness.  The main protagonist was a wild, self-destructive soul dying from cancer and, for the first time, I discovered the power of literature.  When we read, we read with our knowledge and experience of the world.  I could relate to much of the subtext of the book and this made the reading of it a far richer experience than anything I’d hitherto experienced. 

Dangerous Parking didn’t really lure me into the pleasures of reading.  The books I tried to read were either too heavy, requiring too much concentration and leading to a wandering mind or too lightweight, not stimulating enough thought and leading, also, to a wandering mind.  I was mostly working as a scientist, gaining intellectual stimulus at work, listening to music, reading about music or going to gigs or festivals.  There was no mental or time void in my life to fill with books, though I did manage to squeeze in Nick Hornby’s High Fidelity around this time, the ultimate novel for a list making musical obsessive. 

In summer 1999, I met Amanda and we married in September 2000.  Amanda read books.  Not my kind of books but twenty minutes in bed before turning the light out, lightweight, escapist fiction books.  As I write this in late 2020 we are freshly separated; pending divorce wrangling.  Amanda’s ability to read what is in my view trite, vacuous romantic fiction (and watch trite, vacuous, romantic comedies) is one of too many differences between us.  As I reflect on our twenty one years together, I am intrigued how someone so unromantic and emotionally detached only ever reads romantic fiction.  Anyway, back when we were new and exciting, I decided to adapt to Amanda’s bedtime reading ritual.  I weaned myself off the increasingly tiresome music monthlies (how many articles can one read about R.E.M, Blur, Oasis, U2, Pink Floyd or the Rolling Stones anyway)?  The appearance of Coldplay on the scene was another catalyst to stopping this repetitive, noodling obsession.  I started experimenting with books.

Non-fiction to start with.  I read the meaty scientific tome ‘Left Hand, Right Hand – the origins of asymmetry in Brains, Bodies, Atoms and Culture’ by Chris McManus.  It was a fascinating book but rather too scientific when my day job was full of colloid, materials and formulation science anyway.  With my thoughts turning towards the prospect of parenthood, I read They F*** You Up by the clinical psychologist Oliver James in the very early noughties.  As James instructed, I read it from the perspective of a child not as a prospective parent.  The book explains how the experience of the first six years of our life (particularly the first two) shapes who we become and how it can induce later mental health problems and personality disorders. 

[My father (who had seven children, I’m number 6) always maintained that the most important phase of parenting was before school started; merely a supporting and guiding role after that.  I’d echo that.  A problem with the modern middle-class family is too many parents maintaining too much control (and over-protection) for too long.  Neglect is obviously not good but mollycoddling is not a pretty antidote.  A strong counselling ear and warm, tolerant heart is required in the adolescent years but pretty much any fool can parent an eight year old…]  

They F*** You Up opened my mind to psychology which was starting to fascinate me, particularly with an increasingly complex, lonely and occasionally depressive widowed mother rattling around her ramshackle farmhouse in Devon.

Some years later, I countered its bias towards the argument that “nurture is all” by reading Genome by Matt Ridley (The Autobiography of a Species in 23 chapters) which argues more along the lines of genetic determinism in the shaping of our characters, intelligence and behaviour.  It is a clever book, predominantly in the Nature camp, counter to James’ Nurture camp.  The fusing of both books in my mind means that I swing wildly between both poles.  My conclusion is that we are surely vastly more complicated than both these books infer.  With hindsight both are agenda driven, as of course are the great majority of factual or scientific non-fiction books, which is why I am now much more drawn to philosophical writing in the non-fiction canon, rooted as it is in shades of grey rather than the irksome modern trend towards polarised, false dichotomies.  I have recently started dabbling with Innate by Kevin Mitchell, a much more up to date and scientifically authorative take on genetics, subtitled ‘How the wiring of our Brains Shapes who we are.’

They F*** you up obviously led me to explore the Collected poems of Philip Larkin, which I have only dabbled in but I feel now, as I write, that – finally – appreciation of and indulgence in poetry is bubbling up within me.

They fuck you up, your mum and dad.

They may not mean to, but they do.

They fill you with the faults they had

And add some extra, just for you.

But they were fucked up in their turn

By fools in old-style hats and coats,

Who half the time were soppy-stern

And half at one another’s throats.

Man hands on misery to man.

It deepens like a coastal shelf.

Get out as early as you can,

And don’t have any kids yourself.

My life experience (interest in farming, Dad’s death from cancer in my teens and lack of affinity for literature in my schooling) and accidentally chosen career path into science skewed my initial twentysomething and thirtysomething reading bug towards non-fiction and books of a scientific or psychological bent.  So it was that I read Simon Winchester’s biography of William Smith titled, The Map that Changed the World.  This is one of the most beautiful and transformative books I have read.  William Smith was a canal engineer who mostly worked on the Kennett and Avon canal, cutting through fossil rich Jurassic rock.  He published the first geological map of England in 1815, which is remarkably similar to the modern day British Geological survey.  He died a pauper and the significance of his work was largely undervalued in his lifetime.  His discovery of the near timeless age of rocks challenged the (creationist) religious orthodoxy of the time, way before Darwin’s origin of species was published in 1859.  

I had quite a strong Christian faith when at school, particularly in the wake of my father’s death.  Daily worship in the beautiful, imposing Milton Abbey in Dorset was also a factor; hypnotised as I was by its huge, vibrating, uplifting organ.  Simon Winchester and later Alice Roberts, coupled with the explicit nature of some born again Christian evangelism in my family contributed to my waning faith and burgeoning agnosticism.  If I do religion I want it to be implicit, mysterious, doubtful, meditative and spiritual.

Professionally, around this time in the early noughties, I had moved from the more creative, trial and error, proprietary nature of the formulation chemistry of developing colloidal dispersions of agricultural fungicides into the more citation and scientific literature driven world of pharmaceutics, drug delivery and materials science.  At work I was reading a lot more scientific journals with the following journal articles particularly prevalent in my thinking and research: 


Orogenic Displacement of Protein from the Oil/Water Interface  Alan R. Mackie, A. Patrick Gunning, Peter J. Wilde and Victor J. Morris in Langmuir.


Rational design of stable lyophilized protein formulations: some practical advice

JF Carpenter, MJ Pikal, BS Chang, TW Randolph

Pharmaceutical research 14 (8), 969-975


Role of thermodynamic, molecular, and kinetic factors in crystallization from the amorphous state

C Bhugra, MJ Pikal

Journal of pharmaceutical sciences 97 (4), 1329-1349

My fascination with the amorphous state (supercooled liquids and glasses) led me to the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster inquiry and the late great Richard Feynman’s finding about O rings that were too brittle (glassy) on a cold day rather than their required rubbery viscosity above their glass transition temperature.  The nobel laureate physicist’s ‘The Pleasure of Finding Things Out’ is a bible for pure scientists.

I really liked the way Mackie et al adapted the geological term, orogenesis (meaning ‘mountain folding’) to the buckling of protein stabilised foams (e.g. when other surface active agents in egg yolk destabilise egg white (albumin) foam) as observed by atomic force microscopy.  Their work was relevant to my formulation work, when trying to prevent foaming in reconstituted protein lyophiles (freeze dried protein medicines).  As fascinating as this field of physical chemistry was it really was time to start losing myself in fiction at home!  Popular Science writing, as read by a few of my fellow science graduate friends not working as scientists, was too much of a bus man’s holiday at the time.

I enjoyed the unique and utterly brilliant, The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time by Mark Haddon, later enjoying reading The Red House about a vaguely recognisable dysfunctional family holiday house.  And I look forward to reading his most recent book, The Porpoise, around Christmas this year.  I loved Headlong by Michael Frayn, essentially a farce but also containing some deep scholarship about the iconology and iconography of the paintings of the Dutch master, Brueghel.  This was my kind of fiction:  funny with highly skilled word craft and deliciously erudite too.  I was drawn to Frayn as one of the few writers equally comfortable and skilled in the writing of plays and novels.  My brain started to shift.   To shift away from scientific thinking towards a greater fascination with the arts.  I enjoyed losing myself inside an art gallery far more than a science museum; or staring at the raw beauty of nature rather than constantly trying to understand it and explain it.

Spies by Michael Frayn was even better.  I loved this book and read it quickly.  Less intellectual than Headlong but less farcical too.  A more evocative and enticingly crafted story.  A wonderful book.

I read more Frayn and bought his huge, philosophical tome, The Human Touch around this time.  More on that later.  Other memorable works of fiction I enjoyed as holiday or bedtime reads, when tiredness from early parenting permitted, included The Piano Tuner by Daniel Mason.  This was set in British India and Burma in 1886 and involved a London based piano tuner being recruited by a senior, despotic, leader of the British Empire to tune his Erard grand piano.  Great story.  I learnt a lot too.  The novel as an educational medium.  Like Headlong but not quite as heavy and with greater romantic intrigue. 

Another novel which I lost myself in was the delightful Mr Golightly’s Holiday by Salley Vickers.  Salley is a wonderful writer and this particular book is set in Devon but has a very clever and intriguing twist at the end.  I vowed to read some more of her books and finally fitted in The Librarian in Covid lockdown one.  It is set in the 1950s and is based around a children’s library.  It is a must read for anyone who loves children’s literature.  I read On Chesil Beach by Ian McEwan which was devastating and brilliant.  It is incredible how much our lives have changed in just fifty years.

Just as I was starting to find some fiction I could endure and be transformed by I veered away from it again.  I really enjoyed Bill Bryson’s Notes from a Small Island and aspire to write wry, observant, alternative travelogues like he does in the future.  Another writer with a great eye for the quirks of the English is former music journalist and BBC6 music DJ Stuart Maconie.  He wrote lovingly about my favourite nineties band, Blur, so I really enjoyed his cleverly titled memoir, Cider with Roadies (2004) and Adventures on the High Teas (in search of Middle England, 2009) and Never mind the Quantocks (2012).   

I have a penchant for the ridiculous and short shrift with fads and media generated hyperbole so I loved reading Francis Wheen’s polemic, How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World.  My religious scepticism was satiated by John Humphrey’s In God We Doubt. 

In a parallel parenting universe, I was enjoying reading picture story books to my three young children:  we all loved Michael Rosen’s Bear Hunt, Guess how much I love you by Sam McBratney and Julia Donaldson’s The Gruffalo.  A slightly later favourite of mine was Lost and Found by Oliver Jeffers, an endearing story about loneliness and friendship.

Being an absolutely huge Neil Young fan I absolutely gorged on Jimmy McDonagh’s biography of him called Shakey, which was a more enlightening read than Neil Young’s later autobiography, Waging Heavy PeaceKeith Richard’s, Life was probably the best rock and roll autobiography I’ve read, which contains two (hopefully) useless but fascinating pieces of heroin addiction advice:  1) Only buy quality shit from a trusted supplier and 2) You can’t get higher than high (so don’t carry more than you need to get high).  Another great rock and roll memoir that I’ve read more recently is Kim Gordon’s (bassist and founding member in New York punk noise-mongers Sonic Youth) Girl in a Band.  While I love Elvis Costello’s song-writing, acerbic wit and lyricism, I found his Unfaithful Music rather heavy going but stuck it out to the end.

Three weeks before Anna, my youngest was born (she is now nearly 14), Amanda’s father died out of the blue from a sudden pulmonary embolism.  Her mother was in complete shock and spent a lot of time with us.  With three children under five, 2007 was a very stressful year, particularly following Amanda’s five day long spell in hospital with pneumonia, heavily pregnant with Anna, over Christmas 2006.   I was ante-commuting, eastbound to Pfizer in Sandwich, Kent with two one hour long train journeys a day.  I started writing a novel.  I wrote 140,000 words but it descended into escapist and rather lewd fantasy.  The essence of the book has found itself into Beautiful People (working title) which I am stop start writing at present (90,000 words in and well over half way).  The original stream of consciousness was about a rock star randomly inheriting a crumbling Regency country pile in Devon with a lot of flashbacks to its original heyday so I researched using two excellent nuggets of social history: Women in England 1760 – 1914 by Susie Steinbach and High Society in the Regency Period, 1788 – 1830 by Venetia Murray.

By September 2013, aged 41, I had become a reader but not voraciously or consistently.  My children were then ten, eight and six so family life was at the peak of immersive parenting joy.  Then everything changed.  I had been made compulsorily redundant by Pfizer in 2011, due to corporate restructuring, downsizing and post merger synergies.  I tried leading a small (government target box ticking) STEM brokerage and enrichment educational charity, had some time out and finally, after years of dabbling with the idea, enrolled on a Post Graduate Certificate of Education (PGCE) to train to teach in the 7-14 age range, specialising in Science.  I am now a teacher.  My PGCE and to some extent my NQT (newly qualified teacher) years were psychologically humbling as I moved from unconscious competence in a seventeen year industrial science career to conscious incompetence in a new teaching career.  (Admittedly, most of the conscious incompetence stemmed from nonsense ideas like making good use of ICT in EVERY lesson, consistently banging a vacuously and misappropriated GROWTH MINDSET drum, having to TWO STARS AND A WISH every piece of marking,  finding out that book scrutineers can only read writing if it is in a PURPLE or GREEN pen and ensuring every miniscule FIFTY MINUTE LONG NUGGET of LEARNING had a STARTER, MAIN and PLENARY).

Practicing Scientists owe their success as much to their scepticism, their data analysis knowledge and skills, their questing intellectual curiosity as they do their foundational scientific knowledge.  History, Maths and Art in school are, in my view, equally foundational to future scientific prowess as the clunky beasts of school biology, chemistry and physics.   So, I decided very early on that I didn’t want to teach secondary science, despite the obvious merits of my real world insights into pharmaceutical chemistry, chemical engineering and biopharmaceutics.  I see very little merit in our current mandatory content heavy GCSE science curricula.  It is no way to inspire the scientists of the future and a sure fire way to turn half the populous off science for good from the age of fourteen, at a time in our history when our complex culture, technology, medical, health, dietary and environmental issues demand a solid grounding in scientific literacy.

So, I was more drawn towards primary teaching and the parts of the course I loved the most were teaching English to a sparky Year 6 primary class and the handful of English lectures and coursework at Canterbury Christchurch University.  Sue Forgotten-Surname was my English tutor and I loved the lectures from Tracy Parvin.  She was awesome.  Tracy read The Day the Crayons Quit by Drew Daywalt (illustrated by Oliver Jeffers) in our opening primary lecture, reading each coloured crayon in a different accent and inviting the audience to join in.  It was a wonderful and magical book.  Once I started teaching (Year 5 – 8 Science and some Maths) in an independent prep school (aged 3-13) this book became a stalwart of my Friday lunchtime Jackanory (Bernard Cribbens is a childhood hero) for Year 3 – 5 (7-10 year olds).    I also used it to inspire some entertaining and brilliant letters written by Year 6 leavers from their pens, pencils, rulers, pencil cases, protractors, dictionaries and intensely irritating ink erasers (why, why, oh why?) on teaching practice placement.  Sue modelled how we could use Anthony Browne’s multi-layered and provocative Voices in the Park, a children’s picture story book which is versatile in the classroom.  I’ve used it in a Year 5 PHSE lessons on prejudice and stereotypes. 

We had to write a teaching study on three children’s books and how we could use them in the classroom.  My middle daughter, Jemma, then eight, had loved Clarice Bean, What Planet Are You From? by the absolutely wonderful Lauren Child of Charlie and Lola fame.   I thought it represented the dynamics of a busy, multigenerational family really well.  The top reading group in Year 6 were reading A Monster Calls by Patrick Ness which I gorged upon in two days on Easter holiday in a National Trust holiday cottage in Lanhydrock, Cornwall.  I’ve never cried more reading any other book in my life.  It was raw and powerful and redolent of my teenage bereavement of my father from cancer.  It opened wounds I didn’t know I had.  The monster is a metaphor for Connor’s – a thirteen year old boy – anger and despair at his mother’s demise from cancer.  It is an incredibly powerful book, possibly a bit emotionally heavy for ten year olds although it is multi-layered and could work on a shallower level than the deep, cathartic transcendence that I read it with.   My third choice was fairly random: Lemony Snickett’s, The Dark

When on teaching practice in Year 6 at Goudhurst and Kilndown primary our class book was the brilliant Journey to Jo’burg by Beverly Naidoo set in an Apartheid ravaged South Africa.  It was important to explore the issues of racism, prejudice, oppression and poverty with a predominantly white privileged middle-class cohort, as part of a wider Africa topic covering History, Geography, Music and Art.  We read it in Year 5 at my current school too.

After the psychological upheaval and intense, all-consuming nature of my first two years teaching, I found there was a bit of an intellectual void in my life.  Particularly in the long school holidays.  The void was filled with books.  It was only about six years ago, aged 42, where I could start to list reading and books as a hobby, as an escape, as a transcendent life enhancing joy.  My children were getting older and my dormant scientific mind meant that I had more time and a newfound insatiable thirst for knowledge, for ideas and for challenging my own thinking and that of those around me.

Books became my hobby and a major part of my life. 

Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari was the catalyst for a new way of seeing the world.  The magic number of one hundred of fifty for a manageable and harmonious community; the importance of gossip in the human psyche, of storytelling and how the three imagined realities of religion, nations, money (and more latterly corporations) have enabled human civilisation to prosper out of control.  I know that some prominent scientists are sceptical about Harari’s lack of anthropological and genetic scholarship but this was undoubtedly a landmark book; a book which changed me.  I revisited and gorged on Michael Frayn’s erudite and deeply researched The Human Touch, based on the premise ‘would the universe even exist if we, humans, were not here to explain it?’  His agnosticism and probing analysis is compelling and it contains two of the best chapter titles ever conceived: why the marmalade? and how the marmalade?  I love his writing on how our lives are shaped by decisions:

“Your life has been shaped by decisions – by all the dozens of conscious major decisions you have made yourself, by all the millions of minor ones, and by all the billions and billions of entirely unconsidered ones.  It has also been shaped by the decisions of others, as you may be gratefully or only too painfully aware.”  Michael Frayn, The Human Touch, 2006.

This has inspired me to write ‘Fifty Decisions’ on the decisions which have shaped my first fifty years on the planet.  I have twenty months to complete it.  (I must complete Beautiful People first) and I want to assure Matt Haig that I came up with the idea influenced by Frayn, Alain de Botton and the film It’s a wonderful life before becoming aware of, or reading, your intriguing The Midnight Library, which is next on my reading list.  After Sapiens and the Human Touch, I read The Organised Mind by Dan Levitin, an American neuroscientist.  It was an excellent end of year present from the teacher parent of a year 5 pupil in my form during my NQT (newly qualified teacher) year at my current school.   I’d suggest this book is an important read for any teacher interested in how the mind works; it is full of Eureka moments and makes an important case for daydreaming and case against multitasking.

Suddenly my mind was voraciously consuming books about the mind, linked to education but not edubooks.  David Eagleman’s The Brain; Beau Lotto’s Deviate; Jordan Ellenberg’s, How not to be wrong, Malcolm Gladwell’s Blink and a wonderful chapter on Education in the modern philosopher and writer Alain de Botton’s Religion for Atheists.   De Botton’s involvement with the School of Life (an emotional education) has also part catalysed my Fifty Decisions treatise:

“Aristocratic genealogy may seem a quaint preoccupation, but the idea behind it rests upon a universally relevant concern: irrespective of the status details of our families, each of us is the recipient of a large and complex emotional inheritance that is decisive in who we are and how we will behave.  Furthermore, and at huge cost, we mostly lack any real sense of what this powerful inheritance might be doing to our judgement.” – Alain de Botton, the School of Life, 2019.

Alain de Botton is a wonderful writer and a wonderful thinker.  I have several of his books cued up on my never-ending reading list : Art and therapy and Status Anxiety are probably top of the list.  The latter was found in a National Trust (NT) second-hand bookshop.  Is there a better thing than a second hand bookshop?  My local is at Sissinghurst Castle Garden in Kent and I’ve enjoyed joyous hauls in some of their bigger treasure troves at Blickling Hall in Norfolk, Killerton House in Devon and Nymans in West Sussex.  Another philosopher I discovered second hand via the NT was A.C Grayling and his The Meaning of Things, a great dip in dip out collection of philosophical ideas.  These led to Nigel Warburton’s A little history of philosophy, the DK “The Philosophy Book” and me running an on/off philosophy club for 9-12 year olds at school.  While I love the possibilities of science, I now feel a much deeper affinity with the shades of grey of philosophy than the black and white of pure science.  If I could start again, I’d love to teach philosophy or English, but not to have to adhere to a rigid curriculum, no SPAG (spelling, punctuation and grammar; no pesky fronted adverbials and lots more on the empiricism of Aristotle and the British Enlightenment than the rationalism of Plato and Descartes.  Lots of Pascal, Voltaire, Rousseau and Schopenhauer too.

My newfound philosophical bent allowed me to stumble across a transcript of the Munk debates, ‘Do humankind’s best days lie ahead?’ with Steven Pinker and Matt Ridley suggesting they do on the basis of life expectancy, improved healthcare, lowering poverty and greater choice.  I’m with Alain de Botton and Malcolm Gladwell that our modern, materialist culture and greed has extracted us from nature and any sense of belonging or meaning in our lives.  ‘We have’, to nick a line from the Confession in the book of common prayer, ‘erred and strayed like lost sheep.’

Philosophy was bubbling up inside me, so much so that a colleague and friend accused me of being an existentialist in a passing staff room conversation back in 2016.  So, I bought a wonderful book by Sarah Bakewell called ‘At the existentialist café: Freedom, Being and Apricot Cocktails.’  I was transported to Paris in the 1930s, late 40s and fifties.  I’d like to stay there to be honest.  It left an indelible mark on my subconscious and I’m currently dabbling in some Hannah Arendt and Simone de Beauvoir as a consequence.  This is partly interest and partly research as Mary, the mysterious old recluse in my debut novel (Beautiful People) – come on someone give me a publishing deal – has a penchant for feminist, existentialist revolution.  Sarah Bakewell’s wonderful scholarship and evocation put Albert Camus’ book The Outsider (L’Etranger) on the map for me, which I’ve read within the last month in a couple of addictive sittings.  I loved it, especially recognising the influence of the book on the controversially titled and always intriguing song ‘Killing An Arab’ by The Cure.

One day I will open my coffee shop and philosophical bookshop called ‘Philosocoffee.’ 

And the world will be good. 

Other philosophical indulgences include the rather brilliant The Amateur by Andy Merrifield.  I was attracted to this erudite and well reasoned championing of the Amateur over the tide of self professed professionalism.  As a scientist in industry for 17 years, I don’t think I ever heard anyone describe themselves as a professional, yet in my 7 years in teaching I hear the pesky word almost daily.  Teachers are an insecure bunch, devalued by successive governments; our role as educators of the nation hijacked by careerist edudata bodgers hung up on ‘demonstrating progress’ and measuring kids, schools and whether the (effing) L.O. is written top left; next to the long date, top right and both underlined twice.   Christ knows how I ever learnt anything in school without a purple pen and a thrice daily ever changing set of learning objectives.  Yes, I’m a professional but my professionalism is diminished if I harp on about it all the time.  The Amateur is a manifesto for those of us who work for pleasure rather than promotion; for free thinkers who aren’t driven by power but are driven by their quest for variety, experience, meaning and, integrity.

Last Christmas, I spent Boxing Day gorging on the fascinating Stop Being Reasonable by Eleanor Gordon-Smith but I think my favourite philosophical writing has been in a book of essays by Siri Hustvedt called A woman looking at men looking at women (essays on art, sex and the mind).  She is an intellectual force, seriously well read and an absolutely wonderful writer.  I’ve dabbled in other writing of hers (The Shaking Woman, or a short history of my nerves) and I have one of her novels, What I Loved cued up and ready to go after I finish Matt Haig’s Midnight Library.  ‘Looking at men’ is the kind of book one can dip in and out of, that you can get lost in for hours on end, that you can return to, be enlightened by and have your life improved by.  Simply wonderful, especially the excellently titled long essay, ‘The Delusions of Certainty.’

I am deeply interested in philosophy, the human condition and how we find meaning in our lives but while you can take the boy out of science, you can’t take science out of the boy.  When I was a scientist, the last thing I wanted to read for pleasure were popular science books but since training to teach and playing my own tiny part in shaping the futures of some utterly brilliant, oft infuriating, young people aged nine to thirteen, I’ve delved deeper into fields of science that I’m not expert in.  Many of the following books have informed my curriculum design and deepened my subject knowledge in ways no textbook, exam specification or national curriculum ever could.  The absolutely wonderful Professor Alice Roberts book, the Incredible Unlikeliness of Being, is a wonderfully enlightening canter through evolution.  Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg’s history of science entitled To Explain the World greatly deepened my knowledge about the big guns of Physics and Natural Philosophy.  Seven Elements that changed the world by John Browne explores the economic and technological shapeshifting of Iron, Carbon, Gold, Silver, Titanium, Uranium and Silicon (or what do you call a prisoner who is messing around)?  While we’re on Element jokes, what is ‘Ah’ the chemical symbol for?  The Answer is…an element of surprise…Ah)!

Probably my favourite Science book is The Invention of Nature by Andrea Wulf, a biography of the naturalist, explorer and polymath Alexander von Humbolt.  The tales of his journeys through the Andes at the start of the 19th century are awe inspiring.  He was a great hero of Darwin’s and the first scientist to place the interdependence of species and nature on the map.   Ben Goldacre’s ranty Bad Science is worth a read but I think the food and diet version, debunking any number of fads and misconceptions about food and obesity is better and arguably more important for the lay person to read:  the Angry Chef by Anthony Warner.   A parent at school (and mother of a good friend of my youngest daughter) gave me her brother’s (Christopher Preston) book, The Synthetic Age which is a fantastic trawl through the ethics of modern science and technology:  forget genetic modification, we can now synthesise genes from scratch.  While I’m largely pro scientific progress and of the view that the claims of ‘it is unnatural’ therefore we shouldn’t do it, eat it, make it etc are poorly reasoned; I’m also of the view that humans ceased to be ‘natural’ or part of nature as soon as we started farming about 12,000 years ago.  Selective breeding is unnatural (but could happen in nature), Genetic modification is merely a more efficient form of selective breeding by design but gene synthesis does feel like it is veering into the realm of some seriously scarry shit…because once you can synthesise genes you can synthesise life…fascinating stuff.

The Science book, published in 2001, edited by Peter Tallack and including essays by Richard Dawkins, Susan Greenfield and Marcus du Sautoy is probably the book that has informed my science teaching and scientific knowledge more than any other.  It is a beautiful book too, full of art and history as well as informative, succinct, accessible prose on two hundred and fifty of the most important moments in the history of science from approximately 35,000 BC (earliest evidence of counting, probably the cycle of the moon, – 29 etchings on an animal bone) up to the human genome project in 2000.

Science is fascinating and awe inspiring and wonderful.  From personal experience, doing science is way more stimulating than learning science.  The joy of watching expected or unexpected results unfold on some complex data processing software from an experiment never knowingly conducted before can be thrilling.  When we learn science at school (or university) we are merely repeating experiments or unpicking theories and step change leaps of imagination carried out or discussed millions of times before.  Too many of those who teach the sciences are too fixated on the quest for the truth.  But what if there is no truth?  That is why I love the aforementioned Michael Frayn’s The Human Touch so much.  The truth is only a human reasoned version of the truth.  It is this mindset which attracted me to uber-mathematician Marcus du Sautoy’s wonderful book What We Cannot Know.  The amount of knowledge amassed (collectively) by humans in the last fifty years (largely thanks to computing power and data storage capability) vastly exceeds all previously acquired knowledge over the last 5000 years, since the Sumerians showed us the way with the dawn of written language.  But there are still a great many things we really don’t understand, and possibly never will.  One of the best examples is consciousness.  We have a reasonable idea of how our brains learn but why humans can think about thinking and why we can think therefore I am and why we are (probably) the only species which realises it exists: well, we have very little idea of this.  Some speculate that it is merely the consequence of billions of neurons firing at once.  Others speculate that consciousness exists at the quantum level, that to some extent anything containing atoms and therefore electrons can have some level of consciousness, which of course then comes down to how we define consciousness.  Which is rather difficult if we have no idea of what actually causes it.  I would argue that the teaching profession are rather prone to extrapolating a definitive version of how we learn from tiny nuggets of subjective, circumstantial evidence and that all teachers should read du Sautoy’s informative, erudite yet accessible book.  His follow up book The Creativity Code is equally revelatory.

So, if Science can’t answer our deepest questions about humanity, culture and the joys, pleasures and curses of the human condition then what are we left with?  Art is the answer.  I would argue that Art is more important to living a life than Science.  Obviously Science explains life in ways art cannot but without art, there is no meaning, no purpose and frankly no point.  During the COVID-19 pandemic it has not only become apparent to me how far modern humans have drifted from nature and as a consequence how far we have drifted from accepting the inevitability of death.  We have become fixated with survival and longevity; with life rather than with living.  Living without art (including live music and live theatre) is not impossible but it is definitely suboptimal and damaging to our social instincts and our desire to make meaning where there is, arguably, none.

So it is with that in mind that I really enjoyed reading the BBC arts correspondent Will Gompertz lovely little book, Think like an Artist.  As a scientist and scientific thinker with a deep interest in the arts, music, philosophy and the written word I have a theory I’d like to share:

The more biology we study the more chemistry we need to understand.  The more chemistry we study the more physics we need to understand.  The more physics we study the more maths we need to understand.  So everything is Maths, right?  Well yes, and no.  Because the more maths one studies the more and more abstract it becomes.  Greater are the imaginary leaps required to grapple with it.  And it is beautiful too.  So deep, complex, wonderful maths is art.  The more maths you study the more like art it becomes.  So everything is art.  EVERYTHING is ART.  (After all maths is a human construct, just like art).

And it is this troubled mindset I find myself in as an educator.  I believe in education.  The endless possibilities and opportunities.  The curated wisdom.  The curiosity.  The questions.  The sheer unbridled joy of learning.  I also believe in Science.  I believe in maths.  I believe in art.  I believe in humans.  I believe in teaching.  I believe in the passing on and the imparting of knowledge.  I also believe in the guiding and nurturing of humans to be the best possible version of themselves (whatever that means).   I believe in manners and civility.  I believe in character.  I believe in love.  I believe in life’s rich tapestry.  I believe in the power, meaning and connectedness of community.  I believe in socialisation.  I believe in fun.  In laughing at the ridiculousness of it all.  And laughing at the ridiculousness of ourselves.

But the trouble is I don’t really believe in school, or certainly not in what school has become.  Of how we have to track, measure and evidence every tiny little thing.  Of the system.  Of teachers developing their careers on the back of unverifiable, utterly meaningless data.  Of their inevitable gaming of the system.  Of so little scholarship and thought being put into why we are teaching something, why we are measuring it and why we are reporting it the way we do (with the utterly crap, reactive and short-termist answer of it’s what the inspectors or what parents or what the media want to see).  Of one third of the populous being labelled failures at 16.  Of a grade aged 16 being a meaningful statement of who you are or what you can achieve.  Of social conditioning and population control.  Of the stifling of free, creative thinkers just not cut out for over twelve years of classroom conformity.

I think there are a lot of people in education who think quite similarly to me.  I think there are a lot more outside of education who think like this.  And many more who think this way who have left education, or been squeezed out of it, for some of the above reasons.  Of course we are all outweighed by those who don’t think at all and never stop to read verbose, self-satisfied, pseudo-intellectual guff like this.  And outweighed by those who are so deeply invested in the system, in their careers, in their entrenched belief systems, in their unconscious bias, in their status quo (because, frankly, life is easier but not necessarily better that way), in the relentless and tiresome short-termist flip-flop politics of education (and everything else).  Of course, I am not above all this.  I am not better than you.  And you are not better than me.  I am a victim of a having an over thinking, easily influenced human mind too.

So, edubooks…

There are so many of them.  And so many say virtually the same thing.  I am, as you can tell from the above, deeply interested in education.  Not just school or science education but the principle, process and purpose of education more broadly.  Since becoming a teacher seven years ago (and a school governor four years prior to that), a parent nearly eighteen years ago and a voracious edutweeter on Twitter in the last two years, I’ve been surprised quite how many teachers aren’t actually that interested in education at all. 

As a scientist used to some meat in his journal articles, reading educational research can sometimes feel like chewing on a stale bean sprout of near meaningless words.  There are exceptions of course.  In the Times Education Supplement, the wisdom of articles by teachers of wildly contrasting views and educational experiences oft shines through most notably Alistair McConville, Christian Bokhove, Mark Enser and Emma Kell.   Since becoming mildly addicted to “#edutwitter” I’ve enjoyed the blogging, books and writing of Tom Sherrington, David Didau and Martin Robinson.  The latter’s book Trivium is well worth a deep dive, to use some eduspeak.  Martin is great orator too and wryly humorous with it.

But the problem with edubooks is how agenda driven they are.  Opinion, insight and experience are frequently presented as science, as fact.  Be wary.  The first three edubooks (or edulinked books) I read were The Element by Ken Robinson, The Seven Myths of Education by Daisy Christodoulou and The Road to Character by New York Times writer David Brooks.   Sir Ken’s animated you tube talk titled, ‘are schools killing creativity’ had me hooked in my PGCE year but I found the Element too simplistic and rather lightweight.  He presents a problem but no coherent solution.  I like Daisy.  She is intellectual and mostly right about the inefficiency of project based learning, about the over use of google as some sort of educational saviour.  But there are crossed wires here.  What if doing a piece of project based learning isn’t really about learning facts by self-discovery but practising taking pride in your work, in developing communication skills, in honing curiosity and independent learning.  If children can’t read well or summarise facts in their own words, or the subject material is too abstract then the process can be educationally inefficient if the sole measure of education is acquiring knowledge.  But surely there must be some space for individual expression and interests in our fourteen years at school?  David Brook’s book on character is, for me, the bible of ‘Character Education’ focussing on the ‘eulogy’ virtues which make us valuable to others versus the ‘resume’ virtues which really only make us valuable to our own egocentric desires for self-promotion.

Another book linked to education but not about education which I think every teacher should read is, ‘Isn’t this fun?’ by Michael Foley.  It is a wonderful polemic against the cult of ‘fun’, not against fun itself but against overuse of the word and the shallow desire for fun.  This is of course particularly pertinent to the classroom where some teachers think children only learn when they are having fun, or, conversely that the words learning and fun don’t mix.  In Foley’s research of the history of fun the book gets fairly deep into philosophy and the human condition.  A good book.

Before the virus, in summer 2019, I greatly enjoyed attending several education conferences and meetings.  I listened to the provocative extrapolations of esteemed geneticist Robert Plomin talking of his book Blueprint, arguing that intelligence is pre-determined in our genes.  I prefer to think of intelligence in all its multifaceted forms being present as a propensity which has to be triggered by good parenting, varied cultural experience, conversation and inspirational teaching.  I listened to Anthony Seldon speak eloquently and provocatively about his fourth industrial revolution.  I listened to and participated in a great pictorial talk about Dual Coding by Oliver Caviglioli but the freshest and most wonderful of all education based lectures I heard was by Ian Warwick (London Gifted & Talented) with Ray Speakman about their book Learning with Leonardo.  It blew me away and was full of such rich scholarship about the ultimate polymath, Leonardo da Vinci, on the 500th anniversary of his death. 

The talk and subsequent reading of the book sent me on a research mission into Leonardo’s polymathy.  It took me to an exhibition of some of his notebooks at the British Library and then to an evening discussion chaired by the insatiably curious Bobby Seagull of Monkman and Seagull fame titled The Science and Art of the Polymath.   Ian’s book made such a compelling case for the interconnection of subjects and the ability to explore science, nature and architecture with the eye of an artist and explore art with the eye of a mathematician or scientist.  Yet, we raise our children in world of over-specialised, falsely segregated subject boundaries.  Subjects are like the nations, corporations and religions in Yuval Noah Harari’s Sapiens.  They don’t exist.  We’ve created them and curated their niches and easily testable content to skew the errant, entropic, multifarious, nebulous and kinetic human mind into a series of little, neat, ordered, thermodynamically stable schemas.   Waqas Ahmed eloquently explores the madness of this in The Polymath book.  Though he does quote Ken Robinson too much.

My curiosity, thirst for knowledge and love of an obtuse, contrary debate can be exhausting.  Yet, by April 2017 (aged 44) it was clear I had become bookish, despite the late start to my reading life and general childhood and adolescent ambivalence.   I needed to escape my slightly fixed mindset regarding philosophy, psychology, neuroscience, education and the countryside.  I needed to break free from the echo chamber of my mind. 

When sharing a twin room in a family hotel Hasparren, in the Basque region of southern France, while on under 14 rugby tour with our sons, I got talking to Ian about books.  We spoke about Sapiens and a couple of other books we’d both read.  He invited me to join his book club.  The wives of this all male book club, which had been running for about eighteen months by this point, had formed an all female book club upon some of their children finishing at the school in which I teach, as a means of keeping in touch with each other.  And sometimes talking about books.  So, their husbands decided to do the same. 

Through 2020 this book club has been a Godsend.   First the weekly zoom quizzes; book, music and Covid-19 discussions and some wine fuelled banter from mid March until June, then some sub group socially distanced rule of six garden meet ups through the summer and early Autumn and now back to zoom.  My book club buddies have mopped up my mental health issues, humoured the verbose oral summaries of my attempted novel writing and more recently been empathetic about the emotion and politics of my pre-divorce separation.  They’ve also made me laugh a lot and we’ve read and talked about some great books.

Before anyone knew what Zoom or social distancing meant, we met monthly, only fully quorate on two occasions, I think.  There are twelve of us in total but rarely more than eight or nine.  It is more of a gentleman’s feasting and wine club than a book club, with a mixture of old, medium and new friendships.  We rotate around the lovely rural homes of our affluent, intellectual, white, male middle class cognoscenti.  Our politics, characters, professions and wealth are varied; our social class less so.  I was a little wary at first, not being quite so moneyed but now they have become my brethren, my friends and I really love their eclectic company.  Among us we have an employment lawyer, a journalist who now runs his own public relations company, a senior IT consultant in the retail sector, an operations manager, an antiques expert and valuer, an investment banker, a carpenter who designs and builds bespoke kitchens and furniture, another IT consultant, a city trader, a coal broker who offsets his green guilt with the most magnificent garden, a senior NHS director and yours truly: a former scientist, teacher and aspiring writer.

Selecting a monthly book that satiates all twelve of our reading habits is a challenge.  Since the pandemic broke we’ve sort of split into those who love books, wine, food and good conversation and those who just love food and wine. 

When I first joined there was a prevalence of non-fiction books but as they can only ever have niche appeal we started picking off classic works of fiction from either the Guardian or Telegraph 100 books you should read before you die lists.  I think we only managed four.  We’ve struck gold a few times but more frequently struck iron or copper and sometimes we’ve drilled fairly deep into some heavily water-logged clay.   Our reading list is sometimes a bit masculine for me, and sometimes I wished we had a unisex group to gain a slightly softer and more emotional perspective on things, but generally book club life is a force for good and a very important part of my life and friendships.    

So what about the books?

My first was Prisoners of Geography by Tim Marshall.  Fascinating how the land mass, location and climate determines its economic destiny.  I’ve endured a book by Joshua Green called the Devil’s Bargain about Steve Bannon and Donald Trump (frankly I’d rather not know), a beautifully written but rather dull book about sailing to the Summer Isles by Philip Marsden, and suffered the intense psychobabble of Jordan Peterson’s 12 rules for life.   Sometimes I’ve not read the book because I’m reading (or writing) something else more interesting instead.

We’ve enjoyed some PG Wodehouse; I loved (but it divided the book club) The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde.  I love how it starts all foppish and dandyish and descends into darkness.  It is a wonderful exploration of vanity.  I liked but didn’t love Raymond Chandler’s the Big Sleep.  I’d wanted to read London Fields by Martin Amis ever since Damon Albarn namechecked it’s influence over his writing of the Parklife album.   Keith Talent, Guy Clinch and Nicola Six are fantastic characters and the writing is sublime.  I enjoyed it.  The twist at the end slightly ruined it for me.  I really enjoyed The Wall by John Lanchester.  I read it as a dark metaphor for the lasting impact of Brexit and Climate Change.  I must read more of his stuff.  I liked Olga Tokarczuk’s Drive your plow over the bones of the dead.    I was slightly disappointed by Mother’s Milk by Edward St Aubyn.

I really liked How to Stop Time by Matt Haig which led me to his mental health helpbook, Notes on a Nervous Planet and we’re currently racing through his Mr Benn meets It’s a Wonderful Life meets existentialist philosophy, The Midnight Library. 

One of our members is an avid atheist and big fan of Christopher Hitchens polemical writing so we read Hitch-22 which I liked but found rather heavy going.  He is/was definitely the best of the Hitchens brothers.  I met Hitch was I was 13 in 1986, when a nascent Channel 4 were making a programme about him.  He was an alumni of my prep school – Mount House in Tavistock, Devon (now Mount Kelly).  Isabel Hardman’s ‘Why we get the wrong politicians’ was enlightening amidst the dark times of Brexit. 

This summer we almost all universally enjoyed Utopia Avenue by David Mitchell.  The writing is wonderful, the character development superb and the evocation of the late 1960s brilliantly and lovingly researched.  Recommend.  A few of us also enjoyed the play on words of Eley Williams, The Liar’s Dictionary.

In strange Covid times we spend more time talking about books we love, music we love or dissecting the politics and culture of our time but occasionally book club throws up something you’d never chose to read but enlightens, enlivens or enables some much needed escape. 

Beyond the three and a half years of book club (I’ve still not passed the induction!) I’ve discovered and enjoyed the following fictional writers: Ali Smith; Salley Rooney (I loved Normal People); Sally Vickers and the painter with words, Max Porter whose Grief is the thing with feathers ripped me open, blew my mind and took me to another plane altogether.  I also loved the writing of Michael Chabon in Pops, short eassays on fatherhood.

Finally, there are two books that I stumbled across in National Trust secondhand bookshops which have both led to a complete re-evaluation of my life and its purpose.  Both are channelled into Beautiful People, my first novel and both have influenced my desire for freedom and free thinking above all else.  They may have even catalysed my current personal circumstances alluded to and mentioned earlier.

The first is the transcendent The Salt Path by Raynor Winn.  Any book about walking the South West coast path would lure me in, as the North Devon coast is in my bones, my soul and my mind every day of my life but its not really about the walk, or the coast.  It is about survival.  And love.  And making something of your life when you have nothing, when you’ve lost everything.  It is simply wonderful.  If ever you feel that materialism and me-tooism is destroying your perspective and not making you happy, reads this book; it will change you.

The second is A Notable Woman by Jean Lucey Pratt edited by Simon Garfield and praised by Hilary Mantel.  Jean was born in 1909 and wrote secret diaries from 1925 until her death in 1986.  She never married and never made it as a writer.  She lived through the second world war and was an interminable romantic and amateur philosopher.  Her writing and insight is electric at times.  How a woman born sixty-three years before I was can reflect so eloquently my views on politics, love, relationships, marriage, people, books and the countryside completely took me away. 

So what next?

As my book club friend Steve says, any proper reader and fan of books will always have at least twenty five books waiting to be read.  And some of those books may never be read because another twenty five will come along.  At the end I include a short list of books that are screaming at me from their sedentary position on a bookshelf nearby.

But first, how to conclude this sprawl through my life in books?

Like so many other readers and writers I’ve tried reading Middlemarch by George Eliot, widely regarded as one of the greatest works of fiction, storytelling and human insight of all time by the writers I respect.  I’ve made it to page 250 of 800ish.  And stalled.  It is too rich in prose and character and complex detail.  It is demanding.  I WILL finish it one day.

I will write my books.  I’ve got about nine swirling around my mind, mostly non-fiction and travelogue or semi-autobiographical in nature but at least three works of fiction.

And I will revisit 1984.  The book which put me off reading for so long at school.  I owe it to Mr Schott.

As an adult with a love of reading for escape, enlightenment and understanding I sometimes wonder whether our collective approach to the teaching of reading, writing and comprehension in school is all wrong.  We can only really enjoy reading books which resonate with our experience of the world.  When we are young we have so little experience of the world.  So I think it is vital that teaching a love of reading (which we know will develop the mind and improve educational outcomes) is interwoven with oracy and storytelling in Art, History, Geography, Science and beyond.

I don’t think we should get hung up on all those children who never read a book.  Yes, the varied and voracious early readers will fly through school but trying to make every pupil into one of them is virtually impossible.  I think we should talk to children about the richness, the joy, and yes the darkness too, of the world around them: nature, culture, relationships.  I think we should show them. 

When we are young we haven’t a clue who or what we are.  We should help them discover this.  And when they do, they will want to read.  And their life will be richer for it.

Books are the best way of helping us to feel the world.    

My Future(?) reading list:

Second hand book shop finds

Man, beast, zombie: what science can and cannot tell us about human nature by the erudite and brilliant Observer writer, Kenan Malik.

White Heat: a history of Britain in the swinging sixties by Dominic Sandbrook.

The Lunar Men: five friends whose curiosity changed the world by Jenny Uglow

The last journey of William Huskisson by Simon Garfield

Recent(ish) fiction

Summer by Ali Smith

The Porpoise by Mark Haddon

Troubled Blood by Robert Galbraith

Lanny by Max Porter

The Sense of an Ending by Julian Barnes

What I loved by Siri Hustvedt

Moonglow by Michael Chabon

Timeless classics

A room of one’s own by Virginia Wolf

Far from the madding crowd by Thomas Hardy

David Copperfield by Charles Dickens

Middlemarch by George Eliot

Philosophy and ideas

Sway (unravelling unconscious bias) by Pragya Agarwal

The Art of Creative Thinking by Rod Judkins

Education is a shade of grey: some errant musings of a shady trog.

Education is a shade of grey:  some errant musings of a shady trog.

Short-termism.  I’m done with it.  In politics and education.

Idealism.  I’m nearly done with it.  My ideal isn’t your ideal, there is no perfect.  There is no universal truth.  But there is shedloads of entrenched, biased, closed-mindedness.

Polarisation.   Don’t get it.  The world cannot be compartmentalised into two simplistic, opposing positions.  It exists in shapeshifting shades of grey.

So, a new shadow education secretary speaks and some are dismayed. 

While the vociferous ‘trads’ over-react to any inference from the ‘progs’ that explicit, teacher-led instruction and an overly exam orientated system has some flaws; the voracious ‘progs’ spurt venomous nonsense about developing personal skills like resilience being more important than literacy and numeracy in school children.

Sometimes I dabble enthusiastically in the edutwittersphere and greatly admire many across the education divide.  I don’t have a fixed position.  But what incenses me is how so many of those I admire seem to have delusions of certainty based on their alleged evidence informed practice, and how much many of them seem to delight in baiting, patronising and frequently misrepresenting their idealogical opponents.

In reality the vast majority of self identified trads are not exclusiviely Gradgrindian and many self-identified progs don’t advocate that children float around in some hippy, Summerhillesque, pupil choice utopia all the time.

Heaven help us if the school timetable only contains sessions titled resilience, problem solving, communication skills, manual dexterity, relationship building and critical thinking in the future.  But heaven help us if those skills, attributes and dispositions are never mentioned, discussed or practised in an exclusively exam focused timetable packed with English, Maths, History, Geography, Languages, Sciences and no way near enough art(s) for all.

Heaven help us if there isn’t time for a deeply knowledgeable and enthusiastic teacher to share their passion for their niche expertise and interests; to talk enigmatically for thirty minutes non-stop.  And heaven help us if children never have the opportunity to practice sitting still, being calm, being respectful, being considerate, being bored, or never have the opportunity to develop and hone their concentration and active listening skills.

Conversely, heaven help us if children never get to discuss topical or moral issues, never get to exchange ideas, never get to think independently; work collaboratively or explore ideas, concepts, objects and equipment playfully.

I think one of the more bonkers ideas of recent times is the forcing of skills or character education into a key stage two or three maths lesson.  Or forcing numeracy into a key stage two history lesson, or forcing literacy into a key stage two PE lesson.

The Daisy Christo mantra of skills are built upon knowledge is well reasoned and fair.

Equally the Bill Lucas and Guy Claxton mantra of how we learn is equally important to what we learn is well reasoned and fair.

I am immensely privileged.  I am grateful for the rigour, direct instruction and frequent practice of concepts in Maths, English, Science, History and Geography at independent schools from 1980-1991.  Equally, and perhaps more significantly, I am grateful for the opportunity to join or experience debating societies, rambling clubs, unstructured den and dam building activities, interschool sport fixtures, woodwork club, to act (or was it perform?) in school plays, to spend hours in the dark room or art room and to develop leadership skills as a school prefect.

I have no beef with exams, tests or quizzes.  They are hugely important learning devices in both the academic and practical canons.  But I am incensed by the relatively modern mantra that they are all.  That a cluster of standardised grades aged 16 are an accurate measure of an individual, their teacher, their school or their social demographic.  Our education system has become too relentlessly focused on these arbitrary endpoints.  Subjects of great importance to our understanding of the world; of our ability to participate in culture, of our ability to assimilate the biased narratives of Trump, Johnson, Lucas (Caroline), Kuenssberg or the Daily Hate ARE converted into fixed, rigid overly examined curricula. 

I think it is a disgrace that human making and shaping subjects like art are binned aged thirteen if you don’t want to sit an onerous art GCSE.  I think it is bonkers that EVERYONE has to study curricula in academically rigorous subjects like chemistry to sixteen when the content is designed by academics solely focussed on the alienating, self-esteem destroying foundations required for future scientists, medics and engineers; rather than foundations for future well informed citizens.

The answer to this nebulous, multifaceted problem called our education system is not to ban exams; nor to shift to an exclusively skills orientated focus; nor obsessively track, measure and teacher assess every tiny little thing we do from aged 4 to 18.  The answer is variety of curriculum, of pedagogy, of assessment, of frivolous fun and of seriously rigorous concentration; of explicit knowledge, or independent study skills, of the science of everything AND the art of everything too.  Of chaos and order and back again.  Of an agreed long term purpose for our schools and young people; of diverse subjects, experience and insight sometimes taught – and sometimes facilitated – by diverse, wonderful, knowledgeable, highly skilled teachers.

Brief Synopsis to Beautiful People

Some of you may know that I’m writing a novel in my spare time.  I am weaving a story around my love of bucolic bliss in Devon, coastal scenery, late sixties and early seventies rock and roll music, the Glastonbury festival, romanticism and existentialist philosophy.

By incorporating teachers, farmers, musicians, writers and the COVID-19 pandemic into the story I am using my creative, descriptive writing to explore the themes of loss, marriage, family, career, capitalism, education, lust and love in affluent, middle class 21st century Britain.

Attached below is a brief synopsis.  I have mapped out the sequence of events and written the first 35,000 words so far (about a quarter of the book).  I am really enjoying the writing process and the philosophical reflection enabled by the creation of varied fictional characters, scenery and situations.

I hope to complete most of the book by January 2021, and to start seeking a literary agent in the Autumn.  I’m sure my meanderings would benefit from the wise eyes of an experienced editor but I really feel that I’m onto something here.

I think the book would appeal to those with a philosophical bent, who appreciate wild country and descriptive writing.  Also those who have an affection for rock and roll music, the sixties counterculture and the Glastonbury festival of music and performing arts.  As a writer, I am writing for me really, so if you you are a utopian dreamer with a mild affliction of midlife crisis the book may appeal to you too.

Working title:  Beautiful People

Brief synopsis:

Beautiful People by Toby Payne-Cook

The story begins in April 2019 at the funeral of an urban, eccentric novelist called Diana.  She has led a full life cut short by cancer but her early life remained a secret from her children.  At the funeral, Luke, her forty five year old teacher son acquaints himself with his errant musician Uncle Mark, Diana’s youngest brother, and is invited down to Hexworthy, the remote seaside village in rural North Devon where Diana grew up. 

In Devon, the cracks in Luke’s eighteen year marriage start to deepen and he discovers a reclusive, octogenarian hippy called Mary who may hold the key to the secrets of Diana’s past.

The story unfolds over two and a half years documenting marital tension through COVID-19 lockdown, rock and roll hedonism, adolescent disenfranchisement, Glastonbury festival’s postponed 50th anniversary in 2021, the late sixties counterculture (with the song ‘Beautiful People’ by Melanie, a recurring theme through the book) and beautiful, rural land and seascapes along the journey. 

Ultimately, it is a voyage of discovery of place, self and family secrets culminating in Luke finding true love, meaning and a simpler way of life in greater harmony with nature than his comfortable, compromised suburban existence prior to the loss of his mother.


On Beauty. #DailyWritingChallenge

Some quotes to kick us off…the third one about ambition comes from a Radiohead lyric.

  1. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
  2. Beauty is only skin deep.
  3. Ambition makes you look pretty ugly.

Beauty is subjective.

On the surface, beauty for me is the raw, wildness of nature untouched by human hands at Hartland Quay in Devon.  It is an oak tree in early Spring; its pale green leaves offset against a perfect, azure sky.  It is a herbaceous border full of lupins, delphiniums and digitalis (foxgloves) with plentiful lush, green foliage.  It is dappled shade in an ancient woodland.  It is sitting at the foot of a buzzing hedgerow watching haymaking in a rolling, bucolic landscape.

But, I think, when most of us think of beauty we think of human beauty.  Beauty is a commodity used to sell films, magazines, awards ceremonies and skin care products.  There is some consensus on the most beautiful women (or men) of all time, but we all have our individual preferences.  Personally, I’m a fan of brunettes:  Kate Beckinsale, Gemma Arterton and Freida Pinto are all very beautiful to me.  But that movie star, fashion model or pop singer beauty is only skin deep.  I’m sure Kate, Gemma and Freida are beautiful on the inside as well as out, but I don’t know that as I don’t have the pleasure of knowing them.

I’ve been thinking about this concept of beauty, or of what it is that makes us beautiful.  So much so that the working title of my debut novel is Beautiful People, a little bit inspired by Sally Rooney’s title, Normal People but specifically linked to the Melanie song of the same title from 1969, which weaves its way through the book.

What is it that makes a beautiful person?  This is really what I’m trying to explore in the book.  People can be beguiling, alluring, witty, charming, talented, sexy, cool and exude great warmth but behind that veneer they can be ruthless, manipulative or unreliable.  Others can be aloof and unfriendly yet beneath that unapproachable aura, rock solid, consistent and with a heart of gold.  Others can have radiant beauty without the ability to communicate, others can have beautiful mind encased within a shambolic, dishevelled exterior.  People can exude beauty to varying degrees throughout their lives; people can be seduced by beauty to varying degrees at different stages of life too.  Someone can be the most beautiful person in your life and ten years later they can be the ugliest, emptiest soul on the planet.

For me:

A beautiful person must be comfortable in their skin.

They must not tread on others to find their own success.

Beauty is not driven by money, fame or career.

A beautiful person must be empathetic but never insincere.

A beautiful person never seeks to control, and does not judge; though they may guide and support.

A beautiful person should not take themselves or life too seriously.

A beautiful person has no sense of entitlement and expects very little from others or life.

A beautiful person is grateful for what they have.

A beautiful person sees the good in other people.  They trust others.

A beautiful person does not demand respect or adulation.

A beautiful person doesn’t need makeup or fashion to enhance their natural radiance.

A beautiful person does not take sides, does not pick fights, does not draw battle lines and does not incite hatred.

A beautiful person loves nature more than culture.  They are spawned from the Earth, to which they will return; they are, as Neil Young once sang, as real as the day is long.

They are not easily influenced, nor do they set out to influence.

They are both interested and interesting.

A beautiful person must appreciate beauty.

They must believe in something, they must have a cause, a passion or a purpose.

A beautiful person is a natural wonder of the world.


Maybe I’ll share the synopsis of my book another time…but for now, the last line might be:

In the end, they became beautiful people because they knew this beautiful place.

Hope. #DailyWritingChallenge. All we can hope for is purpose and meaning.  When hope turns into expectation or entitlement it can only lead to disappointment.

All we can hope for is purpose and meaning.  When hope turns into expectation or entitlement it can only lead to disappointment.

In my privileged, bucolic, middle class utopia on the rural fringe of a Kentish village, I have encountered many local acquaintances and friends passing my front garden going for dog walks, daily exercise or family bike rides over the last few weeks of lockdown.  In most of our socially distanced conversations about isolation, most of us have declared our happiness and contentment with a strengthened, albeit socially distanced, community; my London commuting friends are loving the lack of train commute and most people I know (definitely not a representative sample of the whole of society) are enjoying the advantages of this peculiar situation and happily ignoring the disadvantages.  Some of them, possibly me as well, hope this new, simpler, less relentless way of life lasts for a long time.  If there is a God, he or she was middle class and lived in the countryside.  This pandemic may be teaching us that the urbanisation of the last two hundred years may be coming towards an accelerated end…


There are of course some things I will miss out on this summer (postponed WOMAD and Black Deer music festivals to name but two) and the lockdown has further complicated a complicated and hopeless situation for my lonely, isolated, elderly mother down in Devon.  There have been family tensions too and the five of us have had to make adjustments and find new meaning and purpose in order to get through the unfamiliar strain of being together ALL the time…


I am extremely fortunate in that I love walking and cycling through the countryside, I love gardening and I love writing and I’m really enjoying experimenting with writing a novel.  My teaching life is busy too, working for a non-selective independent school (which has reduced its summer term fees by 25%, but still obviously needs to meet the high expectations of parents choosing to pay for their children’s education) means that we have needed to gold plate our home based educational provision.  I’ve been teaching live lesson intros for Year 6, 7 & 8, running small group tutorials and discussions and setting open ended assignments and feeding back to children via Microsoft teams. For the majority of children their education has been continuing apace.  Some are struggling with the process and I, personally, am looking forward to some outdoor science learning in our beautiful grounds with year 6 after half-term.  I am fortunate, and I do not worry about the safety of myself or the children in my educational setting.


I understand the fear and concerns of many people in our current situation, even if I cannot fully empathise with everything I read and hear about.  I wonder if some of the fear of returning to school is driven by hope.  Hope for a fairer education system.  Hope for a less scrutinised, measured and compared education system.  Hope for a fairer society.  Hope for a greener society.  Hope for a less divided society.  Hope for a simpler, easier, less transitory life.


I hope for all these things too.  But I don’t think government or policy can fix all our hopes and dreams.  There is no political or economic system in the world which works effectively for 100% of a population.  Some systems are fairer and better for a greater proportion of their populous than ours has been since Thatcherism in the 1980s made us into a more individualistic and selfish nation than we already were.  But there is no holy grail.  There will always be compromise, there will always be the balancing of conflicting risks, there will always be people who think their belief system or politics is more right than someone else’s, there will always be mistakes.


Where I think hope can be problematic is that we all hope for a long and healthy life, we all hope to be treated fairly, we all hope for a prosperous retirement, we all hope for happy, loving relationships and many of us hope for too many material possessions or dream holidays.  Our mass marketed modern world has duped us into converting these hopes into our basic human rights.


But all we can really hope for is there to be meaning and purpose to our lives.  This is really hard in a media infested world.  We are constantly being told what to believe and what is normal that many of us have lost the ability to think for ourselves, to realise that we and not the government, or our boss, or our spouse, or the media can have some control over our lives.  And we have to generate that for ourselves, guided by the wisdom of our parents, our friends, our teachers, our colleagues and other caring members of our families and local communities.


That is my greatest hope from all of this.  That we remember we can be beautiful people living in a beautiful place, closely connected to our communities and the nature which surrounds us.  I hope, more than anything, that we – collectively – realise that our Western globalised and economically driven cultures have drifted so far from the natural order of things that we have forgotten that nature can sometimes be cruel and we have no human right to transcend it.


Let hope enable purpose and meaning but please don’t let hope turn into expectation or entitlement.  Because that form of hope can only ever lead to disappointment.


I’m really curious? But why? #DailyWritingChallenge. #Curiosity



Intellectual curiosity is arguably the most important virtue in unlocking learning.  It is really hard to learn something, particularly something complex and beautiful like chemistry – for example – without curiosity.


The great challenge we have in school aged children is the need for all sorts of foundational knowledge stored in our long term memory to enable deeper, conceptual learning in abstract human constructs like language, maths, art and their incandescent holy grail: chemistry!


So we construct all sorts of dry, testable, intangible and frequently utterly unfathomable, inaccurate and decontextualized nuggets of knowledge in our curricula, to pump into our semantic memories.  Because chemistry is complex, we sometimes tell half truths or outright lies to help make something make sense to a 9 year old, 12 year old or a 15 year old.  Sometimes there might be a bit of whizz bang edutainment with fire, explosions or multi coloured powders with weird names; a little episodic relief if you like, but that is all really just a mirage, a hook, a persuasion to knuckle down and learn those abstract concepts.


Of course, for some those abstract concepts of chemical bonding, thermodynamics, entropy, atomic mass, chemical formulae etc have an instantly assimilable logic to them but for most they are just Why T.A.F am I learning this Sh*t?!


This semantic pump can be stifling.  Particularly when we are not excited by the end product of the sematic pump in the first place.  When we, as teachers, get to this place mentally, it is tempting to throw out the curriculum, go all hippy and create a country full of Summerhill schools where children can choose what they learn and when they learn it.  While I delight in non-conformity, I’m not sure that is really a solution to greater engagement and curiosity across the curriculum.


There are many teachers who believe that we need a lot of knowledge before we can be truly curious about a subject; that we have to layer up base vocabulary, language and conceptual understanding before we can be purposefully curious.  I’m not sure this magic Eureka moment of curiosity suddenly clicks in for everyone.


So what makes us curious, and why is it so important?


Einstein famously said that he had no special talents other than being insatiably curious.  All the great polymaths including da Vinci and von Humbolt were curious.  Did they really become curious AFTER amassing great intellectual capability, or was their INNATE curiosity key to unlocking their intellectual rigour and achievements?


I don’t know.  All I know is that no one is curious about everything and that no one is curious about nothing.  I know that I am curious about people, psychology, nature, plants, farming, music, literature, philosophy, social history and anthropology.  I’m quite curious about genetics, biotechnology and the ongoing battle between thermodynamics and entropy (order and chaos).  But I’m not curious about war or military history, I’m not really curious about particle physics or ancient theological texts and I’m certainly not curious about celebratory culture or the inner workings of the incredible Macbook technology I’m typing on.


I’ve always been more curious about some things than others.  In a classroom or lecture theatre that curiosity has sometimes been unlocked by an engaging, deeply knowledgeable and slightly quirky teacher, lecturer or presenter.  Even though I find the properties of supercooled liquids and the amorphous state utterly fascinating, this curiosity was not unlocked by boring physical chemistry lectures at university, it was only through discussion with colleagues, through dialogue with experts and physical, hands on experience of materials and material characterisation techniques that such an unpredictable and fascinating hidden world was unveiled.


If I’m interested in something, I am curious about it.  But do I have to know a bit about it first?  And what is it that makes me more interested in some things than others?


I’m really curious about that.



Brief Musings on Creativity… #DailyWritingChallenge #Creativity

Musings on Creativity.


It is hard to write about Creativity in an educational context without mentioning *that* TED talk from 2006 by Sir Ken Robinson. Back then I was seduced by Ken’s message and I still think he is broadly right today, but my views have shifted a little as I have come to realise that creating a more creative nation, society or culture is quite a long way down the priority list of schools and education.


Sir Ken’s problem is best manifested by the story, by Helen Buckley, called “The Little Boy” which was read to me on my PGCE. I append this at the end.


The creativity problem is exacerbated by not really having an agreed definition of creativity. Within the context of school we often talk about the creative subjects (Art, Music, DT and Drama; English too).   But much of what we learn and do in those subjects at school is not creative at all (spelling rules, learning lines, following specific stage movement instructions, practising playing a musical instrument, craft etc).


Being artistic, dramatic or musical is not necessarily the same as being creative. There are many outlets at school and in life for being artistic or musical or dramatic but how many are there for being creative? When I think of creativity I think of creative thinking.


Original, creative thinkers tend to dislike the formality of school education. Here is Rod Judkins at the beginning of his book, “The Art of Creative Thinking:”


“When I first stepped into an art college as a student, I instantly felt at home – for the first time ever.


At school, creativity was supressed and crushed. It was something that teachers and authorities actually feared. They regarded it as dangerous, something they couldn’t control. They steered students away from it in the same way they steered them away from drugs, burglary or gambling.


At art college I found the opposite. The spirit was one in which mistakes were good. Where you could try and fail. There was no emphasis on getting it right.”


There are ludicrously countering views to this such as we can only be creative in a domain we know a lot about and therefore we have to pump in lots of knowledge before any great creative or innovative leap can be made in Science or Engineering for example. While on an individual basis there is some truth in this it is in reality complete bollocks as great leaps of imagination in Science and technology have been made incrementally, by teams of very diverse thinkers. The examples of individual leaps of scientific genius are extremely rare.


The idea that knowledge x knowledge = creativity is flawed. I know a great many very knowledgeable people who cannot think creatively and quite a few “creatives” not exactly party to the encyclopaedia Britannica in their minds…

Frankly, I’ve had enough of this futile debate. Number crunchers (and I don’t mean mathematicians here, many of whom are highly creative) and those who want to measure and compare things (e.g. education) are never going to see the world from an abstract or alternative perspective. Conversely, I probably wouldn’t want an off the wall creative running the country or a school or a corporation. Chaos and anarchy would be fun for a week but probably not forever!


What I absolutely hate about our compartmentalised, specialised world is that we group people into “creatives” “artists” “scientists” etc…why can’t we dabble in a bit of both? Some good old fashioned polymathy would be good for all of us: the science of art and the art of science.


More interesting to me these days is where does creativity come from? Is it innate, or is it due to the freedom and open-mindedness of our formative years? A bit of both, I suspect.


I could go on. But I won’t. Here’s The Little Boy by Helen Buckley…




Once a little boy went to school.

One morning, when the little boy had been in school a while, his teacher said:

“Today we are going to make a picture.”

“Good!” thought the little boy. He liked to make pictures. He could make all kinds. Lions and tigers, Chickens and cows, trains and boats, and he took out his box of crayons and began to draw.

But the teacher said: “Wait! It is not time to begin!” And she waited until everyone looked ready.

“Now,” said the teacher, “We are going to make flowers.”

“Good!” thought the little boy, he liked to make flowers, and he began to make beautiful ones with his pink and orange and blue crayons.

But the teacher said “Wait! And I will show you how.” And it was red with a green stem. “There,” said the teacher, “Now you may begin.”

The little boy looked at the teacher’s. Then he looked at this own flower.

He liked his flower better than the teacher’s. But he did not say this. He just turned his paper over. And made a flower like the teacher’s. It was red with a green stem.

On another day, when the little boy had opened the door from the outside all by himself, the teacher said: “Today we are going to make something with clay.”

“Good!” thought the little boy. Snakes and snowmen, elephants and mice, cars, and trucks, and he began to pull and pinch his ball of clay.

But the teacher said: “Wait!” It is not time to begin!” And she waited until everyone looked ready.

“Now,” said the teacher, “We are going to make a dish.”

He liked to make dishes. And he began to make some that were all shapes and sizes.

But the teacher said, “Wait! And I will show you how.” And she showed everyone how to make a deep dish. “There,” said the teacher. “Now you may begin.”

The little boy looked at the teacher’s dish, then he looked at his own. He liked his dish better than the teacher’s. But he did not say this. He just rolled his clay into a big ball again. And made a dish like the teacher’s. It was a deep dish.

And pretty soon the little boy learned to wait, and to watch and to make things just like the teacher. And pretty soon he didn’t make things of his own anymore.

Then it happened that the little boy and his family moved to another house, in another city, and the little boy had to go to another school.

And the very first day he was there the teacher said: “Today we are going to make a picture.” “Good!” Thought the little boy and he waited for the teacher to tell him what to do.
But the teacher didn’t say anything. She just walked around the room.
When she came to the little boy she said, “Don’t you want to make a picture?”

“Yes,” said the little boy. “What are we going to make?”

“I don’t know until you make it,” said the teacher. “How shall I make it?” asked the little boy.

“Why, any way you like,” said the teacher.

“Any color?” asked the little boy.

“Any color,” said the teacher.

“If everyone made the same picture, and the used the same colors, how would I know who made what?”

“I don’t know,” said the little boy.

And he began to make a red flower with a green stem.