1. The problem with society

Essay one of twelve, as part of my twelve blog posts of Christmas challenge.

By Toby Payne-Cook

Before we can talk about education, or improving our experience of life here on planet Earth, we first need to consider society, and what is society?

There is no such thing, according to Margaret Thatcher. I have been considering this of late, and I’m starting to see her perspective. (Maggie went on to apply her assertion by spearheading a step change towards a more individualistic, free market economy; powered by entrepreneurism and extrapolated towards greed and selfishness). Under Thatcher, and notably all Prime Ministers since her, we have undoubtedly become a more materialistic and economically driven society.

Yet, we weren’t exactly a commune of harmonious hippies, or radical Marxists, before she came along and purged the Earth of collective human decency. Three decades after Maggie, a less principled man with weaker convictions called David Cameron blabbered on about the Big Society and it began to grate.

I, too, refer to society rather a lot in passing, and it is endearingly naive of me and huge swathes of my teaching contemporaries to suggest that we – via the medium of the classroom – can improve society with the blunt tool of education. This doesn’t mean we should stop trying but a little reflection on the nebulous, abstract concept of society is required before considering the slightly more accessible problems with schools, curricula, assessment and teaching.

Before I explain why I broadly agree with Maggie’s assertion, let’s briefly race through a potted and inaccurate history of human society.

We now know that the myriad and complex riches of life on Earth have evolved over a turbulent 3.8 billion years (there are approximately 1 billion seconds in 32 years, and 1 million seconds in 11.5 days), – so, compressing 1 year to 1 second, then 3.8 billion seconds is about 120 years ago. The first mammals evolved just over 100 million years ago (3 years ago) and modern humans last common ape ancestor existed about 6 million years ago, (70 days ago). It is thought that Homo Sapiens, our species of human (and the only remaining hominid species on Earth, and in the known Universe) first ‘appeared’ 300,000 years ago (just 4 days ago), by which time there is evidence of the daily use of fire.

It is possible to argue that the daily use of fire was humans first of many sequential steps in removing ourselves (subconsciously) from the then unwritten laws and interdependence of nature; though the gradual movement from being hunter-gatherers living in small tribes, probably of no more than 150 – 200 people, into becoming farmers, and then traders, between 10 and 12,000 years ago (about 3 hours ago in seconds).

Whatever happened in those approximately 288,000 years from 300,000 years ago (4 days ago, if each year were a second) to 12,000 years ago (3 hours ago) is remarkable. The daily use of fire enabled us not only to heat our simple shelters and fend off predators, but also to cook food. The cooking of food (we are the only species who does this) enabled far greater efficiency of calorie intake, thus enabling the “faster rate of nutrition” available to our glucose hungry brain cells and the gradual development of our massive pre-frontal cortex at the front of the human brain. Advanced communication (speech and language) evolved during this time window; sometimes described as the cognitive revolution – where our ‘minds’ exploded into our heightened state of consciousness, the awareness of ‘self’ and the ‘I think, therefore I am’ of Rene Descartes’ big philosophical idea.

Back then, in those dark, challenging times Homo Sapiens lived, largely, in harmony with wider nature. We were infused with it, and of it. As our nebulous minds developed between the physical substrate of our brains, senses and our environments we learnt how to communicate effectively within our small tribes. We would, I’m sure have been wary and fearful of any nearby, infringing tribe and the human (and animal) tendency to compete for territory and resources would have been instinctive. Beyond the inevitable territorial conflict, our social instincts, language and cognitively induced ingenuity led us to develop highly skilled, knowledgable and harmonious social groups. Those social groups, then as now, would have been anchored by gossip and stories; wonder too. Myths developed which later seeded religion to help try and make sense of it all. We, homo sapiens, lived this way for the vast majority of our history.

Then, farming: producing food for people beyond our immediate social groupings. Consequently, trading. Bartering and then the invention of money. Learning to co-operate with neighbouring tribes. Larger tribes, more competition; more conflict; war and now – specialisation: tool and weapon makers; farmers and growers; animal carers and handlers; shelter builders and craftspeople; cooks and potters. You know the drill.

We built bridges and the first cities; walls, boundaries, borders; nations and empires. Social and military hierarchies evolved. The history of human civilisation, and by extrapolation the concept of society adorns many a more authoritative and comprehensive book or documentary than I can do justice here.

In Britain, we are steeped in the rich and powerful culture and history of empire. There is some cancelling going on at the moment, and the desire from many – but no means all – to renounce some of the uglier, elitist stories from our past. And as we enter 2022, we are all at sea. Our current tide of bombastic politicians trade on the gory, brutal glories of our past while others, like me, wish we could be a little more consensual and collaborative in our politics, a little more, ‘that was then, this is now and this is where we should be heading.’

Over the last two hundred years, and particularly the last fifty, the structure and demographic of society has changed dramatically – since the dawn of the industrial revolution and the urbanisation of Britain. Human inventiveness and innovation has brought us electricity, motorised vehicles, international air travel, television, computers, the internet and social media. We are globally connected on a massive scale. Much good has come of this – we are more tolerant and accepting of cultural and religious differences; sexual preferences too. Archaic rituals are largely a thing of the past, and while there is still far too much poverty, extreme poverty is diminishing globally.

In the last 150 years we have become better, via schooling, social services and the NHS at looking after the most vunerable and oppressed in society. There is a very strong argument that things have improved, and continue to do so. And yet, we are divided: politically, educationally, religiously, ethnically. Social media, that great connector, is a mirage. It suggests that we are better connected and have more contacts than ever before, yet many people feel lost; cut adrift and a sense of foreboding at the world.

We have globalised the world in two words: economic growth. This is – quite wrongly in my view, but it’s a hard habit to kick – what drives the vast majority of political, business, family and individual decisions.

I was thinking about this in church this Christmas – I don’t normally go to church – but I’ve been staying with my sister and brother-in-law, who is a vicar. I was thinking about how the vast majority of people don’t go to church anymore, in our largely secular society; thinking about how the only thing which now unites us as a people at Christmas, is the heavily marketed consumerism. The feasting and the wine; the presents and the plastic; the decorations and the cards. Football, or Strictly or Gary Barlow being the most irritating and insipid ‘pop star’ on the planet, or moaning about the government, or thinking Boris Johnson is a self-serving, narcissistic, morally defunct plonker, or fearing Covid, or being nonchalant about Covid or denying Covid unites quite a lot of us, but not all of us. We have our tribes, our friends and our families and it can feel like we are part of a far larger whole but most of those wholes are fragile, or fake or – increasingly – fake or grossly exaggerated.

This is the inherent problem with society. We want to belong. But belonging is so much easier in our known, comfortable, trusted niches. Maggie was right: for all our goodwill, for all our global connectedness; for all our civility, society doesn’t really exist. Society is abstract, intangible and ultimately just another imagined reality – like money, like corporations, like religion and like nations.

Society is something well-meaning teachers like me or you; or politicians trying to win us over, bang on about. But, I wonder, if we’d be better focussing on our local communities, our immediate work colleagues, our strong but small network of friends and our families – and to stop pretending to care about everyone else. We are largely out for ourselves, and our nearest and dearest, and we are deeply distrusting of those whom we perceive we have little in common.

It pains me to admit it, but I think old Maggie T was right – the problem with society is that it doesn’t really exist.

The key to building a better society – that nebulous, vacuous concept so beloved of politicians – is bottom up, in small communities of people and it is the base unit of those communities that I turn my attention to next – that of the family. And there’s a problem with them too.

The Prime of Life – or “Ageism: the most pernicious -ism in England?”

by Toby Payne-Cook @CREducATE

I first heard the Who’s incendiary 1970 live cover of Mose Allison’s ‘Young Man Blues,’ – first recorded in 1957 – in about 1987, at the age of fifteen:

Well, a young man ain’t got nothing in the world these days.

Well, you know in the old days, when a young man was a strong man, all the people they stepped back when a young man walked by.

But you know, nowadays, it’s the old man who’s got all the money and the young man ain’t got nothing in the world these days.

This is certainly a sentiment the under 35s can relate to: as applied to the Brexit Vote, to the surge in youth popularity of the Labour party under Jeremy Corbyn, to the ageing electorate and all the consequent electioneering in the Conservative party, and – most topically – to much of the largely ignored cries of extinction rebellion over the last few years.

Back in the utopia of the pre-internet and media age, when people were mostly dead by the age of sixty, when physical strength and fitness was a society enriching commodity the young man was indeed, King (let’s not get sidetracked by the fact that the young women, and the poor were massively oppressed too, right now – because this blog post isn’t about that).

This post is triggered, just like my last post about GCSEs, by a tweet by Tabitha McIntosh (@TabitaSurge) and the pending discussion on her Teachers Talk Radio Show this coming Monday 8th November (@TTRadio2021, ttradio.org). Tabitha is turning 50 this weekend – I think, happy birthday etc) and exploring the topic of age in the teaching profession.

Teachers have got younger over the last forty years. They’ve not defied ageing, just, on average, become a lot younger than they used to be. So, arguably, Mose Allison’s lyric – and Roger Daltrey’s venomous vocal – don’t apply to the modern teaching profession. It is the young person who has all the power (not all the money in this case, obvs).

I’m sure Tabitha’s exploration of this will be much more insightful, intellectual and humorous than any commentary I muster on this most sensitive of topics but before exploring the prime of life – I’ll explain in a moment – let me summarise the rather obvious facts.

Caveats and context to any unintended prejudice: I am 49. I believe there are a great many brilliant teachers of all ages, genders, ethnicity, faith, affluence and social backgrounds. I also believe there are a significant number of fairly poor teachers of all ages, genders, ethnicity, faith, affluence and social background. Sometimes I’m brilliant; frequently I’m not. There is no such thing as a universally brilliant teacher for all people in all situations at all times. I don’t think I was ever taught by anyone under thirty throughout my school or university days from 1976-1995. The vast majority of my teachers were over forty. And, I think, about half of them were probably over fifty. Admittedly, I was privately educated from September 1980, at the age of 8 (Year 4), but my oldest teacher was probably my reception class, or year 2, teacher at primary school in the very late seventies.

So, some generalised facts about ageism in the teaching profession in 2021.

  1. As with virtually every aspect of modern life we understand the cost of everything but the value of nothing.
  2. Young teachers are cheaper than older teachers.
  3. Young teachers are – generally – less encumbered by wider life pressures and responsibilities than their older counterparts.
  4. Young teachers are more compliant, more impressionable, more ambitious, more keen to impress and have more relentless energy (available to transfer science pedants).
  5. Young teachers are generally willing to work (or at least be at work) for longer hours.
  6. Older teachers are more cynical, sceptical and generally harder to manage.
  7. Older teachers know that most of the initiatives being misappropriated and mandated by their younger, more senior counterparts are mostly wrong, rubbish or add little or no value to the quality of the children’s learning.
  8. Older teachers are less malleable, less flexible and less interested in using work as a medium for socialising, dating and general bantering.
  9. Education is chronically underfunded, so point 2 (interwoven with points 3 and 4) above becomes all that matters when managing tight budgets.
  10. The teaching profession (and many others) has consistently failed to address progression (in terms of experience and pay) without taking on extra responsibility or leadership (TLRs, upper pay scale etc). This has lead to deep seated malaise, distrust and resentment in the profession – in both age directions.
  11. The teaching profession, particularly in primary, is dominated by women; many of whom re-evaluate their professional priorities after motherhood.
  12. As noted by the brilliant Emma Turner (@Emma_Turner75) in her book ‘Let’s Talk About Flex’ – schools and the teaching profession has one of the least flexible approaches to flexible working of all professions / employers.

So, now we’ve got that out of the way, let’s talk about AGE, baby!

Firstly, a bit of personal context again. I am 49, male, and I have a very good long-term memory (both for substantive facts, but particularly for episodic, emotion enhanced, memories – so I can recall in graphic, mind-skewed, detail certain aspects of my 11, 15, 18, 21, 24, 28, 35, 40 and my 47. All these ages of ‘me’ were different to the 49 me; aligned, cumulative and similar in character but markedly different in context, experience, joy, sadness and ‘feel.’ Some people feel as though they never change, and maybe their surroundings, outlook and people around them don’t change as much as they have for me; but I am highly cognisant of having quite a different take on life pre-18, to the one I had aged 19-26, with 27 – 47 being quite different to the way I now see and experience the world at 49. I’m sure this will change again. I am not a constant. We are always adapting to our surroundings, and changing – maybe only a tiny bit – as a consequence. While my 11, or my 18 couldn’t have predicted my 49, I think my 28 could have done; so while I’ve not lived beyond my 49 – yet – I feel that I can write with some authority about life beyond 49, based upon the books I’ve read, the friends I’ve made, the colleagues I’ve worked with and the insight of my significantly elder half siblings (66, 69, 70, 75 and 78), mother and her friends.

If we go way back, over two hundred years to pre-Victorian times (I’m not getting into the whole Original Sin thing – don’t worry) there were just people, and younger people. The concept of childhood hadn’t really been invented. During Victorian times we had essentially two stages of life:

Childhood and Adulthood.

Over the last 150 years, since discovery of basic sanitation, hygiene and modern medicine through the late 1800s and early 1900s, that grew into three stages:

Childhood, Adulthood and Old Age.

Since the rise in psychology as a discipline through the 20th century and the cultural and economic invention of the teenager in the 1950s and early 1960s four stages evolved:

Childhood, Adolescence, Adulthood and Old Age.

In David Brooks (@nytdavidbrooks) fascinating book ‘The Road to Character’ published in 2015, he suggests that there are now six stages of life (in the affluent West):

Childhood, Adolescence, Odyssey, Adulthood, Active Retirement and Old Age.

This resonates strongly with me. There is, of course, a lot of overlap between the stages. More like an amorphous phase transition than a highly crystalline melting point. And these phased transitions will happen at different ages for all of us; overlapping too. Definitions are important and age generalisations too, so:

Childhood: 0-12. A fully dependent human being. Not capable of looking after themselves for extended periods of time. Obviously a 12 year old is significantly more independent than a 2 year old, but we’re not in the business of sending 12 year olds up chimneys or down the mines anymore.

Adolescence: 9-24, most commonly 12 – 18. The cognitive, emotional and physical transition from childhood to adulthood. This includes puberty (physical changes only) and is most prevalent during the early-mid teenage years 13-16, so we culturally misappropriate ‘adolescent’ with ‘teenager’ which irritates me, intensely. I blame Harry Enfield. If anyone has – or is – parenting adolescents you will likely know that the 12/13 transition is a breeze in comparison to the 13/14 one, which in turn is likely to be less challenging (for all involved) than the 14/15 transition. Typically, but not always, 13/14 is worse in girls and 14/15 worse in boys. Adolescence and consequent puberty starts earlier in girls than boys (not in all cases). The misappropriation of the term teenager really doesn’t help. Girls, in particular, can be very adolescent by the middle of Year 5, aged 9 or 10. And while most adolescents have completed puberty (the physical changes associated with adolescence) by the end of the teenage years, the neural architecture of our brains continues to change significantly (it never stops changing completely) through our early to mid twenties, affecting our generally poorer evaluation of risk at that stage in our lives (drinking to excess, driving too fast, casual sex, experimentation with recreational drugs, greater thrill seeking) – essentially the concept of delayed gratification has not fully developed.

Odyssey: 16 – 35, typically 18-26. This doesn’t exist biologically. It is a cultural observation, phenomenon or invention. It is all the figuring out who we are, what we want to be, the finding oneself stuff from too many self-help guides; the stuff of too many a corporate training day or some fluffy ‘CPD.’ But it does matter. Too many of us pigeon hole ourselves too early (because of the narrowing and specialisation of our education system post 16, and the pressure to decide upon a university course, apprenticeship or career at the largely clueless, misinformed or poorly informed at best, tender age of 17) and lock ourselves onto a treadmill we can’t easily escape, even if we want to. The young man from Mose Allison’s day in 1957, or the Young Man’s heyday at any point in history prior to the 1920s would scoff at the concept but we are now – on average – living so much longer, working for much longer, with more choice and opportunity available that spending a few years in our late teens or early twenties trying to figure it all out makes some psychological sense. Try a few things out. Don’t commit too deeply. Explore. Travel. Read. Think. Discuss. Odyssey doesn’t have to happen once in our lives, at the onset of adulthood or tail-end of adolescence. We can flux throughout adulthood these days – mental health; debt; addiction; therapy; career change; marriage; parenthood; divorce; bereavement and moving country or continent, or out of the city can all cause us to re-evaluate our lives and purpose on the surface of this planet, at any stage or age of life. Personally, the idea that we are somehow ‘complete’ aged 25 (or even 18) used to appeal to me but now, I don’t think we are ever ‘complete’ – life is a journey, a constant odyssey; not a destination. But that thinking doesn’t sit comfortably with convention, or the stereotypical thrust of our collective, economically-driven existence.

Adulthood: 18-70, more typically 24 – 60. David Brooks defines adulthood as being financially independent, or becoming a parent (i.e having significant responsibility for other humans). I’d define adulthood as being a fully independent being, ideally with a clear sense of purpose in their life, probably involving significant responsibility for other humans (children, employees, pupils, patients, clients, colleagues, constituents, the elderly or infirm).

Active retirement: 55 – 85, typically 65 – 80. An adult, typically over 55, who is fit and well, and no longer in paid employment, generally with significant spending power and electoral influence.

Old age: 70 – 100+, typically 75 – 90. This is the most subjective category of them all. It starts earlier for the poor than it does for the affluent middle classes. A young person is likely to describe anyone the age of their grandparents of older as old aged (so over 50 in some cases) while a fit and healthy 70 year old is not likely to entertain the concept of old age until well over 80; a healthy 80 year old, likely even older. I would describe old age as a retired, older adult who is dependent upon either significant family or state support on a regular basis. Essentially, an older person who no longer is a fully independent adult. For some this can be as early as 60, for others not until they are over 90. This demographic is the fastest growing in relative size nationally.

Just to be different, a little contrary, to enable greater personal reflection (mine and yours) and to consider the ageism and age-related resentment (in both directions) within society and the teaching profession, I am going to go further than David Brook’s six stages and invent ELEVEN PHASES entitled THE PRIME OF LIFE [see what I did there]?

Instead of eleven decades (that would be rather dull), I’m going to use varying age ranges between prime numbers (for mathematical purists, I am going to skip a few primes, partly to fit my narrative and partly so this blog post doesn’t roll on to near infinity or the largest known prime number: 282,589,933 – 1, a number containing 24,862,048 digits in base 10). Like I’ve done above for David Brook’s six stages, I’m going to define EACH PHASE – generally; link it to education (both learning and teaching) and include a brief personal reflection of this stage in italics – which you can skip, read or even consider your own personal reflection of this PHASE.

THE PRIME OF LIFE (also a Neil Young song on his Sleep with Angels album, recorded after Kurt Cobain’s suicide in 1994).

The Eleven Phases (I’ve highlighted in bold the FIVE phases I consider to be the Prime [the best bits] of life):

  1. Unconditional love (0 – 2).
  2. Foundational (2 – 7).
  3. Compliance (7 – 11).
  4. Primed (11-13).
  5. The Mire (13-17).
  6. Freedom (17 – 23).
  7. Energy (23-29).
  8. Busy (29-43).
  9. Stressed (43-53).
  10. Wisdom (53-71).
  11. Anger or Serenity (71-101).

UNCONDITIONAL LOVE (0 years – 2 years)

None of us remember this phase. From a parenting perspective, this is undoubtedly the most important phase to get right, for all else follows. It is undoubtedly the most exhausting phase of parenthood but also the most rewarding. The vast majority of adult mental health challenges and psychological/psychiatric conditions can be traced back to here. So far as I can tell, you can’t go far wrong if you give your baby plenty of warmth, nutrition, contact, attention and love. Personally, I find some of our modern cultural artefacts and selfishness extremely problematic here: The supernanny factor. The rush to get into a routine to fit in with an extremely non-biological or nature infused society and world of work and convention. The separate bedroom. The excess of plastic toys. The angry, exhausted, misplaced discipline. The premature playdates.

Educationally, this stage of our life is pre pre-school, but it is where we learn the fastest. We learn to talk. That is beyond incredible. No other animal does that. And how do we learn to talk – neuroscientifically, I have no idea – well, we learn to talk by listening. By listening to words spoken near us or to us. Many of them long, complicated and very much not in line with Biff, Chip and the Oxford Reading Tree. So, if you want your child to thrive in school or life, talk to them loads and loads and loads at this phase. Read to them. A lot. Picture books. Story books. Made up stories. Act and gesture to them.

Further reading: They F*** You Up by Oliver James, This be the Verse by Phillip Larkin, Genome by Matt Ridley, The Incredible Unlikeliness of Being by Alice Roberts, Innate by Kevin Mitchell.

FOUNDATIONAL (2 years – 7 years)

Even in a loving, supportive and kind environment a ‘toddler’ or young child has not yet developed all the cognitive and emotional architecture to behave like a school age child, let alone like an adult. Young children are fundamentally different beings to their adult counterparts and a great many of us struggle to understand that. For a large chunk of our recorded history we invented a concept called ‘Original Sin’ to explain this. But that, as you know, is a whole different story.

Having said that, this is the age range where intense socialisation increases. The young child begins interacting, independently of their carer or parent, with the world around them – particularly other children and people – in earnest.

Socialisation and play is the most important part of this phase. Young children are wonderfully indiscriminate but social conditioning, entrenchment and prejudice begins, under the careful influence of our parents, families and local communities.

Children who are exposed to lots of words, stories, numbers, conversation, varied adults, culture (museums, galleries, concerts, theatre etc) at this stage are likely to have a kick start to formal education whenever it begins but, so far as I understand, the effect of this by the time the child is 18 is not as significant as some of the leading proponents of formal schooling starting as early as they do in this country would have us believe.

It strikes me that we have created a schooling system to fit around our economic system rather than a schooling system with the best interests of the child or the mental health and happiness of wider society in mind.

In the words of Alain de Botton, we have become too preoccupied with how good society is at Maths or Science and not concerned enough with how good it is at marriage or kindness. ‘We devote inordinate hours to leaning about tectonic plates and cloud formations, and relatively few fathoming shame and rage.’ – Alain de Botton, The School of Life, an emotional education.

David Brooks, in the Road to Character, concurs with de Botton’s concerns suggesting that our education systems are too focussed on ‘resume’ (CV – our knowledge, skills and talents which enable the smooth, cold running of schools, business and politics) virtues rather than ‘eulogy’ (how people remember us when we’re gone, how we make people feel) virtues.

I am very much of the view that the EYFS (early years foundation stage) of education should be extended to six or seven – but that children should be exposed to a lot of words and numbers and concepts, in a playful way and semi-formally, if their home environments can’t provide it from the age of three or four. Much of the time should be spent developing resilience, socialisation and communication skills rather than an excess of formal classroom learning.

In complete contrast to my worldview above, I sat in a formal classroom from the age of four. I don’t remember much of it but I do recall being a timid child who was a bit scared of other children, who was also a bit scared of my first teacher. But I absorbed a lot of information and by the time I was seven I knew most of my times tables quite well and could, I think read and write proficiently. I also knew an inordinate amount about the origins of the names of the week and months of the year; the sabre tooth tiger too.

My first school was fifteen minutes from home. I rarely played in the park after school or had play dates. I think I was rather mollycoddled by Mum. My early childhood was bucolic and blissful but incredibly isolated. I had a younger sister but I remember spending a lot of time alone, drifting in my imaginary world. Because I didn’t go to the local village school, I never “played out” – though we did go around to family friends houses with other children regularly.

Looking back, I had immense outdoor and creative, rural freedom, but my social interactions were heavily controlled by my dominating mother.

COMPLIANCE (7 years – 11 years)

In English school speak, this is KS2 (key stage 2) or for the older amongst us “Juniors.” Children by this stage have developed significant independence from their parents – to varying degrees. They have been inculcated into the unnatural environment of the classroom, one of thirty children guided through their daily tasks by – generally – a solitary teacher. Providing that expected classroom behaviours, habits, basic communication skills and manners are nurtured or developed towards the latter parts of the foundation stage, then most children of this age are incredibly COMPLIANT.

If you tell them to always copy the learning objective, underline the long date twice, always write in blue ink while hopping on one leg and happily wearing the same uniform as everyone else, they – generally – will. They will almost always believe everything you – as the teacher, parent or responsible adult – tell them, whether you are correct or not, whether you are kind or funny or not, whether you are of strong moral fibre or not. They are incredibly impressionable, mostly eager to please and – are generally – enthusiastic about their learning and most topics and activities presented to them.

In year 3, or junior 1, I was taught by Mrs New. She was cool and probably smoked a lot of fags in the staff room; she always wore black, had a black leather jacket and black mini and – I imagine now – was a massive Siouxsie and the Banshees fan. She was the youngest of the four teachers I had at St Josephs infant and junior school in Bideford, probably in her late thirties. My proficiency in maths developed a lot with her, I recall. I know that I had mastered long multiplication by the age of eight.

At just eight years old (August birthday) I moved to an independent prep school five miles from home as one of 12 day pupils. There were about 110 full time boarders aged 8-13, who only went home every three weeks. Friends sometimes came to stay with me the other weekends and we ran wild and free in my bucolic paradise. 120 of us were spread across 8 classes, over 5 school years. In what was then year 4, I joined class 2 and after 3 weeks was moved up to class 3. The following year, I jumped into class 5, 6 the next year and 7 after that. The classes weren’t grouped by age, rather by ability. As a pupil of higher ability for my age (at the time), this was good for me though it did mean reading Orwell’s 1984 aged 9 or10 – I didn’t have a clue what the hell was going on and it put me off reading for pleasure until my late twenties. It probably wasn’t so good for the lower ability students. But class time isn’t – or wasn’t for socialising. We had a lot of time outside and a lot of extra-curricular activities, the school day was 8:30 – 6pm (with prep on top of that).

I had specialist teachers for most subjects from the age of 9. It was a very traditional education, with some excellent teachers. A few were rather dull, but there was much excitement in the art room, dark room, school gym, on the playing fields, in the nets, in the extensive school grounds, building dams on the stream which fed the school lake, building dens in the nearby woods and playing in the “avalanches” (a muddy dell in the woods) – which was a misnomer obviously.

It was a very privileged education and a very happy place. Mr Hocking was a brilliant maths teacher (no one afterwards came close); the Science lab was great – I don’t remember doing much practical work myself but I do remember a lot of demos and enjoying pond dipping in the school lake. Mr Schott was an excellent English teacher too, I really liked him. All the teachers were over fortyish, except Mr Barron the Science teacher and possibly Mrs Veal, who taught art.

I took a lot of “prep” home too. Way too much. So much so that my Mum felt compelled to do much of the writing for me. The teacher’s must have known. I now teach children of mothers like mine. The children are always little lost. Interesting.

PRIMED (age 11 to 13)

By the age of eleven, at the end of primary school – due to the preceding compliance phase, most children are totally PRIMED for learning. The mire of adolescence has not yet kicked in, most of us have a reasonable command of literacy and numeracy and are PRIMED and ready for some deep learning so it seems a little odd that we’ve decided that 11 is the time to throw children into the lion’s den of secondary school. Yes, most are ready for escaping the four walls of one classroom all day and every day, and one ‘love them or loathe them’ class teacher but such a huge change into such a daunting environment, with a complete absence of generalist teachers or personal touch seems a bit counter-intuitive. Couple that to the fact that year 7 and 8 are the least important school years in a secondary school in our over measured, high stakes, exam orientated education system in KS4 and 5 from 14-18, and the PRIMED, generally not too self-obsessed (yet) and still fairly eager to learn young minds are treated sub-optimally. We could do better, people because I would argue the two or three years from 11-14 are – arguably – when our minds are most sponge like, primed with lots of enabling prior knowledge and basic skills, ready to start assimilating the complex world around them.

For me, personally, the school mentioned in the COMPLIANCE section above closed down just before my 12th birthday, so I moved 35 miles south to the edge of Dartmoor to board at a different prep school for two years. This place was more socially elitist, with more drama and music and sport than the previous establishment. My academics continued to prosper, but I’d say the teaching wasn’t as strong but it was exciting not only to have specialist teachers but to move around to different classrooms, and spend a windy, freezing amount of time on the moor at weekends. Again all the teachers bar one were over forty, a couple over sixty. Most of them were fairly dull and formulaic but their age and experience meant that I perceived a kind of wisdom in them, I’m not sure I detected in my younger – male – English teacher. He was cool though, but I only remember learning about Marxism via the lyrics to Imagine by John Lennon from him. But that’s a more episodic memory than the multilayers of semantic tedium I absorbed from all the others!

THE MIRE (13 years – 17 years)

Somewhere between 13 and 15 we enter the MIRE. We start to escape it at 16 and most are well out of it by the age of 17. The Mire can be fun and exciting to live through. But I’m not sure many of us want to go back there. The idea of being 12 again, or 19 again, or 23 again is quite exciting but 15 again, no freaking thanks.

I totally get that those trapped in the deepest mire of adolescence are not yet adults, and that given freedom to study or do want they want, many of them would chose absolutely nothing. I therefore understand the need to keep them busy, safe and off the streets.

But quite why we have become so obsessed with filling their school days with a load of alienating, abstract, purist, academic foundations in about ten different subjects, with very little choice, I don’t know. There’s so much more we could do: community service for example, give them a greater sense of purpose, get them to know themselves and their communities a bit better. Become a little less self-obsessed. Understand the real world a bit more. Make them realise the benefits of a deep and broad education.

And the worst thing about THE MIRE is it is when the poor blighters make decisions which lock them onto, or out of, their future pathway through life. And they make those decisions as confused, peer pressured, parentally lobbied, half formed beings, often taught by teachers little older than themselves with little more life experience or wisdom than they have themselves. It is MADNESS. We choose GCSE courses at 13, we then choose a narrow range of A level options (or alternative, undervalued route) at 16 and choose a university course at 17. At precisely the time an unprecedented cacophony of chaos is going on inside our minds. This may have made perfect sense in 1931 or 1951, or even 1971 but it sure as hell doesn’t make any sense in 2021, now that we understand the adolescent brain so much more, and that life expectancy being longer, and the nature of work being much less manual and clerical than it used to be.

Educationally, what children in THE MIRE require is adults and teachers with a deep and broad life experience – wisdom if you like. To broaden their horizons, deepen their insight and introduce them to a world of personal, professional and community possibilities. This would enable informed decisions about what to study aged 16 – 19, and what pathway they intend to pursue after that.

So I would focus on academics from 7-13, and again from 16-19 (or more vocational pathways if more appropriate) and spend THE (peak) MIRE from 14-15 gaining insight, supporting communities and properly getting to know themselves and how they fit into life’s rich tapestry via team building, sport, drama, art, oracy and debating. The relentless, uninspiring (for most) drill, culminating in a few numbers on a piece of paper that determine our entire futures from the AGE of SIXTEEN is completely THE WRONG TIME to label and pigeon hole our most precious human commodity – the next generation of adults.

My personal mire – when most friends were smoking behind the bike sheds and setting their alarms to get pissed in the woods on an early Sunday morning – was skewed by Dad’s terminal cancer and subsequent death when I was sixteen in November 1988. Emotionally, I grew up very fast, chose science based A levels as I had a romantic notion of becoming a 1950s style GP and later accidentally fell into chemistry. I don’t regret the path I pursued but I locked myself out of a wordier path through life, one which I am now over-compensating for (verbosity!) here and in my attempts (when I have the free headspace) at novel writing.

I remember being 15, pontificating about this and that. Thinking I knew it all. Knowing now that I knew very little about anything at all. My traditional, socially elitist, privileged, boarding, subject based education never challenged my nascent, socially conditioned, bigotry. It should have done. I’m angry about that. Thankfully, I woke up and smelt the coffee later.

When in the MIRE, I remember liking and respecting the older, wiser teachers more; the one’s who went off piste occasionally, who could connect things together for me, open my mind and indulge my curiosity. I wasn’t much bothered by those who only seemed to know one page ahead in the textbook.

Ollie, my now 18 year old son – in his first year of debauchery at Nottingham Trent University – is the classic example of how narrow our life experience is and how ridiculous we are as beings in THE MIRE. He insisted on having a 14th birthday party. We refused. I told him that he wasn’t old enough to party properly, and that if he was, he wasn’t doing it on my watch. He protested, “but Dad, the 14th is the most important party!” to which my jaw dropped and I told him to remind me of that statement when requesting an 18th (since missed due to Covid) or 21st. We went off road driving in Landy instead.

Jemma, my middle child nonchalantly coasted through her GCSEs last summer. But now she has chosen her A levels (Economics, Psychology, Art) she is like a whole new learner. Conversational, interested and interesting. It is so sad that she will always likely hate the Sciences because of what she – and countless others – had to endure during THE MIRE. My blog post on an alternative approach to Science education is coming very soon – I promise. Gotta get it done before my guest appearance with Jane Manzone (@HeyMissSmith) on Teachers Talk Radio on 20th November.

FREEDOM (17 years to 23 years)

Of course we don’t realise it at the time, but the escape from the deepest adolescent mire of our minds brings with it a kind of newfound freedom. Our parents and teachers start to like us again and with that comes an improvement in communication skills and an openness and excitement at the life ahead of us. Generally, we’re not very sensible though. The freedom that wheels, or friends with wheels brings is huge – if you grow up in a rural or semi-rural area. The freedom of being able to go into pubs and clubs, to buy alcohol, to have consenting sex and generally paint the town red is intoxicating.

Not for everyone, I fully realise, but I think for most people our newfound FREEDOM and greater independence from 17-23 are some of the best years of our lives. The music, the parties, the gigs, festivals, the intensely exciting and emotional time imprints some deep episodic memories upon our minds. Culturally, we are most likely to nostalgically return to these times. Our favourite bands, films, books – if you were a reader back then, lifelong friends (sixth form and university – or apprenticeship and first jobs) were likely formed at this time.

The importance of school is over-egged by the teaching profession. Yes, it makes some of us; it breaks a few too but it is mostly a holding zoo, to keep us safe and busy and off the streets and – as Covid has taught us – to get us away from our parents to enable them to go to work, and thus enable the economy, stoopid, to do its ugly but – kinda – essential thing.

It is blooming exciting becoming a young adult, escaping the school and family that was chosen for us. But with hindsight, we wish away our childhood innocence too fast because not long after FREEDOM arrives, responsibility comes knocking. And it’s downhill for a long while after that!

These were the best days of my life. While I complied at school (most of the time) I felt very constrained by it all at the end, particularly as I was eager to experience escape from boarding school, to experience the conventional Friday night out for the first time and to tentatively tiptoe my way out of my little 7% of population POSH and private schooled cocoon.

At the start of my freedom phase I was still grieving Dad – I’m still grieving him now, writing this – so I was quite a sensible and grown up 18 year old; naive and over protected too. So arrival at Kingston Poly in Sept 1991 triggered a social explosion of relentless hedonism which continued into working life.

ENERGY (23 years – 29 years)

During our Freedom Phase (which may be cut short or interrupted by early parenthood for some) we generally have very little responsibility for anyone other than ourselves, and for the first time in our lives we can make our own decisions. A lot of young people in their late teens and early twenties decide to kick against the system, This used to be a bigger phenomenon in the late 1960s and early 70s when the counter-culture almost entered the mainstream, but now younger generations are surprisingly compliant, conventional and resigned to the status quo. Give an adolescent a smartphone, an Insta and TikTok account and loads of mates to chat to online and they’re happy. They don’t really want to change the world that much. A few do, but proportionally not that many. They don’t seem collectively ready to kick against materialism, consumerism and the Metaverse just yet. This, admittedly, disappoints me quite a lot.

Anyway, even the few who flirt with the counter-culture, appear to come back to convention quite early in their twenties. The mantra of work hard, get good grades, go to uni and get a good job is still fuelling the economy and the majority of our lives. Even though there’s plentiful evidence it’s not really making us happier, or mentally healthier.

So most people calm down a bit, get a job and begin to think about ‘settling down.’ But we’re still young, so we have a lot of energy (to transfer) and can survive on burning the candle at both ends for a while. Work hard. Play hard etc. To begin with the money in the bank is enticing. Freedom remains on Thursday nights and at weekends. But we can still turn up and do the job.

If we haven’t settled down and had kids yet, which many haven’t at this stage of life – particularly in the middle, professional classes – we have immense energy and relatively few responsibilities other than turning up on time for work without too debilitating a hangover. We have immense surplus ‘energy’ still and we’re keen to impress the boss. We work extra hard and go home a bit later than our older colleagues with greater responsibilities.

If we’ve chosen wisely, we may be doing a job – or building a career – we really believe in; we’ll be keen, we’ll buy into all the latest initiatives and gleefully say yes to everything. We won’t be cynical, we’ll be easy to manage and we’ll smile a bit a more than we will in the future busy or stressed phases. With a bit of direction and some mentoring, we’ll likely work very hard for a lot less money, without moaning, than those with a mortgage to pay and three kids to feed and clothe.

We’re just a bit younger, a bit more beautiful than our older peers too; less beaten up by the trials and tribulations of life.

For those who do starting raising a family at this age, there may be less money and a more cramped family home than if you wait another ten years but I would argue that the surplus ‘ENERGY’ levels more than offset the perceived financial hardship. Sleepless nights are less debilitating, you’ve got a lot more in the tank that when in your late thirties or early forties.

When I was in this phase, I was a fresh young graduate with Zeneca Agrochemicals. At weekends I partied hard but I really went for it at work, staying late regularly, going the extra mile. As I was in industry I was well incentivised with bonuses and good pay rises and promotions. I embraced international travel opportunities and was highly thought of as a consequence. While I got on with most of my colleagues of all ages, the older (ten years plus service) ones used to have this wonderful phrase, “when you’ve been here a bit longer…” to dampen my relentless enthusiasm and positivity.

When I career changed into teaching aged 42, I had a fresh enthusiasm but also some of life’s creeping cynicism. A great, new, young 23 year old teacher joined two years after me, when I was 44. This old dog (me) was having trouble changing his tricks (or conforming to a daft mandate of some sort) and my brilliant colleague was cited as someone who just accepted the mandate and worked very hard to conform and progress. I wonder if she’ll still be conforming and progressing when she’s 44? Interestingly, while I was new to teaching in my forties, I distinctly recall not having the blind, conformist ambition that I had as a fresh-faced young scientist with Zeneca. When budgets are tight, management time resources are limited and time allowed to discuss the pros and cons of a new initiative are non existent, the young ENERGETIC, non-cynical and perhaps a little naive teacher will always win.

BUSY (aged 29 to 43)

If you’re typically middle class, professional and more conventional than you like to admit – like me – then one’s thirties and early forties are likely to be rather BUSY. You may be freshly loved up or married, starting a family, raising young children, nurturing and still progressing career, trying to maintain a social life, trying to keep up with the Jones, driving little Billy to football, Daisy to ballet and Emily to toddler group. Work will be BUSY, after work life will be BUSY, weekends will be BUSY, nigh times may well be BUSY too, but probably not in the way you remember from the ENERGY or FREEDOM phases. Just freakin’ relentlessly chasing your tail busy.

You will feel more tired than you did in your twenties, your hangovers will be worse and you will have less energy spare to transfer into sucking up to your boss or staying late at work, or to completing the marking pile. You might even start saying NO to new opportunities and responsibilities, miss out on promotion to a younger, more energetic colleague and begin to feel a little disenfranchised. If you’re not careful your career will STAGNATE and you’ll begin to feel frustrated but your partner will be feeling the same – either because the same is happening at work for them, or because they are tired and a little bit bored by all the domesticity at HOME.

Suddenly, this treatise is turning into a self-help guide (sorry). If you are reading this while still in the ENERGY phase but maybe baby two of three is about to arrive and the BUSY phase is about to slap you in the face, make sure you make time for each other – somehow – because the STRESSED phase comes next and things will get worse! There is no way around the BUSY and STRESSED phases (unless maybe you don’t have kids), so it is ESSENTIAL that you mentally prepare for and pre-empt them with your partner in advance…

My busy phase was super super busy. Married at 28, three kids under four by thirty four, always back for bath time. Said no to career (and me) nurturing business trips because I wanted to be the best and most present Dad I could be. A double bereavement for my wife in the space of seven years in this phase. Major restructuring, downsizing, pension changes and mass redundancy consultation representative at Pfizer on top of day job, redundancy, took new job in Hertfordshire – long commute across London from Kent, parent governor at my kids primary school, binned ridiculous commute, career change, PGCE (crazy BUSY BUSY BUSY), started teaching at 42…kids still youngish: 11, 9 and 7. Just BUSY!

Further reading: During this phase, I read a brilliant book called ‘Isn’t this fun?’ (a history of ‘Fun’) by Michael Foley. By this stage in my life, the world weariness was kicking in at times, the relentless positivity and optimism of youth eroding. I was a bit lost, changing career from a position of subconscious competence to one of conscious incompetence was psychologically challenging; and I was still torn between progression and leadership ambition (I’d been a multidisciplinary project team leader and employee rep chair of the Pfizer R&D UK consultation forum in industry and supervised a small technical team too) and being a good Dad and husband and a bit of a lazy cynic too and frustrated by my apparently conflicting character. Foley wrote the book in his sixties and talked about his career frustrations about how his inner APOLLO (strong, leader, ambitious) and inner DIONYSUS (rebellious, hedonistic, non-conformist) never conquered one or the other and that he was constantly torn between these two inner voices. But then is the wisdom of his early sixties, he realised that this constant internal conflict was essential, it was what drove him and what made him human. I’m slowly coming to terms with my own internal conflict too.

STRESSED (43 years to 53 years)

Life (begins to get appreciably worse) at forty. (Not always). There is much joy in parenting and children growing more independent. Time starts flooding back. Your eldest child is a free babysitter. You can lesve the kids at home alone to pursue a hobby, or pop out for dinner. You may have reached a senior position of power and influence at work. You may be starting a new, exciting, second long-term relationship or affair; or you may still be deeply in love with your first and one true love and life is great and brilliant and wonderful.

But, statistically, it is more likely that your life is at peak external pressure and rather joyless. You don’t seem to have much time to yourself. Your kids are becoming adolescent and changing fast, they’re no longer the adorable, lovable little creatures they once were. They answer back. They swear at you. They refuse to conform to your perhaps unreasonable expectations. They punch doors. They puke on their bestie’s Mum’s carpet. You get called in to school to speak with their form tutor (or more senior). They’re self harming, or have a gaming addiction, or being bullied online. Your parents may still be alive but they are ageing and not as independent as they used to be. Maybe one of them has dementia. Maybe they are terminally and brutally ill. Maybe they’ve gone recently; you’re grieving and sorting out the house and the memories and all the unspoken shit of the last fifty years. Maybe they are a long time widow; controlling, paranoid, delusional, deeply unhappy, undiagnosed psychotic who was once wonderful but isn’t really there anymore, who is impossible to help and no clue how tormented she is, or what an unspoken and emotional burden she’s been for years. Maybe this deeply saddens you. Maybe your marriage or long-term relationship of over twenty years is floundering; undernourished. Maybe you’ve just grown apart. Maybe you were always too different and now that you’re less bound via the joys of parenting young children, you don’t know what to talk about – maybe one of you is always out of the house, busy playing sport, training for a marathon or having an affair. Maybe you’re just not very nice to each other. The kids notice. They notice everything. But you feel guilty and sad and helpless. Maybe lockdown awakened you to this. Maybe you tried to deny something was wrong; suppressed your feelings, got a little depressed. Maybe you finally made the decision that you know will be best for everyone in the long run. Maybe you’re divorcing. Maybe you naively thought it could be amicable. Maybe there’s deeper wounds and stubborness and solicitor’s fees and rent and loneliness and massive change going on in your life. Then there’s work. And putting a brave face on it all. Maybe you’re a teacher, so you just can’t crack at work, not in front of the kids. Maybe your out of work stress is so unbearable you can’t do your job. Maybe work and lovely colleagues become your refuge, your safe place, your easy place. Hard to imagine that teaching in a school could be your easy place, your rest place, your escape place, but somehow it is.

And then, on top of all this RESPONSIBILITY you have NO FREEDOM, you can’t envisage an end to it and so you just can’t work as hard as you used to. You just can’t commit to going the extra mile, to all the neverending unpaid goodwill. You turn up late, you go home early. Your marking isn’t up to date. You’ve not done any peer assessment with a purple f****** pen of power. There aren’t any personalised targets in the front of your books. You’re not differentiating enough. There’s A LOT going on in your life and something has to give. But you’ve got a young SLT, you cost a lot. Your experience doesn’t count for much in a prescriptive direct instruction, sit in rows, no more group tables, your displays are tired, or too loud. And pretty, but a little too freaking in your face, overconfident buzzword Teach First, goes to Research Ed on a Saturday (you know I can’t do Saturdays, I’m with Mum), county netball player only bloody twenty four is so much cheaper, so much keener, so much more loved by the kids (even though you know she’s not). So you’ve got to go. Sorry, Janice. You were brilliant twenty years ago. Even ten years ago. Thanks for everything.

Personally, I’m really fortunate to have rekindled my love of teaching – which was waning a few years ago – and I have a great new head, a supportive boss and some truly great friends at work. My school is lovely and flexible too, probably a bit richer than yours as it’s independent, so the whole older teacher cost thing isn’t such a biggie. So I’m doing OK. I don’t work on Tuesdays now, as well. That saves the school a few quid and it’s a great stress buffer. I write. And walk. And drop and pick up my teenage girls from school. That’s been good for me. Seriously – self-help again – if your life is too full, money is less important than time. Time is priceless, you don’t get it back when your retire, you know.

Further reading – Jonathan Rauch’s book ‘The Happiness Curve’ is worth a read and it’s really the subtext of this whole blog post – that we’re frequently happy, spritely, positive and unencumbered by excessive responsibility in our twenties. Our happiness then dips through our thirties and forties, reaching its lowest point in our late forties (47 is statistically the worst age to be, according to a newspaper article in the Daily Mail my Mum [that doesn’t do her any good either!] sent me, when I was 47) before slowly rising through our fifties and peaking again in our sixties, when the peak pressures in our lives dissipate.

WISDOM (53 years to 71 years)

Basically life gets better through our fifties and sixties, providing we have our health. Greater freedoms return. There are fewer pressures as a parent, as a child and as an employee. You’ve probably stopped chasing your tail. You may work part time. Or claim an early occupational pension. Or you may become a volunteer. Or a learned consultant. You’ve probably come to terms with the multilayered shapeshifting ‘me’ under your skin and you have acquired the WISDOM that is the product of a rich and varied set of EXPERIENCE, INSIGHT, KNOWLEDGE & SKILLS from work, family and friendship. You note the futility of younger, go getting people’s games and your totes Zen wiv it. You know thyself. You know what makes you happy and how to make time for it and you know what pisses you off and how to minimise it or avoid it. Your blind ambition has dissipated. Your realise that money or possessions are not a measure of your worth, legacy or happiness. You have grown, slowly and gradually, into the best version of yourself and you are of far greater benefit to society than most people in most of the other phases. But you don’t tell anyone this because it would likely piss them off somewhat, but deep down they know it to be true too.

Providing this WISE seen it all, got the T shirt and learnt from it the hard way, elder working generation don’t let their experience turn into a crippling form of cynicism, (a healthy scepticism may be okay but no one really likes a cynic) then they are much needed in the workplace. They won’t waste the time young people do re-inventing the wheel, endlessly preparing hand made resources. They won’t teach all singing all dancing lessons but they know their subject or their children’s literature or the curriculum sequence or how to speak to a difficult parent, or how to console a distressed child inside out. They don’t need to plan lessons, or work out how to integrate their Science, Geography, History, English and Maths schemes of work because they can spin on a sixpence, adapt and pull it out of the bag with no need for a dark night of the soul. They know an awful lot. And they can be worth their weight in gold. We understand the cost of everything and the value of nothing if we don’t have any of them in our schools.

It may be because Dad was 53 when I was born (and 70 when he died) and I spent alot of time around older adults as a young child, and I have older half brothers and sisters, but I’ve always had a great admiration for people 20 – 40 years (a whole generation) older than me. I feel that I benefitted greatly from having mostly older teachers. It’s the wisdom and lived experience thing. They can draw upon more stuff. They can be more polymathic. Able to connect disparate ideas and subjects together. They’re also – generally – a little humbler, calmer and less self-congratulatory than younger people. Integrity tends to deepen with age. And integrity matters. When I see young people with integrity and graciousness, I will respect and admire them too. I know there are a great many, enthusiastic, committed and brilliant young teachers out there, but I think we should all be very worried how so many of the older generation of teachers have been ostracised and driven out of the profession.

This is mainly a cost and budget issue but I think there’s something more insidious about it too.

Curricula and pedagogies have become more prescriptive. The autonomy and freedom of teachers has been diminished. Wisdom is less valued in society than it used to be. Energy, dynamism and blind ambition seems to be valued more. There is much irony when some of the loudest proponents of traditional, whole class teaching and direct instruction etc are vociferous in their disdain for educational technology and their defence of the 30:1 classroom model yet their and the government’s ideologies are more and more prescriptive, less and less autonomous and thus only a compliant, robotic teacher is required to ‘deliver’ it.

Personally, I’m not yet in this phase, but boy oh boy am I looking forward to it. I’m pretty sure I’ve still got a lot to give – in the classroom, on Twitter, in blogs and conference talks and in fiction and non fiction books too.

ANGER or SERENITY (aged 71 – 101)

Either the Wisdom phase morphs into the SERENITY phase, or if unresolved STRESS, BUSY or early life issues are allowed to fester then we can spend our latter years on the planet getting angrier and angrier. If we fall into the trap of reading the Daily Mail regularly, or paying obsessively close attention to the TV news three times a day ANGER will fester and eat you up for no good reason. Choose WISDOM and SERENITY people.

Why GCSEs were, are and always will be rubbish!

by Toby Payne-Cook – written as an extended response to a tweet by the indefatigable Tabitha McIntosh (@TabitaSurge).

Look I get it, I really do. There are three undeniably strong reasons for the continued existence of GCSE exams at 16+ in England.

  1. Our secondary schools are populated with loads of (mostly brilliant) specialist subject teachers, whose training and expertise is skewed heavily towards the teaching of GCSE exam specifications.
  2. Your average 14 and 15 year old is only a partially formed being, not yet possessing the relative wisdom, calm and insight of adulthood but also no longer an easily impressionable, fully dependent, mostly compliant child who has a reasonable appreciation of the wisdom of their adult parents, carers and teachers. They don’t know what the hell is going on with their cognitive architecture, their fluctuating hormones and their pesky adolescent brain. So best keep ’em busy doing something which may help them in the future. Even if it turns them off learning, certain subjects and academia prematurely, and for life.
  3. Fourteen year olds are arguably more clueless than sixteen year olds, so getting them to make choices about what they study for the NEXT four years would be even more daft than getting sixteen year olds to pigeon hole themselves onto their narrow, over-specialised too young A level (or not) choices.

The trouble is that there are two even stronger reasons for their current continued existence, both of which are rubbish.

  1. Universities need to make their conditional offers based upon grades in a great many subjects their prospective undergraduates didn’t give a damn about two years previously. We could overall the university system and its entrance procedures first maybe? Before persistently tinkering with 16+ public exams?
  2. It is really important that we compare and relentlessly measure the entire populous aged 16, while still deep in the mire of adolescence and its consequent inner turmoil, so we can use the data to improve or entrench our brilliantly innovative, world leading education system.

And before those of you who scream social justice, fairness and the merits of standardised testing over coursework or teacher assessment at me – I hear you too. But we’re not talking about that today.

Before I tell you why they were always rubbish, and still are in my view, I should first reveal the source of my scepticism and complete indifference to all things GCSE:

Having had an intensely academic start to my education from 4-13, where I compliantly absorbed a lot of information, I was sent to a socially (definitely not academically) elitist all boys boarding school from 14-18. My Dad had privately educated five elder half-siblings already; there really wasn’t any money left; Mum couldn’t entertain me going to the local comprehensive. So, I had to go somewhere that enabled me to develop all those classic public school traits: charm, leadership, confidence, plentiful extra-curricular enrichment, the right connections blah blah blah BUT that I could get a scholarship award (40% fee reduction) to without being an academic genius (you should check out the Eton King’s Scholarship papers – they are a thing of great intellectual beauty – I didn’t go to Eton just in case I’ve derailed you here). So I had a wonderful time hanging out with some very charming Tim nice but Dims. As you can tell, I’ve still got a chip on my shoulder about this. Anyway, said very happy and wonderful establishment didn’t really over egg the pressure on academic study. I cruised. My cruising continued through Kingston Poly until my intellect was discovered and nurtured by my first boss in science industry, during my undergrad placement with SmithKline Beecham.

More significantly, Dad fell ill with terminal cancer at the start of the fourth form (Y10) and died in November 1988, at the start of my GCSE year. He died on the day of my early French GCSE reading paper (my housemaster informed me in the evening) and I returned to school, numb, to sit my Writing paper a few days before his funeral. I was awarded a B.

During the Christmas holidays, when binning some history revision, I vowed never to get stressed about the periphery things in life again. This was my mantra for a while, I’ve relented a little since – though anyone who knows me well on here knows that my life beyond school and co-parenting three adolescents is incredibly tough again at the moment, so the mantra has returned a bit of late. Needless to say, loss of a parent in the mire of adolescence, at an all boys boarding school and the subsequent stepping up to be strong for Mum, & growing up – emotionally – very fast meant that I gave short shrift to my GCSEs. There was no revision. But I was blessed with a good capacity for remembering facts so I got an A (early in Jan 1989) in Maths. A in Chem, Bio & History, B in Geog (with French from Nov 88) and Cs in Physics, English Lit & Eng Lang in June 1989

Not bad considering the dismal work ethic, emotional grief and suboptimal teaching (in Phys & English). A levels were hit harder, definitely not “fulfilling my potential” at the time.

So, to answer Tabitha’s Twitter question.

GCSEs weren’t important to me back then in ’88/89 but they didn’t seem as important to anyone else (but I did reside in a little 7% cocoon of the populous) as they have now become. I have no idea if my As were modern 7, 8s or 9s but the consequent Chem, Bio and Maths A levels ended up B, C and N (below E but above U).

I’m sure I could have done better in both my GCSEs and A levels. Ironically, I reckon I might have done if I’d gone to the local comprehensive. I suppose I did well enough. All above C. Charmed my way into undergrad placement with SmithKline Beecham which was CV gold dust, and much more interesting to industry than the grades on a piece of paper.

From 2005 – 2008, I recruited undergraduate placement students when working at Pfizer. There’d been a definite grade inflation at GCSE by then and in 2005 I went with the shiny grade elitism approach and recruited some very bright, arrogant and inflexible students. In subsequent years, we paid as much – if not more attention to all the frilly bits on the CV, not ignoring grades entirely but downplaying them a little. We recruited much stronger, more independent (not schooling) and trainable candidates.

Now – pandemic aside – we’ve become grade obsessed. We all know that grades we did or didn’t attain at 16 say very little about who or what we are now but yet they’ve been allowed to become too dominant in the measure and purpose of an effective education.

I really don’t know why we need all the differentiation at 7,8,9. Just do a series of age standardised CATs if we really need to know who is the smartest, cleverest, highest cognitively functioning or whateves.

There are five factors which determine how well we do in our GCSEs:

  1. Our innate cognitive ability. How ‘bright’ we are.
  2. Our conscientiousness. How hard we work.
  3. Our level of support and encouragement at home. This also includes parental belief in our education system.
  4. Our interest and motivation in the subject, and crucially, the possibilities of the subject.
  5. Our respect for and rapport with the teacher.

1) We can’t control for this. CATs can give us this information anyway.

2) That’s what a load of 7, 8 and 9s tell me. But they only tell me that the pupil is conscientious within the school system. It doesn’t tell me whether they are an independent learner. Or a free thinker. Or that they have any initiative.

3) A Tiger parent will create loads of false positives in their children’s school careers. So great results from disadvantaged backgrounds are helpful from a social justice perspective but only if the Tiger parented kids are discriminated against. Tricky. Though, I do like to think any good university or employer interview process will cull the Tiger parented false positives from the Earth and prevent them from making any tiger grandchildren!

4). I think the motivation that our current GCSE system expects is ridiculous. And entirely false. Ultimately, we do well in, or at least enjoy learning, things we are interested in. A great teacher can make us interested in things we previously had no interest in, providing that their SLT isn’t measuring every tiny semblance of their being on GCSE results or educational data…

5) This matters a lot. And there’s not a lot we can do about it. I’ve been bored listening to some of my children’s GCSE teachers when given the opportunity to talk enthusiastically about my kid for 4 minutes on a parents evening…so I can’t imagine how tiresome three hours a week could be…

So, overall – and I’m sorry about this high achievers – I don’t believe our GCSE results – individually or collectively – have any statistical credibility whatsoever. There are simply too many uncontrolled variables. Comparing wonderful, flawed, incomplete humans based upon a very narrow, ‘gameable’ wicket aged 16 is bonkers beyond belief.

[I will make an alternative suggestion elsewhere].

Before my rant peters out, I’d like to share the madness of grade boundaries in the (higher tier) sciences with you too…[which I will elaborate on elsewhere too]

AQA stats from 2019

Biology: 9 > 67%; 8> 60%; 7 > 54%; 6 > 44%

Chemistry: 9 > 72%; ….. 6 > 44%

Physics: 9 > 72%; …….. 6 > 45%

For comparison

Maths 9 > 86%. (there are some super strong mathematicians amongst us, but….). 8 > 71%; 7 > 57%; 6 > 44%

Eng Lang: 9 > 79%; 8 > 73%; 7 > 68%; 6 > 61%

Eng Lit: 9 > 88%; 8 > 79%; 7 > 71%; 6 > 61%

So if you got a 9 in Biology AQA GCSE in 2019 you got one third of the papers WRONG. In the ALL the Sciences and Maths if you got a 6 (what we dub an old B) you got over HALF of the papers WRONG. So, yes hey you’ve got your shiny 6 or your golden 9 on results day but for the two or three years you’ve been learning and practising this stuff it has felt like you’ve been failing. They are too hard. [again, I will blog about this as applied to science education in the future].

I know that some of the quieter, partially muffled voices on Edutwitter agree with me in that these exams are flawed and long past their sell by date. But I know that their are a great many more Gibbists and Govists who continue to prop up these beasts with clever nuanced arguments who I’m likely to get shot down in flames by.

Finally, my take on the history of GCSEs.

I understand that the two tier system of O levels and CSEs wasn’t a great look and was rooted in the grammar / secondary modern divide in mainstream education. So the intentions were good, I suppose. But we’ve ended up with divisive GCSE system anyway; one in which half the populous feel like they’re failing all the time and one where one third of the populous don’t get any sense of achievement or purpose from these oppressive beasts.

Let’s just remind ourselves why A levels were introduced in 1951 – to provide a more consistent screen for university entry.

O levels were introduced shortly afterwards as screening / selection criteria for A level courses.

CSEs were later introduced as school leaving qualifications for vocational pathways from 16.

GCSEs merged O levels & CSEs in 1988 and were intended to merge the school leaving qualification of CSEs with the A level suitability selection of O levels. O levels (now grade 6 or 7 and above GCSEs) were never designed or meant to be a school leaving qualification.

The world was a very different place in 1951. Academia was a relatively inaccessible, elitist series of establishments. A far greater proportion of the populous left school at 16 (or lower). The concepts of careers and gender equality hadn’t really been invented.

The Govists and Gibbists have essentially re-engineered our 16+ GCSE system based upon an O level system designed for a very different demographic and society in 1951. It really is time for a complete overhaul.

The Pace of Change

#MonthlyWritingChallenge. 2nd November 2021. By Toby Payne-Cook. @CREducATE

It all began with energy (though where the energy came from we’re not quite sure). Quarks and gluons stuck together to form protons and neutrons. Billions of stars were born. Inside those stars, energy is fused into matter – aka atomic nuclei – the stardust from which we and everything is made.

Then Earth. One of eight planets orbiting our star. A hot, tempestuous place. Molten rock. Volcanoes. Noxious gases. A burning, lifeless place.

Next: life on Earth. About 3.8 billion years ago. That’s a long time ago. There are approximately one billion seconds in thirty-two years. Primitive, microscopic; unicellular. We’re not quite sure how that happened either. We’ve been making up brilliant, civilisation forging, stories about it for well over five thousand years. Modern science suggests a hot, primordial soup of simple carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen, sulphur and phosphorous (mostly the first four) compounds reacting to form simple biological molecules like urea and amino acids. Once you have amino acids, they can react to build peptides and proteins. It is not an enormous leap of scientific faith to imagine the development of a simple self-assembly or replication mechanism: early genetic material which enables their production.

Then EVOLUTION. Very, very, very slow evolution. If the Earth formed at midnight, and simple life appeared at 4am, more complex Eukaryotic cells (the type of cells we’re made from) – cells with complex internal organelles (nucleus, mitchondria etc) – didn’t evolve until about 1:30pm. These increasingly complex microdudes then hung out alone, in their many invisible trillions until about 6:30pm in the evening – or somewhere between 600 and 800 million years ago (our fossil record and understanding of these approximate timings is changing all the time) – when the first (still very simple by modern standards) multicellular life appeared.

At this stage of the evolution of life on Earth, the oxygen levels in the atmosphere were still relatively low but over the next few hundred million years, via ‘the Cambrian explosion’ increasingly complex multicellular life evolved – in the seas first and then on land. It is thought that our current 20-21% level of oxygen in the atmosphere which is essential to sustain complex life on Earth had stabilised around 200 million years ago, or about 10:30pm. Mammals have all evolved since then, particularly thriving after the extinction of the (reptile) dinosaurs 65 million years ago.

Early hominids (humans) split from our ape ancestors about six million years ago, or at 2 minutes to midnight; with homo sapiens, our – and the only remaining – human species evolving about three hundred thousand years ago (300 000).

At the start of our tenure on this lush, green and beautiful planet we’d have been far simpler beings than our modern incarnation, living totally in tune with nature. Our discovery of the daily use of fire is unique across the animal kingdom. Fire enabled us to keep warm, and inhabit otherwise inhabitable parts of the globe but more crucially it enabled us to cook food. This was the first major extraction of ourselves from ‘nature.’ And it was important. Once food is cooked it enables a far more efficient calorie intake. Increased and more efficient calorie intake was symbiotic with the development of the pre-frontal cortex in our brains. Elephants obviously have much larger brains than us, but the size of our brains relative to our body size are enormous by comparison with any other animals. Our adult brains make up no more than 5% of our body mass, yet demand at least 20% of the energy (calories from our digested food) supply.

The evolution and cognitive development of our pre-frontal cortex is critical to who we are. It has enabled us to develop language, and its consequent internal grammar. Language and communication enabled humans to develop specialist skills – tool making, cooking, farming etc.

For over 10,000 years we have become increasingly resourceful: farming, mining, making, building.

EVOLUTION of modern humans from early mammals to the present day took 100 million years. 6 million years from our last common ape ancestor. It is SLOW SLOW SLOW and happens over THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of years. The PACE of CHANGE is slow.

Humans are unique in our ability to create CULTURE. This started with our discovery of the use of fire over 300,000 years ago with the pace picking up after the evolution of language, its consequent gossip, story telling and religion. Once we started farming (producing food for others not just our immediate communities) it advanced apace. Once we started writing things down – only about 5000 years ago in a very primitive form – we could pass on our advancing culture more readily. The invention of the printing press less than 600 years ago – enabled far greater PACE of the transfer of knowledge and culture.

So CULTURE changes much faster than EVOLUTION but in the most part we have the collective mental agility and intelligence to adapt to it. Until 1821, two hundred years ago – with the industrial revolution in its infancy CULTURE evolved slowly, the PACE of CHANGE over HUNDREDS of YEARS from 500 BCE to 1800 not hugely significant for the common man.

The CULTURAL shifts in society since 1821 have been huge. The Pace of Change accelerated significantly due to rapid advances in SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY. To begin with CULTURE could adapt to the TECHNOLOGICAL advances. The industrial, educational and medicinal and economic changes exciting and enticing.

But now, at the dawn of the METAVERSE, and with the world burning as a consequence of an explosion in human population (and consequent domesticated animals), human activity – the PACE of CHANGE has become exponential. CULTURE does not have time to adapt to, to consider the ethics of, to renounce or embrace TECHNOLOGICAL ARMAGEDDON.

As world leaders beat their chests and pontificate about the CLIMATE CRISIS at CoP26, while the extreme consumerism of Christmas proliferates all over our TV screens, we are so entralled, so locked onto our economically driven, destructive path that we think the only way out of this mess is via TECHNOLOGY. Via inventing, making and buying more stuff. Green, sustainable, renewable – or NOT. We are so locked into the relentless pace of TECHNOLOGICAL change and ECONOMIC growth we cannot stop.

Mass ownership of motorised vehicles is less than 100 years old.

Televisions have only become widespread in the home over the last 50 years.

Antibiotics are less than 100 years old.

The contraceptive pill is less than 60 years old.

Public exams at 18 and 16, and the consequent importance of ‘subjects’ are only 70 years old.

Cheap air travel is less than 50 years old.

Supermarkets have only taken hold in the last 40 years.

Two working parents with pre-school children in the household is less than 50 years old.

The internet is only 30 years old.

The first smartphone just 14 years old.

I would argue that we haven’t worked out a satisfactory CULTURAL adaptation to the huge consequences of the above list of cultural and TECHNOLOGICAL inventions and innovations: the ability of CULTURE to ADAPT to the PACE of TECHNOLOGICAL change is negligible.

This, of course makes me sound like a Luddite. But it scares the hell out of me.

Our worship at the church of human ingenuity and invention, our faith in the use of technology to improve our lives, make us happier and ‘save the planet’ has failed.

It is time for us to stop. To reconnect with nature. To be part of something bigger than our pathetic, selfish, greedy lives.

The PACE of TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE is making us all less happy, more alone and it is harming our delicate interdependence and balance with nature. It is time to re-channel our energy into deep-rooted CULTURAL change. To re-evaluate everything – our philosophy, our politics, our economics and the fundamental purpose and structure of our education system.

P.S. This will be hard. I’m a greedy hypocrite consumer too. But I’m up for the challenge.

Onions or artichokes?

Sunday musings pt 1 31st October 2021

by Toby Payne-Cook

Today is Halloween, or All Hallow’s Eve.

Tonight, my son – who is in his first term at Nottingham Trent University (NTU) will paint the town black, drink to oblivion and likely have a very good time. I’m okay with that.

Tonight, my brother-in-law, a charismatic vicar in the Church of England will likely renounce everything Halloween has become. I’m also okay with that.

Today, on Twitter, the ‘debate’ about good and evil and what – if anything – is deep down inside us, rages on.

Today, via WhatsApp, my lovely sister and wife of brother-in-law vicar above, sent me a great article by Graham Tomlin about the self, or more accurately the absence of the self. I shared it on Twitter. Some people have liked it. While sharing it the deeply thoughtful @imagineinquiry (Tim Taylor) and @bennewmark (Ben Newmark) were having a very similar conversation (and polite disagreement) along similar lines to the discussions my sister and I frequently have.

This last week, as forever always, the warring factions on Twitter have misappropriated their thoughts, provoked reaction, misrepresented others views, found meaning or inference where there was none and continued to entrench their own echo chambers. I am sometimes guilty of this. Those of us daft enough to fill the void in our lives with social media are probably all guilty of this, to varying degrees.

This week some Christians have felt misunderstood and mildly persecuted in the fallout from that (intentionally?) mis-worded tweet about Original Sin.

This week has also seen a very rich and powerful man gabble on about the Metaverse. And another rich and powerful man throw a load of meaningless numbers at us via briefings with the media and then in parliament.

This week I have got bored of the soundbites from David Attenborough and Boris Johnson in the build up to Cop26 in Glasgow, specifically, “if we don’t act now, it will be too late.”

Yesterday, I read a provocative but thoughtful and intelligent article by George Monbiot in issue no.6 of the Guardian newspaper’s new Saturday supplement. Its title “Micro-Consumerist Bollocks – why ditching your coffee cup won’t save the planet” lured me in.

There’s a lot going on. And I’ve not even mentioned growing concrete or pumping sewage into the sea.

There’s a lot going on inside all of us. And between all of us. We are constantly trying to make sense of it all, trying to work out what is right or wrong. Increasingly, we are expected to have an opinion, a position, on everything. And frequently that position is outrage. Or judgement. Or disapproval.

Personally, I have a lot going on. I’m at the disdainful legal haggling stage of divorce. I’m constantly on the phone to my sister, the community nurse and doctor trying to work out how best to help my lost, lonely and broken mother – a near eighty year old widow of thirty three years – who is surrounded by an impenetrable fog of despair, frustration and a deep rooted undiagnosed mental condition which we’ve all lived with for decades. Parenting and loving three adolescent children, preparing for my first appraisal in years and teaching science in a lovely school to nine to thirteen year olds is an absolute breeze by comparison. On top of all that I’m trying to find time to edit my first completed novel, I want to start the next one, and the one after that; I’m trying to convert my New Voices 3 (2nd October in London, thanks @heymisssmith (Jane Manzone) talk ‘From wonder to whatever: have we got science education completely wrong?’ into a blog post and I have a non-fiction edubook, ‘Big Issues and Ideas: an alternative approach to Science education’ swirling around my mind.

All the above is interwoven with my ongoing existential mid-life crisis, a mild addiction to Twitter, a great ‘reading’ book (Trio by William Boyd) and the constant pursuit of the perfect Spotify playlist. But I’m okay. Pretty good, actually.

I’m not sure we’re okay though. We, as in us: humanity.

Modern humanity, certainly in ‘the West’ seems to be trapped in an existential crisis of its own making. I have a personal view that the root cause of this is that we are trying to make something work that is inherently flawed. We are trying to make a global economy prosper. We are trying to communicate on a global scale – across nations, religions and politics without a common language, without a commonly agreed set of guiding principles or values. In building things, inventing things, performing things, teaching things, making and selling things we have been remarkably successful in uniting behind the mirage of growth and wealth creation. We are slowly eradicating extreme poverty, we are living longer, physically healthier lives, we have greater comforts and material possessions than our ancestors could have ever imagined. We are – globally – better educated than we’ve ever been. There is much to celebrate. But in this quest for global unity and its consequent mediocrity we have lost something.

We have lost sight of what really makes us happy, what really makes us feel we belong. So we seek that belonging in silly places. On Twitter, TikTok or the Meta-effing-verse. Or via indulgence bordering on addiction. Or via consumerism. Or via escapism. Most of it, individualism. We have erred and strayed like lost sheep.

Back to religion. I am not a religious man, though I do have a lot of spirituality. I don’t believe in a higher power, I am nearer to atheism than agnosticism. But militant atheists turn me off. As much as I admire the late great Professor Stephen Hawking – who in one of his last books renounced Philosophy (I think he meant the epistemological and metaphysics branches of Philosophy) as Science now had the power to answer all gaps in our knowledge and understanding of ourselves, the Earth and the Universe. I believe he was wrong about this. Philosophy will always be needed to help us answer questions like why do we love?, what does it mean to be happy? and what is a good life? An equally wise mathematician, Marcus du Sautoy published a rather brilliant book ‘What we cannot know’ highlighting the huge leaps in collective human knowledge over the last five hundred years (particularly the last fifty with the advent of previously unfathomable computing power) but also the boundaries of science and technology which we are a long long way from ever fathoming. I also admire Professor Richard Dawkins as a scientist and thinker but his disdain for organised religion is unpalatable. One of my favourite public scientists and an active humanist is Professor Alice Roberts. Her book, the incredible unlikeliness of being is a must read for any teacher of science and her Royal Institution Lectures with Aoife McLysaght from Christmas 2018 are a mainstay of my teaching evolution in upper key stage two and key stage three science (aged 10-13), but her tweet on Good Friday earlier this year (it should have been on Easter Sunday, technically) reminding us all that real people don’t rise from the dead was unnecessary. Why can’t we keep opinions that are wilfully offensive to huge tracts of people – on the day of a religious festival – to ourselves? Thinking most things is fine. Saying them less so.

Personally, I find the media and education manufactured conflict between Religion and Science extremely irritating. But I’m a shades of grey agnostic easily swayed by convincing arguments across the theist-atheist or political divide. I don’t see the world in black and white. I pick and choose. I dabble. I explore. I love to question and challenge others, and myself too.

I am a scientist, now a science teacher, by training. I love the possibilities of science. The pleasure of finding things out. Curiosity. Scepticism. Probing information with a logical, analytical mind.

But Science is not all. Science alone cannot make me happy. Science is fascinating. It may explain my existence and constitution but it doesn’t bring meaning or joy to my existence in the way people, places, nature, music or art do.

As a science teacher of young(ish) children, it is always so frustrating to be perceived as this one thing, this singular version of myself – the teacher or the scientist. The scientist who I’ve most admired, respected and been inspired by (the late great Dr Duncan Bryant of RoySocChem Molecular Spectroscopy ‘fame’) was a true across the board intellect, with an appearance on University Challenge in the mid 1980s to prove it. He once said that most scientists were (cultural) Philistines, so fixated upon their tiny little niche, about their knowing more and more about less and less. Duncan was my first ‘boss’ way back in 1993 and he is important in not only recognising and developing my scientific intellect but in introducing me to Shostakovich, Sibelius, Dub Reggae and the joys of pub quizzing.

This is why the aforementioned article by Graham Tomlin, ‘Why being yourself is not such a good idea after all,’ shared by my sister so appealed to my mind. In it, he describes us as onions rather than artichokes. This is a great metaphor. We have no inner self, no one true heart or being. There is no one me. Rather we are multilayered beings, the layers built up by our experiences and interactions with our fellow humans over time.

The Human Touch, one of my favourite books, by the devout atheist but also deeply philosophical novelist, playwright and former journalist Michael Frayn, describes eloquently how we are merely the product of decisions made by us and made by others for us. We become who we are because of the life we live, and are living. It is worth pondering. As Socrates famously once said, the life which is unexamined is not worth living. Although the comedian and actor David Mitchell has wisely countered that with his book, ‘Thinking about it only makes it worse!’

Tomlin’s assertions resonate strongly. I was only talking about how I believe that there is not one true Toby inside me to my sister recently. There is no essence of Toby. Yes, I have my genetic code (which is virtually identical to yours as we are both human) with all its consequent anatomical shape and appearance and physiological functioning and my innate propensities for many of my character traits and cognitive functions. And yes, my emotional resilience and chemical balance (or lack thereof) was probably irreversibly ‘wired’ in my very early months and years. But I feel so different in different situations and with different people. I am a completely different person when teaching a lesson, to when I’m in a project meeting, to when I’m bantering in the lab with scientists, to when I’m chatting with friends, to when I’m walking with one friend, to when I’m drinking with blokes on a stag weekend, to when I’m talking with my daughters about the meaning of life. My ten felt so very different to my 16, to my 23, to my 35 and to my current 49 too. We are malleable, adaptive beings who shapeshift to our surroundings. Some of us are more chameleon like than others but we are not always rigidly robotic in who or what we are. We change. And crucially, we respond to change. The human condition and all our consequent story telling and literature is built upon this fact.

As I am not a follower or active believer in Christian teaching, I do not believe in humans being ‘good’ or ‘evil’; the concept of original sin evades me. But I can see how sniping about this concept or belief on Twitter is unhelpful, inconsiderate or judgemental. Just because you – or I – have decided that the book of Genesis is the greatest metaphor for theoretical physics and evolution ever written, or that a man cannot possibly die for my sins, or that the concept of reincarnation is also a wonderful metaphor for our atoms being recycled into new life, or that memories of us live on in the minds and bodies of those left behind, does not give us the right to denigrate or challenge the beliefs and values of others.

In the same way Dawkins, Roberts et al turn me off vociferous, militant atheism; evangelical Christians rather turn me off Christianity. I do not need, nor want, a literal interpretation of the Bible constantly bombarded upon my senses. My floaty non-committal adherence to atheism or dedicated faith mirrors my views on politics and trad-prog warfare on edutwitter. I’m an obtuse fucker. If you Dawkins me, I’ll God thee. If you evangelise me, I’ll ignore you (and probably squirm too). If you comrade me, I’ll libertarian you. If you Thatcherise me, I’ll unionise you. If you endlessly, tiresomely direct instruct me – I’ll berate you with project based learning. And if you bang on and on about it being all about skills, I’ll accuse you of vacuity. All style, no substance grates with me – too much Tony, not enough Gordon. But all facts and figures and cautious, safe, Keir could benefit from a little pzazz, a little je ne sais quoi; a wee soupcon of style.

Despite my burgeoning atheism, I am deeply concerned by our increasingly secular nature in the affluent West. We all have a fairly basic need to belong. Religion, not science allowed the development of human civilisation. Science has undoubtedly advanced those civilisations but we have reached a point where we are now so disconnected to the stories and small communities and nature from which we have spawned that we are lost. We seek false Gods instead: football teams, Saturday night Strictly (a fairly harmless God), high street fashion brands and worst of all wealth. These new Gods can bring us great joy and meaning to our lives but they divide us. They do not pull us together as one.

This is what religion did during the development of civilisations. It pulled us together and gave us a a sense that the whole of humanity was greater than the sum of its parts. I think we badly need to find a way of pulling ourselves closer together. Embracing organised religion is not a realistic solution, nor as inclusive as it should be. The rules and rituals can be alienating. I find the assertion that we are all born sinners, or that evil exists within us and has to be ‘beaten’ out of us deeply problematic. Or that one God is better than another, or one religion somehow more valid than another.

As new born babies, we are very simple beings. Calves, foals and lambs can walk within minutes of birth. It is our complete dependency upon our mothers or other adult carers for the first months and years of our lives which sets us apart from all other animals. Yes, we are born with a great many innate propensities which have to be triggered through our childhoods to become realised or optimised, but we are not born with morals, nor with innate good or innate bad inside us.

But moral code needs to come from somewhere. It does come from our families and close family friends in the most part. But our families used to be much more supported by our religious communities, before so many of us turned to secularism. We have lost that collective bolus of moral code in our lives. And here’s the thing, I don’t think any more people “believed in God, or the Apostle’s creed or whatever” back in the Sunday morning church going rituals of yesteryear. Times were simpler, there were fewer material or leisure or media distractions. And the cake was probably better back then too! But there was something beyond family, beyond money, beyond aspiration that bound us all together.

I am part of the problem here. I don’t want to go to church every week. I don’t want to adhere to a set of rules that I find alienating. Yet the diluted, more literal and explicit style of school assembly which have replaced daily worship in our schools I find rather unsatisfactory, a little hollow, sometimes patronising. And too much Disney by far.

It is my adult choice to be agnostically atheist. My church is nature. A walk in the forest, or on the coast makes me feel more alive than almost any other human invention. I always feel part of something larger and more important than myself when immersed in the wildest, rawest parts of the natural world.

But children can’t subconsciously choose to be mindful, or kind or moral or good if it isn’t modelled to them. And I don’t think we’ve found a better way of modelling it to them than via traditional religious ritual. I know many will argue against this viewpoint. I don’t advocate full on immersion, or what some would call indoctrination. But I think a calm space, in collective silence, with some beautiful words, some uplifting and comforting music, some still meditation and some wise, eloquent speakers offering a contemplative, implicit, thought for the day is a really beneficial – and necessary – part of – ideally the daily – the school timetable.

It was arguably the most important part of my education. It was where morals and values were contemplated and inculcated. It was where I gained a sense of my interdependence upon the whole community, or the whole of society.

As Alain de Botton has written in both his own published philosophical books and also via The School of Life, our economic system has become too concerned with how good the next generation are going to be at maths or science or computing and not concerned enough with how tolerant, empathetic or kind they are. It is easy to scoff at kindness as an educational objective, but it used to be a given, inculcated from religious teaching, daily worship or Sunday school, and we have – to varying degrees – lost that sense of collective responsibility and togetherness without it.

One final thought as to why we have become a more selfish and self-obsessed society. While the rise of secularism and the consequent demise of local community is a factor, politics and economics have pushed us down an ever increasing individualistic pathway. And that will be the topic of my next blog post.

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.

  1. CAVEATS AND CONSIDERATIONS
    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…
  2. THE THREE Rs
    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?
  3. PROFESSIONAL WRITERS COMMENTING ON AND VISITING SCHOOLS.
    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.
  4. WHY DO WE TEACH CHILDREN TO WRITE?
    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.
  5. THE FACTORS AFFECTING LEARNING HOW TO WRITE WELL.
    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.
  6. MY BOTTOM UP VISION FOR EDUCATION
    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.