NICK GRANT ON THE CAMBRIDGE REVIEW

I have received the following excellent article from Nick Grant,an executive member of the National Union of Teachers who lives in Wembley. Although not a member of the Green Party, Nick was a major force in getting the NUT Executive to unanimously agree a resolution supporting the greening of the economy and mobilisation for the UN  Copenhagen Climate Talks.

Spare The Child

The 2009 Trade Union Congress in Liverpool approved a motion entitled ‘Democratic Deficit’ from the top civil servants’ union the First Division Association (FDA). Their job is to process the decisions of Parliament, making legislation workable for us citizens. But they are fed up with trying to implement unworkable, fanciful, highly ideological but mostly illogical laws.

Thus their first demand was that politicians of all democratic parties should “ensure that government policy decisions are supported by objective analysis and consultation.” What an illuminating indictment of the UK constitution this is, to suggest for those with ears to listen that our laws arise otherwise.

Such elemental roots of governmental purpose and methodology have clearly withered in the mother of all parliaments. There is seemingly little grasp of reality or engagement with relevant stakeholders by lawmakers.

Of no sphere is this more true than education, and no greater proof of the FDA’s pertinence is needed than last week’s Ministerial responses to the Cambridge Primary Review.

There simply has not been a more exhaustive analysis of primary schools in England and Wales since the Plowden Report of 1967. It has been edited by Robin Alexander, a former assistant to Chris Woodhead at OFSTED, now Professor at Cambridge University’s School of Education, and chaired by Dame Gillian Pugh. The book’s title is, “Children: Their World, Their Education”.

The Cambridge Primary Review in numbers
20 on its advisory group
14 authors
66 consultants
28 research surveys
250 focus groups
1,052 written submissions
3 years to complete
608 pages in final report
75 recommendations for change

Yet because it does not fully endorse current practices or suggest changes that suit current prejudices it has been either disregarded or trashed by politicians. They know best.

Labour Minister Vernon Coaker complained that it is already out-dated and that their own review by Sir Jim Rose is superior. He disparaged the review’s findings as “a backward step”. Tories have rejected the calls for a postponement of formalized learning by a year and a changed curriculum.

In contrast National Union of Teachers leader Christine Blower spoke for thousands of school workers, parents and kids when she said that; "It is absolutely extraordinary that the Government has decided to ignore the Cambridge Review recommendations. Any government worth its salt, particularly in front of an impending General Election, would have embraced this immensely rich report as a source of policy ideas.”

The government commissioned its own primary review under Sir Jim Rose, to head off the impact of the likely Cambridge recommendations. Central to Rose’s brief was an instruction not to research the SATs. Yet it is impossible to find one educational professional who believes that SATs are either fit for purpose or beneficial. Some parents may support them because they think that without SATs they would not know how their child is progressing. But no teacher opposes assessment per se. It is both an intuitive and formal component of learning.

The Cambridge Review rightly distinguishes between assessment for accountability, and assessment for learning.

What anti-SATs campaigners have railed against since 1992 has been their non-educational purpose. Author Alan Gibbons wrote in the Times Education Supplement of August 8 2008: “ At best, they have proved largely irrelevant to the task of raising standards in literacy. At worst, they have been an expensive distraction. Endless stale rehearsals for snap shot tests will not improve the situation. We urgently need to change course and concentrate on reading and writing for pleasure. In education engagement is everything. Nothing disengages children more effectively than the current SATs regime.”

Instead the core purpose of SATs has been to provide the crudest of currencies by which a school can be measured in a competitive marketplace. They are narcissistic proof to jobsworth politicians that they are ensuring value for money when committing funds to these particular public services.

SATs are the central cog in the neoliberalisation of schooling. SATs produce the League Tables, which create the demand for places, which puts bums on seats, which determines school budgets, which determine school human and other resources which produce…well, what is produced?

Sir Robin Alexander’s team has now conclusively catalogued the government’s Emperor’s New Clothes deceit that thousands of school-workers, parents and children have known only too well for 17 years.

SATs produce stressed-out kids and staff, with minimal value as a guide to past or future learning. SATs-related work has overtaken the curriculum time previously available for more creative work, languages and sport. The concept and practices of play have been more or less eradicated.

The classical Marxist concept of alienation has not been explicitly cited by the Cambridge Review, but it has recorded all the symptoms of it. Like cars or chocolate bars coming off a conveyor-belt, children have been commodified, reduced to a relation between things not people, reified not even by name but as National Curriculum Level this or that. The teacher-learner relationship has been prostituted.

One consequence for those staff who have not fled this lunacy, bullying has become the default educational management mode because, as the FDA insist, consent is hard to win when the statutory obligations fit so poorly with reality. Madness is a sane response, the inarticulate speech of so many broken hearts.

One of Lady Bridget Plowden’s recommendations forty-two years ago was to outlaw corporal punishment of kids by teachers. We now need to outlaw the mental torture of teachers and students by government.

In particular we need to reverse the push to start formalised learning earlier and earlier in the face of overwhelming evidence from the rest of Europe to the contrary. Finland is the world’s most eminent national educational system. Kids there have a kindergarten education until their seventh year. Yet even normally sharp journalists like The Observer’s Barbara Ellen have completely misunderstood the report’s recommendation to delay formal schooling by a year, believing that it is a middle-class yearning for mothers to stay home with their growing kids. It isn’t. It is a plea for a more humane and socialised sense of child development within a school context.

This is especially crucial for the most needy of families. Alexander puts great emphasis on Labour’s failure, despite all sorts of rhetoric and spin, to relieve the plight of the poor. The last thing that malnourished, hopeless infants need is an OFSTED-policed Early Years skills test.

An additional contradiction of government clap-trap concerns the space given by Alexander’s report to children’s views. They are shown as articulate and aspirational in a full and well-rounded sense, whereas the institutionalised notion of ‘Student Voice’ promulgated by Ministers is a consumerist, restricted version that abhors criticism and celebrates conformism. Thus students are often encouraged to evaluate the success or failure of teachers, but not of testing, funding or curricula.

Another aspect of children’s testimony in the report concerns a sense of worry about the planet’s future. The ecological catastrophe looming before us if ignored by world governments, should have already taught us that there is a fundamental urban estrangement from nature that distorts the general quality of human life. The Woodcraft Folk have known this for eighty years.

The ‘Sense of Wonder’ that US scientist Rachael Carson wrote about in 1964, and what contemporary educationalist Richard Louw systemises as a ‘nature-deficit disorder’ in his book ‘The Last Child In The Woods’, are implicit in the Cambridge Review even though its recommendations about greater access to outdoor space are modest.

What is being done to teachers and schools is also happening to social workers and other childcare professionals. Reactionary witch-hunts in the wake of Baby P - type cases obscure the penny-pinching carelessness of government-imposed systems. Its anti-scientific methods only value research which confirm Ministers’ a priori beliefs, and exclude practitioners from their design because of what is derogatively called “producer interest”.

So let’s re-build the battered confidence of everyone connected to child development. Let’s thank both the FDA and the Cambridge Review for trying to put the brakes on the runaway train of government, crushing the life out of its most innocent citizens. The fact that both voices emanate from deep inside the establishment makes their whistle-blowing that much more shrill.

Nick GRANT
October 2009

LET'S GET BACK TO THE LOVE OF LEARNING

The Cambridge Review of Primary Education, published today, could be as important for primary schools this century as Plowden was in the last. Its recommendations would liberate teachers and pupils and return the love of learning to the heart of primary education.

In its criticism of over centralisation, the narrowing of the curriculum, the stultifying impact of SAT tests, and the too early start to formal learning, the Review supports the Green Party’s policies on the abolition of SATs and league tables, a broad and rich curriculum and the importance of play in the early years.

The automatic repetition of their cherished shibboleths by government ministers and its knee-kerk rejection of the Review cannot match the 28 research surveys, 1,052 written submissions, 250 focus groups, 14 authors and 66 research consultants who contributed to the report.

The Green Party adds its voice to those of the many professional associations who have already endorsed the main thrust of the Review. Let’s reclaim our schools and learning for the sake of the next generation of children.

GOVERNMENT CHILD ABUSE

Despite the Government's policy of Every Child Matters which seeks to ensure the well-being of all children, the Government is itself responsible for abusing one group of children: those held in UK immigration centres.

A report published in Child Abuse and Neglect of 24 children between three months and 17 years old detained in Yarl's Wood Immigration Centre shows that 73% had developed clinically significant emotional and behavioural problems since being detained. None had previously had any such problems. According to the Guardian's review of the findings:

• Eight children had lost weight since being detained,including a two-year old and a nine-year old who had both lost 10% of their body weight.
• Three children had regressed and refused to feed themselves or would take only milk.
• Most complained of recent health problems including abdominal pain, headache, coughing and vomiting. Two required hospital care.
• Ten out of 11 children seen by a psychologist had begun to experience sleep problems including nightmares and difficulty falling or remaining asleep
• Four children had bed-wetting, although they had previously been dry for a number of years and two started daytime soiling and wetting, indicators of severe stress.
• Four children had regressed language skills, including one child who had become selectively mute.
• All nine parents interviewed reported severe psychological distress, and six out of nine had contemplated suicide. Two were on suicide watch.

In rather deadpan fashion the report concludes that its findings support Australian research which suggested that 'detention is not in the best interests of the child'.

Most importantly the parents and children did not have access to the full range of assessment, support and treatment that they required and which they would have had access to if the children were attending a school.

Brent has one of the highest populations of refugees and asylum seekers and as a Brent teacher I gained valuable knowledge in educating and caring for children who had often gone through the most horrendous experiences. Providing a safe and supportive place for them to talk and work through their experience, as well as access to other agencies, enabled them to benefit from school and because they were the most fluent English speakers in the family, they often acted as interpreters in the family's dealings with the authorities.

I believe that one of the reasons that detention is favoured by this Government, and previous ones, is that schools as institutions have become highly effective at mounting campaigns against the deportation of pupils as well as supporting their needs. Schools are legally required to support racial equality and often have policies committed to social justice. Refugee and asylum seeker's children establish friendships in the school and their families begin to make links with the local community. These friendships and connections challenge negative stereotypes as refugees and asylum seekers become real people, with names, characters, emotions and histories and earn the respect of the host community.

An exemplary approach to providing support for refugee children is provided in Brent by Salusbury World, a charity operating from Salusbury Primary School in Queen's Park. A BBC report on one family's experience can be seen here: Child Abuse by UK Border Agency

INCINERATOR THREATENS SCHOOLS AND HOMES - U.S. EXPERT

Leading waste expert Professor Paul Connett voiced vehement concerns about plans for the proposed Brent Cross Cricklewood waste incinerator, at the Willesden Area Consultative Forum last Wednesday, October 7th. This comes in advance of Barnet’s likely acceptance of the plans at the forthcoming planning committee on Tuesday 20th October.

Paul Connett, Emeritus Professor of Environmental Chemistry at St Lawrence University New York State, gave an enlightening and condemning talk, after being briefed on the proposed waste plans, including a site visit of the area by members of the Coalition for a Sustainable Brent Cross Cricklewood (BXC) Plan. He ripped apart the “green wash” claims made by the developers that the plans are harmless and “not incineration” and called the plant a “gasifying incinerator”.

He stated that no gasification plant anywhere in the world has been used to successfully dispose of commercial waste by burning, that the technology is unproven other than for burning wood, that burning waste is not the answer to achieve “zero waste” and that the emission of ultra fine nano particulates by these plants isn't regulated.

Professor Paul Connett said, “These modern new-style incinerators put out more nano-particles than the old ones. The particles are so small that rather than lodging in the lungs they enter the bloodstream. You would have to be STUPID to put one of these things near a community – schools and homes are being put at risk from non-regulated and potentially lethal emissions. We need to protect our citizens from this stupidity. The United States hasn’t allowed any new incinerators since 1995, so why have Barnet? Developers should come clean and give us the information. Barnet need to move from PR to solid answers.”

He added, “After 25 years you would be no closer to sustainability compared to zero waste. An incinerator is one big black box. Aiming for zero waste is hundreds of little green boxes.”

Lia Colacicco, Co-ordinator of the BXC Coalition said, “The Professor’s views have confirmed our worst fears that plans are totally wrong for this area. Not only is it not safe, it’s incredibly stupid. It’s madness to burn waste, crazy to put this so close to a local school, and dishonest to claim it is harmless and not incineration. This is not the right way to deal with our waste, and only confirms that plans for Brent Cross are not in the public interest. If the developers don't believe it is an incinerator, then give us the plans and show us the facts.”

“We are also concerned that Barnet Councillors have been hoodwinked by developers’ PR to believe the plant is safe, when neurotoxins will be emitted. We do not believe that Barnet Councillors and those making the decisions have fully researched the facts or have even visited the site. If they had done so they would be fully aware of the implications of this toxic monster of a scheme.”

Local Councillor Alec Castle said, “Professor Connett’s enlightening talk makes it even more clear that the Brent Cross development would have a catastrophic impact on the environment and the health of local residents if approved in its current form.”

The proposed site for the incinerator is just 200 yards from Our Lady of Grace Infants School in Dollis Hill, Brent. Brent Friends of the Earth had previously condemned the plans over toxic dioxin emissions that developers admitted would be released from the plant, about monitoring of emissions and lack of detail in the plans.

The coalition now consists of twelve residents groups in Barnet, Camden and Brent, three political parties, two MPs, two London Assembly Members, three Friends of the Earth groups, London-wide and local transport campaigners, a cycling campaign, a large local employer and individual local residents. It aims to demand and achieve a public inquiry to prevent BXC being built according to current plans.

Brent Green Party is a member of the Coalition.

CROSS BRENT BIKERS BASH BRENT CROSS PLANS

Brent Cyclists have come out in strong opposition to the traffic plans for Barnet Council's proposed Brent Cross Cricklewood development.

They say, "We object that the plans for cyclists along the A5, south and northbound, would create new and significant hazards on a route which is already difficult to negotiate.

Southbound it would be impossible to travel across the North Circular without a massive detour and negotiation of ramps. The only direct alternative for cyclists will be to use the flyover. Few cyclists will want to risk that; to get on and off the flyover you have to ride across two lanes of fast traffic on slip roads at each end. This will significantly increase the chances of casualties, and possibly deaths, among cyclists. The A5 is an ancient route that the public has been able to traverse in a straight line for close on 2000 years. These plans will remove this right from cyclists and pedestrians. They also contradict the Mayor's plans for 'cycle superhighways', which are supposed to be 'safe, direct, continuous, visible, comfortable and informative'. "

BRENT CROSS OPPOSITION GOES LONDON WIDE

Coalition protesters outside Hendon Town Hall

Darren Johnson, Green Party chair of the London Assembly, has joined the Coalition for a Sustainable Brent Cross:

"I strongly support the call of the Coalition for a Sustainable Brent Cross for the rejection of the £5bn Brent Cross/Cricklewood development application to Barnet Council. The proposed development would have a major impact on traffic and pollution across the whole of North West London, particularly the neighbouring boroughs of Brent and Camden. Barnet Council is not qualified to take decisions that impact significantly beyond the borough's boundaries and the London Mayor must make it his business to intervene."

Navin Shah, Labour Assembly member for Brent and Harrow added his voice to the swelling opposition:

“Barnet Council’s deferral follows months of delays and dithering that doesn’t bode well for the application. The Brent Cross application has already been delayed for the past year, and the problems that have dogged it appear to continue to do so.”

“The large number of objections is illustrative of serious problems with this huge application. Thousands of northwest London residents and objections from neighbouring Brent and Camden Councils show this application is seriously flawed in terms of major issues including affordable housing, traffic generation and its complete disregard for sustainability.”

“Given the sheer size of the application, it is vital Barnet gets this redevelopment right. The delays show they know the objections are serious and well merited. I urge the Council to do all it can to avoid all too obvious, and costly mistakes by demanding more from this flawed and unambitious planning application that will currently do more damage than good."

DETOX BRENT X

The chair of Barnet's planning and environment committee has announced that she will move deferral of the controversial Brent Cross-Cricklewood planning application at today's meeting. She said. "We have had several detailed representations in the last few days and it is important that the council gives these the fullest consideration. I want everyone to appreciate that representations will be dealt with professionally, transparently and in full.”

This is the fourth time that consideration of the application has been delayed. The Brent Cross Coalition, who are campaigning for the application to be refused said, "The fact that the planning meeting been has deferred at the last minute, and delayed countless times previously, shows that Barnet are wrong to think they are able to give the degree of scrutiny at ordinary planning committee that this 5-billion-pound regional development deserves. Barnet are right to fully consider the large number of detailed objections they have now received. But inconsistencies in the committee report and myths banded about by the developers, mean that Barnet alone can't decide on this scheme. It should be called in to a public inquiry as soon as possible."

Before the deferral announcement the Coalition had drawn attention to the fact that the developers had said 9,000 extra cars per day would be generated bu the development,despite Barnet and Transport for London's estimate of 29,000.

The Coalition said, “It is outrageous that developers have managed to ‘lose’ 20,000 of the 29,000 extra cars a day from Barnet’s own predictions. We challenge the developers how they think the 1,500 new homes at West Hendon can account for 20,000 of the extra 29,000 cars generated. What we need is a full public inquiry to thoroughly scrutinize the plans, not the quick rubber stamp of Barnet’s ordinary planning committee.

“We need proper regeneration of the Brent Cross area, giving the local community real power in its design and phasing, not the PR myths that are more fiction than fact. A growing number of groups across London won’t be fooled by the developers’ spin and ‘green-wash’ painted on these 1980s car-based plans, when they should be environmentally designed for the 21st Century.”

Despite the deferral the Coalition will still be holding a protest outside Hendon Town Hall at 6pm tonight.

RECLAIM OUR SCHOOLS

As the Wembley Park playing fields disappear beneath the ARK Academy building works there have been a number of developments on the academies front. The government has announced that private sponsors will no longer have to cough up £2m towards the cost of new academies and it turns out not many did so anyway. The government apparently believe this will squash claims that academies are a form of privatisation rather than create claims that our schools will now be given away to private companies. Giving away schools will no doubt mean that all sorts of strange private sponsors will emerge but the government promises a stringent procedure to vet them - let's wait and see.

The underlying assumption that private organisations, by their very nature, will be better at running schools has been challenged by the fate of Sheffield Park Academy. This Academy, run by United Learning Trust, took over from Walthe School which in 2004 was making 'satisfactory progress'according to Ofsted. Walthe was rebuilt at a cost of£8m in 1998 but in 2006 was replaced by the Academy which moved into new buildings costing £90m last year. The latest Ofsted inspection report on the Academy rates it as 'inadequate' in all categories and criticises its leadership and management -precisely the area which is supposed to give private sponsorship the edge. ULT is the largest academy sponsor with 17 schools.

To add to the confusion, arch-Tory Westminster City council has commissioned a report by Professor David Eastwood which recommends that local councils should have the power to take over failing academies. The commission warned that academies were refusing to cooperate with boroughs on developing coherent local plans for schools. The Evening Standard said that councillors feel 'politically vulnerable' because voters see them as responsible for education, despite them having no control over academies.'

The sooner the academies are brought back under the democratically accountable control of local authorities the better. Perhaps this could become an issue in the May 2010 local election so that the new school being built in Wembley Park belongs to us, the taxpayers and community charge payers, rather than a hedge fund millionaire.