In a parallel universe, somewhere very similar to here, an Island very like ours is celebrating their Liberation.
On this day, on this Island, their two most important politicians speak to their fellow Islanders.
This is one of those speeches.
"On this 69th anniversary of Guernsey's Liberation I am pleased to stand here as your Minister for Education representing all of those in our service committed to the future of the Island.
Our children are our future and it is the responsibility of all of us to see that they grow up as citizens we can be proud of, in an Island they can be proud of.
Our responsibility.
Not just parents, not just teachers, all of us.
We are the ones who have control of the environment in which they will grow up. The home, the school, the community; all are important and all need to reflect the values which we wish to instil into our children for the day when they in turn become parents.
The Department, which I stand here to represent, is full of hard working individuals who are committed to the ideal of Education.
The provision of knowledge and life skills to those growing up within our Island community to equip them for a life which we can only dream about.
The wider society advances at a pace barely believable to those who stood here to welcome our liberating forces all those years ago and the technology we now take as everyday would border on the magical for them.
We recognise that we cannot train our children for a future we cannot yet discern but we will do our very best to create fully rounded individuals with the skills to adapt to changes in our community, our economy, and the wider world. Not only to adapt to change but to be promoters of such change for the betterment of their fellow Islanders.
But the job does not just rest on our shoulders. Those of you who are parents rightly bear the prime responsibility for bringing up your children to be sons and daughters you can be proud to call your own.
It is you who prepare your children for education; it is you who instil into your children a value of learning; it is you who instil a respect for their teachers. It is you who then give us, for a short time, the responsibility for the formal education of your children.
As your Minister for Education it is my job to ensure that we are deserving of your trust and respect. My job to ensure that we have an education system fit for purpose with a band of professionals equipped with the best skill and knowledge to teach your children.
As Minister, I recognise that I am an amateur. I have not spent years training to teach, years keeping up with the latest developments in practical education, or years working in front of classes each and every day. It is to these professionals that I turn for support and knowledge of how to constantly improve our schools and system for the betterment of our Island.
Yes, I can bring in UK experts and yes, I can look to the rest of the world for best practise but it is my colleagues who will know how to adapt this best practise for Guernsey.
That is why we at the Department constantly consult our colleagues at the chalkface. They are the ones delivering an education to your children. They are the ones who we must support each and every day to ensure that they have the very best chance of doing what they do best. Teaching.
That is their prime responsibility. To teach.
It is not their responsibility to bring up your children. It is not their responsibility to give them love and understanding and to sort out their sometimes chaotic home lives. It is not their responsibility to pick up the slack when some parents can’t or can’t be bothered to do the very things that make them a proper parent.
The fact that our teachers willingly continue to cover these responsibilities on a daily basis is a cry of shame to our wider society. Shame that we have produced a community where the employee is valued over the parent, where child-minding is valued over education, and where self gratification is valued over self sacrifice for the benefit of the future generation.
We at Education cannot address these wider problems which need be the concern of the States and society as a whole. We merely do the best we can for the child put in front of us.
Maybe we need to work harder.
It is a constant criticism that teachers only work half a day.
It is true that our teachers only spend five and a half hours a day with your children. Less than 28 hours a week. What you don’t see is the other 28 hours plus a week which is spent preparing for those hours in front of your offspring to ensure that each receives a personalised education suitable for their needs at that particular time in their school year.
Teachers don’t just mark books in their so called spare time. They reflect on what each child has taken from that lesson and prepare to take that child further on their educational journey or to retrace their steps over old ground to ensure that the skills so far not taken on board are re-examined and practised until learned.
Our teachers cannot and should not work nearly sixty hours a week or a six or seven day week. If anything we should be looking to reduce their workload. Reduce class sizes and give them the time needed to do their job to the best of their ability.
But to do this we need money. Money which is just not available at present. Or should I say, money which is available but which goes elsewhere in accordance with the priorities set by you via your political representatives.
I am committed to showing the taxpayers of Guernsey that we in the Education Department are doing the best that we can with what you provide to us. Making the most of resourses and working as efficiently as we can.
As a Department we are not yet in that position but this is my commitment to you today.
If I can show this efficiency and you still want a better education system, then you are going to have to give me more money. It’s as simple as that.
I want an education system fit for the 21st century. Fit for educating our children so that they can take their place in our society and contribute to making Guernsey a better place to live. A system which is the envy of similar sized jurisdictions throughout the world.
In 1945 we were given back our freedom. In 2014 I want to give our children the freedom of a free eduction which will benefit them for their lifetime. That is my commitment to you and to those who follow you.
An education for every child. An education which will allow every child to take advantage of the opportunities which will be presented to them regardless of their background or upbringing.
As citizens of the Island community which we celebrate today I call on each and every one of you to support these aims. To do all that you can to support our future generations.
If I may adapt the words of President Kennedy who said it better than I ever can.
“Ask not what your Island can do for you — ask what you can do for your Island.”
It is only with your committed support that we can achieve the aim of providing a first rate education for our children. Give us that support and help us to do the job.
Help me to stand here next year and report that we are on the way to becoming the society we aspire to being with an education system which is fast becoming the envy of all of our neighbours everywhere.
Happy Liberation Day. "
Maybe we can learn something from our parallel twin?
Showing posts with label Parental care. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Parental care. Show all posts
Friday, 9 May 2014
Saturday, 2 November 2013
A sensible decision?
So the deed is done.
The States have, after much debate, agreed Education’s proposals to close two local schools. It's probably just as well that this proposal was somewhat sprung on everyone only relatively shortly before the States debate as the arguments in favour were becoming thinner by the week.
On balance I suspect that a multi form entry school does provide better opportunities for their intake but it is also true that smaller class sizes are better than larger ones. You might hope that Education will now seize the chance to do both but I fear we will just end up with larger class sizes in bigger schools.
I also suspect that we will now begin to see a little more of the iceberg which is the ongoing development of the primary sector. As always, the focus will be on buildings and structure instead of the improvement of the education of Guernsey’s children because this is a department which seems determined to keep it’s ex-director in a job rather than address the real issues.
Without putting ideas into the heads of those shamen who have the vision for the future of education on this small island, I’d suggest that a really good teacher could inspire sitting under a tree and with just a blackboard.
It’s a bit like cooking. Start with the best ingredients and you can’t go far wrong. Throw in a few extras, technical gadgets and skills, and the results might become extraordinary but the foundation remains those good ingredients. So instead of building new schools, make a concerted and long term effort to spend money on the improvement of teaching skills. There are already some excellent teachers out there and you should know who they are. Now bring the rest up to this standard or make some hard decisions and replace a few of the less able.
Of course the other main ingredient in this educational recipe are the kids themselves. In some schools quality seems in short supply and in most there are an increasing number of children who need additional support. Indeed, there are a lot of kids who are turning up on the first day just not prepared for school. Sadly parental skills are not what they used to be in a lot of families and it is the kids who are paying the price.
But back to the things that our Education department might have some control over.
How about talking to teachers? How about trusting them to do their job? How about asking them where savings might be made and how best to spend the money we have got?
As an aside and ironically I read that another branch of our so called joined up government is currently looking to spend £900k to promote our finance industry into new markets.
That’s £100k more than Education hope to gain by closing these two schools.
When I last looked, the Finance industry was made up of commercial businesses, all making substantial profits and paying not too much tax. All are quite capable of supporting themselves and to my mind none deserve a handout from the States (i.e. The taxpayers pocket!)
As has been proved on many an occasion, the Finance industry holds absolutely no loyalty to this Island. The moment an office becomes non-profitable to it’s parent organisation it will close or relocate. It’s as simple as that and no amount of spending or wishful thinking will change matters.
Does such an industry deserve a spend of £900k?
Let’s hope our newly emboldened States decide otherwise.
And talking of savings, when are we going to see a report on the central citadel of our Education department? Surely it’s time to lift that particular rock and have a good hard look.
Let’s wait and see shall we?
Just like we’ll wait and see if all the promises of a smooth transition will be kept and that the receiving schools will not be adversely affected by these changes.
No doubt we’ll also have to wait and see if this exercise does actually save any money. Unless it gets kicked into the log grass I expect we will see any savings trumpeted into the headlines whilst all of those above the line costs will be shifted elsewhere and out of the limelight.
After all, that’s now it works here isn’t it?
The States have, after much debate, agreed Education’s proposals to close two local schools. It's probably just as well that this proposal was somewhat sprung on everyone only relatively shortly before the States debate as the arguments in favour were becoming thinner by the week.
On balance I suspect that a multi form entry school does provide better opportunities for their intake but it is also true that smaller class sizes are better than larger ones. You might hope that Education will now seize the chance to do both but I fear we will just end up with larger class sizes in bigger schools.
I also suspect that we will now begin to see a little more of the iceberg which is the ongoing development of the primary sector. As always, the focus will be on buildings and structure instead of the improvement of the education of Guernsey’s children because this is a department which seems determined to keep it’s ex-director in a job rather than address the real issues.
Without putting ideas into the heads of those shamen who have the vision for the future of education on this small island, I’d suggest that a really good teacher could inspire sitting under a tree and with just a blackboard.
It’s a bit like cooking. Start with the best ingredients and you can’t go far wrong. Throw in a few extras, technical gadgets and skills, and the results might become extraordinary but the foundation remains those good ingredients. So instead of building new schools, make a concerted and long term effort to spend money on the improvement of teaching skills. There are already some excellent teachers out there and you should know who they are. Now bring the rest up to this standard or make some hard decisions and replace a few of the less able.
Of course the other main ingredient in this educational recipe are the kids themselves. In some schools quality seems in short supply and in most there are an increasing number of children who need additional support. Indeed, there are a lot of kids who are turning up on the first day just not prepared for school. Sadly parental skills are not what they used to be in a lot of families and it is the kids who are paying the price.
But back to the things that our Education department might have some control over.
How about talking to teachers? How about trusting them to do their job? How about asking them where savings might be made and how best to spend the money we have got?
As an aside and ironically I read that another branch of our so called joined up government is currently looking to spend £900k to promote our finance industry into new markets.
That’s £100k more than Education hope to gain by closing these two schools.
When I last looked, the Finance industry was made up of commercial businesses, all making substantial profits and paying not too much tax. All are quite capable of supporting themselves and to my mind none deserve a handout from the States (i.e. The taxpayers pocket!)
As has been proved on many an occasion, the Finance industry holds absolutely no loyalty to this Island. The moment an office becomes non-profitable to it’s parent organisation it will close or relocate. It’s as simple as that and no amount of spending or wishful thinking will change matters.
Does such an industry deserve a spend of £900k?
Let’s hope our newly emboldened States decide otherwise.
And talking of savings, when are we going to see a report on the central citadel of our Education department? Surely it’s time to lift that particular rock and have a good hard look.
Let’s wait and see shall we?
Just like we’ll wait and see if all the promises of a smooth transition will be kept and that the receiving schools will not be adversely affected by these changes.
No doubt we’ll also have to wait and see if this exercise does actually save any money. Unless it gets kicked into the log grass I expect we will see any savings trumpeted into the headlines whilst all of those above the line costs will be shifted elsewhere and out of the limelight.
After all, that’s now it works here isn’t it?
Thursday, 12 September 2013
Solving the crisis in our Secondary Schools
It’s that time of the year when Guernsey moans about the poor GCSE results from our secondary schools and then fails to do anything meaningful about it.
Difficult problems demand radical solutions which is why I have invented the KTF Programme (© pending) which is guaranteed to bring our results up to scratch.
At the start of the GCSE year our teachers already produce a list of predicted grades for all of their pupils. By this time it is therefore already clear, give or take a 10% margin of error, which students will fail to obtain the minimum acceptable levels of qualifications.
What I propose is to enrol the bottom 90% of those designated failing students into the KTF Programme and remove them from the exam system. The remainder will go through the year, sit the exams, and, if predictions are correct, the school will obtain a near 90% success rate.
Problem solved.
Not only is the school now performing above expected standards but precious resources available to that year group are no longer being wasted on those who will never make the grade. Instead, efforts can be concentrated on improving the performance of those more likely to succeed.
The details of the KTF Programme are still to be worked out but I strongly recommend that whatever form of euthanasia is decided upon it be both humane and cost efficient.
What should be borne in mind is the overall cost saving to our community over the longer term. A lot of the KTF Programme cohort will always be a future drain on our society either through the prison system or any of the other multiple agencies presently dedicated to saving the unstable and unsavable. A large number would otherwise also be a constant drain on our social service system which this programme now removes.
Not only is there a reduction on the overall population of this already crowded Island, the overall quality of our society cannot be but constantly improved by this radical programme.
It has much to recommend it.
I am sure that there will be some critics of this proposal and I must say I agree. Why wait until the GCSE year to make this cull? Why waste five years of effort and resource on the unredeemable?
Admittedly there are a large number of children who are late developers so I would propose only enrolling the bottom 10-20% of the Year Six cohort in the KTF Programme which will allow for any potential late blooming. Even this low proportion will reduce the burden on our secondary schools and in itself will undoubtedly improve results come GCSE time.
For the critics of this phase of the KTF Programme I would remind them that we are only talking about a maximum KTF intake per year of some 70 students out of about 350. A small but significant drain on an already hard pressed system.
Is this not a sacrifice worth making for the overall good of the Island?
There is also the potential spin off advantage of implementing the KTF Programme in that it might encourage a more focussed approach by Guernsey students themselves and perhaps evoke more interest and participation of the parents in the education of their offspring which again may result in improved grades come GCSE time.
As usual I suspect that our Education Department will fail to take notice let alone implement this scheme despite the fact that it will solve what is seemingly an intractable problem for them. It would seem that they are too busy administrating an already broken system to spend time on actually fixing things.
So, same time next year then?
PS
This suggestion should be taken seriously but not in the way proposed. Euthanasia is never the solution but the question needs to be asked; why are we continuing to try to force education on those who we already know cannot meet the standards set for a successful school?
Remove even the bottom 20% of those failing individuals from our secondary schools and you will give the schools a chance of actually succeeding at their primary job, which is educating our children to the minimum required standard set by the UK.
What to do with this 20% is a different question but I suspect that a small dedicated school with professional remedial teachers might be the answer.
Difficult problems demand radical solutions which is why I have invented the KTF Programme (© pending) which is guaranteed to bring our results up to scratch.
At the start of the GCSE year our teachers already produce a list of predicted grades for all of their pupils. By this time it is therefore already clear, give or take a 10% margin of error, which students will fail to obtain the minimum acceptable levels of qualifications.
What I propose is to enrol the bottom 90% of those designated failing students into the KTF Programme and remove them from the exam system. The remainder will go through the year, sit the exams, and, if predictions are correct, the school will obtain a near 90% success rate.
Problem solved.
Not only is the school now performing above expected standards but precious resources available to that year group are no longer being wasted on those who will never make the grade. Instead, efforts can be concentrated on improving the performance of those more likely to succeed.
The details of the KTF Programme are still to be worked out but I strongly recommend that whatever form of euthanasia is decided upon it be both humane and cost efficient.
What should be borne in mind is the overall cost saving to our community over the longer term. A lot of the KTF Programme cohort will always be a future drain on our society either through the prison system or any of the other multiple agencies presently dedicated to saving the unstable and unsavable. A large number would otherwise also be a constant drain on our social service system which this programme now removes.
Not only is there a reduction on the overall population of this already crowded Island, the overall quality of our society cannot be but constantly improved by this radical programme.
It has much to recommend it.
I am sure that there will be some critics of this proposal and I must say I agree. Why wait until the GCSE year to make this cull? Why waste five years of effort and resource on the unredeemable?
Admittedly there are a large number of children who are late developers so I would propose only enrolling the bottom 10-20% of the Year Six cohort in the KTF Programme which will allow for any potential late blooming. Even this low proportion will reduce the burden on our secondary schools and in itself will undoubtedly improve results come GCSE time.
For the critics of this phase of the KTF Programme I would remind them that we are only talking about a maximum KTF intake per year of some 70 students out of about 350. A small but significant drain on an already hard pressed system.
Is this not a sacrifice worth making for the overall good of the Island?
There is also the potential spin off advantage of implementing the KTF Programme in that it might encourage a more focussed approach by Guernsey students themselves and perhaps evoke more interest and participation of the parents in the education of their offspring which again may result in improved grades come GCSE time.
As usual I suspect that our Education Department will fail to take notice let alone implement this scheme despite the fact that it will solve what is seemingly an intractable problem for them. It would seem that they are too busy administrating an already broken system to spend time on actually fixing things.
So, same time next year then?
PS
This suggestion should be taken seriously but not in the way proposed. Euthanasia is never the solution but the question needs to be asked; why are we continuing to try to force education on those who we already know cannot meet the standards set for a successful school?
Remove even the bottom 20% of those failing individuals from our secondary schools and you will give the schools a chance of actually succeeding at their primary job, which is educating our children to the minimum required standard set by the UK.
What to do with this 20% is a different question but I suspect that a small dedicated school with professional remedial teachers might be the answer.
Friday, 14 June 2013
How to save a million pounds
I have an idea which can potentially save Guernsey a million pounds every five years.
Scrap child benefits.
Change the rules so that nobody has an automatic right to receive this benefit from the state system.
This will cause discomfort to some and hardship to others but that is the cost of saving money. Someone has to suffer.
I know this idea sounds somewhat to the right of Ghengis Khan politically but bear with me.
Only provide support to those who need it. Those individuals and families who could not survive without the financial support currently provided by the benefit system.
But if we’re to keep paying these needy people then why suggest the change in the first place?
Because a lot of benefit money is going every year to people who don’t really need it.
Child benefit is currently paid for every child born in Guernsey. It doesn’t matter if the family struggle to feed the existing mouths or merely struggle to decide whether to take the nanny on holiday with them or leave the children behind.
Admittedly this is at the extreme but there are a lot of families for whom this benefit is a nice bonus rather than a dire necessity.
So why are we paying money to high income earners or those who are relatively wealthy?
There will be the argument that a change is to difficult to administer and will cost more than it saves. But why?
How difficult is it to work out a family’s income level? Doesn’t the tax office have this information?
Perhaps they’re too busy and can’t be disturbed. Then why not get people who wish to apply for this support to submit their tax coding notice?
At present, I estimate that child benefit costs the States some £490,000 per year (based on current birth rates and a population of 62,000).
Being such an affluent Island I suspect that up to 50% of those families currently benefiting earn more than the average Island wage. That’s a potential saving of £245,000 a year and with less people benefiting, the overall workload, including the means testing element, should be about the same.
But before we leave child benefit, we also need to stop the baby factories. Those mothers which keep having children in part because it pays them to do so.
Change the law, to take effect in 9 months time, so that child benefit is paid only to the mother and only for the first three children; a limit which will encourage some population growth without allowing people to milk the system.
If you want additional kids then earn enough to pay for their needs. If you have a religious objection to family planning then let your church support you. Otherwise act responsibly and live within your means.
Scrap child benefits.
Change the rules so that nobody has an automatic right to receive this benefit from the state system.
This will cause discomfort to some and hardship to others but that is the cost of saving money. Someone has to suffer.
I know this idea sounds somewhat to the right of Ghengis Khan politically but bear with me.
Only provide support to those who need it. Those individuals and families who could not survive without the financial support currently provided by the benefit system.
But if we’re to keep paying these needy people then why suggest the change in the first place?
Because a lot of benefit money is going every year to people who don’t really need it.
Child benefit is currently paid for every child born in Guernsey. It doesn’t matter if the family struggle to feed the existing mouths or merely struggle to decide whether to take the nanny on holiday with them or leave the children behind.
Admittedly this is at the extreme but there are a lot of families for whom this benefit is a nice bonus rather than a dire necessity.
So why are we paying money to high income earners or those who are relatively wealthy?
There will be the argument that a change is to difficult to administer and will cost more than it saves. But why?
How difficult is it to work out a family’s income level? Doesn’t the tax office have this information?
Perhaps they’re too busy and can’t be disturbed. Then why not get people who wish to apply for this support to submit their tax coding notice?
At present, I estimate that child benefit costs the States some £490,000 per year (based on current birth rates and a population of 62,000).
Being such an affluent Island I suspect that up to 50% of those families currently benefiting earn more than the average Island wage. That’s a potential saving of £245,000 a year and with less people benefiting, the overall workload, including the means testing element, should be about the same.
But before we leave child benefit, we also need to stop the baby factories. Those mothers which keep having children in part because it pays them to do so.
Change the law, to take effect in 9 months time, so that child benefit is paid only to the mother and only for the first three children; a limit which will encourage some population growth without allowing people to milk the system.
If you want additional kids then earn enough to pay for their needs. If you have a religious objection to family planning then let your church support you. Otherwise act responsibly and live within your means.
Saturday, 13 October 2012
Why are some kids thick?
Education standards of some school leavers are falling and we are busy blaming the secondary schools who blame the primary schools who blame the parents who blame the…
But where might the real problem lie and more importantly, what can we do about it?
To be clear though that we are only talking about a proportion of our school output. Most of those in selective education seem to be able to achieve high standards at GCSE and A level and move on to university. There are also a number from our secondary schools who move into the sixth form and also make similar progress.
But what of this seemingly growing portion of leavers who lack even basic educational skills? What is going wrong where?
Let’s break down the problem into it’s possible causes.
• The children themselves
• Their influences
• Their education
Are more children thicker than they used to be?
Yes, I know it’s not a PC term but I can’t be bothered to reel out the growing number of acronyms explaining why Johnny can’t read, write, or even behave “normally”.
Maybe it’s been there all of the time but we seem to be seeing more children with this growing list of problems which can’t be cured, only contained.
But if this is the case, why isn’t it affecting children worldwide?
Why are our education systems failing and others succeeding?
Are they curing these alphabet diseases or do they have better ways of coping?
This link suggests the latter
http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/programmes/support-for-children-special-needs/
It’s amazing what you can do when you invest at the coalface rather than in the buildings or in central control.
Dyslexia doesn’t mean that you’re thick. It means that you have trouble reading and writing. In a pre-literate society it wouldn’t matter, but when everything we do is tied to these wiggly letter things, including exams, then dyslexics are set up to fail unless they are taught by dyslexic specialists who know how to help.
Attention deficit problems can be reduced but again it needs time money and attention. Otherwise it becomes a wider issue and problem.
But maybe we’re bringing up our children differently and the base material which the schools have to work with is already damaged by the time it gets there. This moves us on to influences.
A child is influenced by it’s genetic build up, it’s diet, and it’s environment, including parents, peers, and the wider society.
As the Guernsey saying has it, “The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree”. We tend to be like our parents and it is rare for bright parents to produce thick kids. Many schools have their problem families. It doesn’t mean that the product of these families is automatically tarred with the same brush but it is strange that some family names keep cropping up when discussing problem children.
How do you teach a child to read?
You start reading to the child from as young an age as possible on a daily basis. The child sees you reading yourself for pleasure and grows up understanding that books are enjoyable things. You encourage the child to examine books with you and talk about the pictures and nursery rhymes etc. By the time these kids get to school, they already have an eagerness to learn how to explore books for themselves.
What you don’t do is actively decry reading, have no books in the house, and ignore your child even when they do bring books home from school. You don’t leave it all to the teachers and then blame them when your kid can’t read.
But what’s the point in blaming parents who aren’t equipped to do any better? If we want to get a better raw product into our schools then we need to act sooner. How we do that is beyond the scope of this blog but it’s a problem worth solving.
Let’s move outside of the home and into our wider society. How much do we value our teachers?
Well, if you are reading this blog then you need to thank your teachers whether you liked them or not.
It is easy to blame the teachers. We throw all of this money at them, entrust them with our children, and we still end up with miserable exam results. It’s the teachers fault!
Well, maybe.
But when you have had an education system which was rotting from the top down, it might be difficult to even criticise let alone get remedial action and support from central control. After all, our secondary system was second to none and far better than the UK.
Couldn’t have anything upsetting that particular fairy story.
There are some poor teachers and there are some who need to leave the profession. But look around your own place of work. Isn’t this the case everywhere?
Listen to the Guernsey grapevine.
“Oh, I wouldn’t go to that doctor if I were you”
Or to the gossip in your office
“Avoid her in accounts, she’s useless”
We need to accept the fact that most teachers do a good job and that as a whole, the profession needs a bit more respect that it gets from our society and from our press.
Children start off by valuing what their parents value and by what their peers and society values. If their minds are already poisoned against education, learning, and teachers then no wonder these kids act up in school.
Finally we need to look at our education process. Many argue that the 11+ system is outdated and consigns too many of our children to failure at too early an age.
But even before we address this problem, do we have any idea what we are trying to achieve through education?
The present emphasis seems to be on achieving set standards which is currently measured by exam results. Is it surprising therefore that our secondary schools trail their selective competitors? After all, their intake has already proved itself at the age of 11 as being not as good at passing exams.
Perhaps we need to measure added value.
Most Guernsey children sit a standardised test at the age of 11 (the 11 plus) and again at the age of 16 (GCSE’s). Our Education Dept should know the results for both and can compare individual children’s performance in each. Some trends must be visible.
The downside however is that we become fixated by data collection. Children end up sitting more and more tests and teachers collecting more and more data, and of course evidencing every child’s progress through every subject.
Let’s take say literacy and have a simple 10 point measurement; ten areas of literacy to be tested and judged. That should be enough to gauge progress through the year. Best to make it black and white though; either they have the skill or not.
So we get each teacher to measure their class at the start of the year; that’s (say) 25 kids times 10 points which gives 250 marks to work out and of course to evidence.
No point in measuring again only at the end of the year though as it’s then too late to do anything about it, so we’d better measure say four times a year. That’s now 1000 marks to assess, plus progress reports plus evidence.
Say it takes 5 minutes per child to assess each area and evidence the work, which means taking a copy and recording it somewhere.
That works out at 5000 minutes a year which is 83 hours, or about 2 hours a week just recording data.
Now do the same for Maths and you’re looking at half a day a week recording data. Of course, hardly any of this can be done during school time as teachers are in front of their classes and teaching.
Instead we’ll ask already busy teachers to spend extra time recording data to prove what they already know. They already know just what every child in their class can achieve and they already know where extra help is needed.
They also know where such help won’t be forthcoming from home and where whatever they try to do, the child is already doomed because of their background and home life. Doesn’t mean they stop trying though.
And measuring all of these data still doesn’t answer the question of what we’re looking for from a Guernsey education.
Remember though that we’re still talking about the thick kids. The rest are doing all right and moving off to Uni or into good jobs. It is the thick one’s which are becoming unemployable.
So let’s teach them to read and to write. To have some basic skill in Maths at an every day practical level. To be able to work in groups and to be able to express themselves.
Basically, to be able to become a useful member of society and to be able to get and hold down a job.
It’s a low aspiration but it is for those with no aspirations for themselves other than getting on TV or more likely getting on the dole.
But why should they bother when they are going into a society which rewards failure. Where we have a support system which gives houses to feckless single mothers of many whilst ignoring the needs of those struggling on low wages to support themselves.
But that’s another rant for another day.
But where might the real problem lie and more importantly, what can we do about it?
To be clear though that we are only talking about a proportion of our school output. Most of those in selective education seem to be able to achieve high standards at GCSE and A level and move on to university. There are also a number from our secondary schools who move into the sixth form and also make similar progress.
But what of this seemingly growing portion of leavers who lack even basic educational skills? What is going wrong where?
Let’s break down the problem into it’s possible causes.
• The children themselves
• Their influences
• Their education
Are more children thicker than they used to be?
Yes, I know it’s not a PC term but I can’t be bothered to reel out the growing number of acronyms explaining why Johnny can’t read, write, or even behave “normally”.
Maybe it’s been there all of the time but we seem to be seeing more children with this growing list of problems which can’t be cured, only contained.
But if this is the case, why isn’t it affecting children worldwide?
Why are our education systems failing and others succeeding?
Are they curing these alphabet diseases or do they have better ways of coping?
This link suggests the latter
http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/programmes/support-for-children-special-needs/
It’s amazing what you can do when you invest at the coalface rather than in the buildings or in central control.
Dyslexia doesn’t mean that you’re thick. It means that you have trouble reading and writing. In a pre-literate society it wouldn’t matter, but when everything we do is tied to these wiggly letter things, including exams, then dyslexics are set up to fail unless they are taught by dyslexic specialists who know how to help.
Attention deficit problems can be reduced but again it needs time money and attention. Otherwise it becomes a wider issue and problem.
But maybe we’re bringing up our children differently and the base material which the schools have to work with is already damaged by the time it gets there. This moves us on to influences.
A child is influenced by it’s genetic build up, it’s diet, and it’s environment, including parents, peers, and the wider society.
As the Guernsey saying has it, “The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree”. We tend to be like our parents and it is rare for bright parents to produce thick kids. Many schools have their problem families. It doesn’t mean that the product of these families is automatically tarred with the same brush but it is strange that some family names keep cropping up when discussing problem children.
How do you teach a child to read?
You start reading to the child from as young an age as possible on a daily basis. The child sees you reading yourself for pleasure and grows up understanding that books are enjoyable things. You encourage the child to examine books with you and talk about the pictures and nursery rhymes etc. By the time these kids get to school, they already have an eagerness to learn how to explore books for themselves.
What you don’t do is actively decry reading, have no books in the house, and ignore your child even when they do bring books home from school. You don’t leave it all to the teachers and then blame them when your kid can’t read.
But what’s the point in blaming parents who aren’t equipped to do any better? If we want to get a better raw product into our schools then we need to act sooner. How we do that is beyond the scope of this blog but it’s a problem worth solving.
Let’s move outside of the home and into our wider society. How much do we value our teachers?
Well, if you are reading this blog then you need to thank your teachers whether you liked them or not.
It is easy to blame the teachers. We throw all of this money at them, entrust them with our children, and we still end up with miserable exam results. It’s the teachers fault!
Well, maybe.
But when you have had an education system which was rotting from the top down, it might be difficult to even criticise let alone get remedial action and support from central control. After all, our secondary system was second to none and far better than the UK.
Couldn’t have anything upsetting that particular fairy story.
There are some poor teachers and there are some who need to leave the profession. But look around your own place of work. Isn’t this the case everywhere?
Listen to the Guernsey grapevine.
“Oh, I wouldn’t go to that doctor if I were you”
Or to the gossip in your office
“Avoid her in accounts, she’s useless”
We need to accept the fact that most teachers do a good job and that as a whole, the profession needs a bit more respect that it gets from our society and from our press.
Children start off by valuing what their parents value and by what their peers and society values. If their minds are already poisoned against education, learning, and teachers then no wonder these kids act up in school.
Finally we need to look at our education process. Many argue that the 11+ system is outdated and consigns too many of our children to failure at too early an age.
But even before we address this problem, do we have any idea what we are trying to achieve through education?
The present emphasis seems to be on achieving set standards which is currently measured by exam results. Is it surprising therefore that our secondary schools trail their selective competitors? After all, their intake has already proved itself at the age of 11 as being not as good at passing exams.
Perhaps we need to measure added value.
Most Guernsey children sit a standardised test at the age of 11 (the 11 plus) and again at the age of 16 (GCSE’s). Our Education Dept should know the results for both and can compare individual children’s performance in each. Some trends must be visible.
The downside however is that we become fixated by data collection. Children end up sitting more and more tests and teachers collecting more and more data, and of course evidencing every child’s progress through every subject.
Let’s take say literacy and have a simple 10 point measurement; ten areas of literacy to be tested and judged. That should be enough to gauge progress through the year. Best to make it black and white though; either they have the skill or not.
So we get each teacher to measure their class at the start of the year; that’s (say) 25 kids times 10 points which gives 250 marks to work out and of course to evidence.
No point in measuring again only at the end of the year though as it’s then too late to do anything about it, so we’d better measure say four times a year. That’s now 1000 marks to assess, plus progress reports plus evidence.
Say it takes 5 minutes per child to assess each area and evidence the work, which means taking a copy and recording it somewhere.
That works out at 5000 minutes a year which is 83 hours, or about 2 hours a week just recording data.
Now do the same for Maths and you’re looking at half a day a week recording data. Of course, hardly any of this can be done during school time as teachers are in front of their classes and teaching.
Instead we’ll ask already busy teachers to spend extra time recording data to prove what they already know. They already know just what every child in their class can achieve and they already know where extra help is needed.
They also know where such help won’t be forthcoming from home and where whatever they try to do, the child is already doomed because of their background and home life. Doesn’t mean they stop trying though.
And measuring all of these data still doesn’t answer the question of what we’re looking for from a Guernsey education.
Remember though that we’re still talking about the thick kids. The rest are doing all right and moving off to Uni or into good jobs. It is the thick one’s which are becoming unemployable.
So let’s teach them to read and to write. To have some basic skill in Maths at an every day practical level. To be able to work in groups and to be able to express themselves.
Basically, to be able to become a useful member of society and to be able to get and hold down a job.
It’s a low aspiration but it is for those with no aspirations for themselves other than getting on TV or more likely getting on the dole.
But why should they bother when they are going into a society which rewards failure. Where we have a support system which gives houses to feckless single mothers of many whilst ignoring the needs of those struggling on low wages to support themselves.
But that’s another rant for another day.
Saturday, 7 July 2012
Getting by
I have a theory.
I believe that for any given situation, everyone does the best they can at that particular moment.
It is so easy to criticise but if you knew the whole story for that person up to and including that moment, then you would understand why, in your eyes, they’re performing so badly.
Bad parenting isn’t usually done on purpose. It can be the result of a long series of events which may stretch back generations. You might even know that you’re a rubbish Dad but you are doing the best that you can.
The dozy driver cutting you up on the filter box may still have her mind on the sick baby she has left with the childminder and her boss’s threat to sack her if she takes any more time off. She isn’t driving like an idiot deliberately.
Making a decision to install traffic lights must have seemed like a good idea at the time. Maybe they couldn’t be bothered to think it through but it was the best they could do just then.
Look at your own life.
We spend most of our day working below peak efficiency. We hope to get all of the big decisions right but know that some of the smaller stuff could have gone better. We can also give you several reasons why we’re not firing at 100% all of the time. Several very logical and understandable reasons.
Logical and understandable to us that is.
Anyone else might regard it as the act of a half wit, especially if you happen to be a deputy or civil servant or in the public eye.
If my theory is right, then mistakes are inevitable. All of us are going to get it wrong some of the time and maybe most of the time during times of personal crisis.
We are all going to make mistakes so why not live with that idea.
You are not defined by the mistakes you make; you are defined by the way you recover from those mistakes; what you learn from them.
“I’m sorry, I was wrong. I apologise”.
Some time ago in London, the police ended up prosecuting a black mother for assault after forcing entry into her house to support bailiffs who, it later turned out, had got the wrong property. The case got thrown out on appeal and the police apologised to the lady.
Not only that but a senior policeman went to the family church that Sunday and repeated the apology in front of the whole congregation.
“I’m sorry. We were wrong”
No explanations or justifications. Just a sincere apology.
They could have just written a letter but someone, somewhere was working above optimal performance that day. They did the right thing and everyone’s reputation was improved.
On a personal level, the best we can hope for is to learn from our mistakes and stop repeating them. We’ll still mess up occasionally but hopefully not so often and in different and more entertaining ways.
As I said at the start, this is only a theory but it’s one I’m using until something better comes along. I might be mistaken but it’s the best I can do for now.
I believe that for any given situation, everyone does the best they can at that particular moment.
It is so easy to criticise but if you knew the whole story for that person up to and including that moment, then you would understand why, in your eyes, they’re performing so badly.
Bad parenting isn’t usually done on purpose. It can be the result of a long series of events which may stretch back generations. You might even know that you’re a rubbish Dad but you are doing the best that you can.
The dozy driver cutting you up on the filter box may still have her mind on the sick baby she has left with the childminder and her boss’s threat to sack her if she takes any more time off. She isn’t driving like an idiot deliberately.
Making a decision to install traffic lights must have seemed like a good idea at the time. Maybe they couldn’t be bothered to think it through but it was the best they could do just then.
Look at your own life.
We spend most of our day working below peak efficiency. We hope to get all of the big decisions right but know that some of the smaller stuff could have gone better. We can also give you several reasons why we’re not firing at 100% all of the time. Several very logical and understandable reasons.
Logical and understandable to us that is.
Anyone else might regard it as the act of a half wit, especially if you happen to be a deputy or civil servant or in the public eye.
If my theory is right, then mistakes are inevitable. All of us are going to get it wrong some of the time and maybe most of the time during times of personal crisis.
We are all going to make mistakes so why not live with that idea.
You are not defined by the mistakes you make; you are defined by the way you recover from those mistakes; what you learn from them.
“I’m sorry, I was wrong. I apologise”.
Some time ago in London, the police ended up prosecuting a black mother for assault after forcing entry into her house to support bailiffs who, it later turned out, had got the wrong property. The case got thrown out on appeal and the police apologised to the lady.
Not only that but a senior policeman went to the family church that Sunday and repeated the apology in front of the whole congregation.
“I’m sorry. We were wrong”
No explanations or justifications. Just a sincere apology.
They could have just written a letter but someone, somewhere was working above optimal performance that day. They did the right thing and everyone’s reputation was improved.
On a personal level, the best we can hope for is to learn from our mistakes and stop repeating them. We’ll still mess up occasionally but hopefully not so often and in different and more entertaining ways.
As I said at the start, this is only a theory but it’s one I’m using until something better comes along. I might be mistaken but it’s the best I can do for now.
Saturday, 23 June 2012
Whatever happened to Respect?
So our deputies have been instructed by the Chief Minister to treat each other with respect.
What an indictment that such an instruction need be given in the first place.
But I suppose it just reflects our current society.
When I was growing up, the default position was to show respect until proved otherwise.
Slowly that drifted as the mantra changed to “You’ve got to earn respect”.
So where does that leave us today?
Disaffected teenagers demanding respect whilst giving none. A significant proportion of our population actively distrusting anyone in authority. Parents auto-defaulting to support of their offspring in any argument with their school or teachers regardless of circumstance and police officers treated as the enemy.
Respect seems to equate to servility and as everyone knows, we are all equal these days regardless of upbringing or education.
Even our language now lacks words of respect.
The Japanese can add “san” or “sama” after a name to denote respect and some Americans have retained “M’am” for the same reason.
What do we have?
“Sir” has strong echoes of servility, and “Madam” has fallen out of use unless describing the proprietress of a bawdy house.
Those of us not in regular contact with Her Majesty have never taken to “M’am” and “Missus” without a name attached bounces straight to the poorer edges of UK cities some decades back. There are the regional familiarities of “Love”, “Duck” etc but none indicate any respect.
Maybe Guernsey French retains such honorifics but even if it does, too few would understand.
Language has deserted us in our hour of need.
Most schools still insist on pupils using “Sir” or “Miss” but this becomes a little more grudgingly used during the teenage years as the mantra takes hold.
In the trendy past, formality was seen as a barrier to effective relationship building which gave rise to the “Call me Jeff” brigade.
But in a lot of cases it was and still is wrong for Jeff to try to pretend egalitarianism. He's not a mate, he's an advisor.
Another barrier is that people do not like to feel they are being told what to do. It offends their cult of the individual even though most don’t want to be too individual and keenly check what everyone else is doing to ensure an acceptable modicum of non-conformity.
Maybe we need to go back to those rose tinted halcyon days when respect was given automatically regardless of status, but we just can’t get there from here.
Perhaps instead we should each follow today’s mantra and start earning respect by living and behaving as someone who generates rather than deserves it.
How might we do this?
Think about who you could respect and ask why. What might they do which would cause you to want to respect them?
Then take those traits or behaviours and reflect them in your own life.
It’s an adaptation of the Golden Rule which is far older and wiser than any modern mantra.
Not long after BC became AD, a rabbi was challenged to recite the whole of the Jewish Torah (their bible) whilst standing on one leg.
Rabbi Hillel hoisted himself stork like and replied
“What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour. That is the whole of the Torah, the rest is commentary. Go and learn it!”
Still sounds like good advice, even for deputies.
What an indictment that such an instruction need be given in the first place.
But I suppose it just reflects our current society.
When I was growing up, the default position was to show respect until proved otherwise.
Slowly that drifted as the mantra changed to “You’ve got to earn respect”.
So where does that leave us today?
Disaffected teenagers demanding respect whilst giving none. A significant proportion of our population actively distrusting anyone in authority. Parents auto-defaulting to support of their offspring in any argument with their school or teachers regardless of circumstance and police officers treated as the enemy.
Respect seems to equate to servility and as everyone knows, we are all equal these days regardless of upbringing or education.
Even our language now lacks words of respect.
The Japanese can add “san” or “sama” after a name to denote respect and some Americans have retained “M’am” for the same reason.
What do we have?
“Sir” has strong echoes of servility, and “Madam” has fallen out of use unless describing the proprietress of a bawdy house.
Those of us not in regular contact with Her Majesty have never taken to “M’am” and “Missus” without a name attached bounces straight to the poorer edges of UK cities some decades back. There are the regional familiarities of “Love”, “Duck” etc but none indicate any respect.
Maybe Guernsey French retains such honorifics but even if it does, too few would understand.
Language has deserted us in our hour of need.
Most schools still insist on pupils using “Sir” or “Miss” but this becomes a little more grudgingly used during the teenage years as the mantra takes hold.
In the trendy past, formality was seen as a barrier to effective relationship building which gave rise to the “Call me Jeff” brigade.
But in a lot of cases it was and still is wrong for Jeff to try to pretend egalitarianism. He's not a mate, he's an advisor.
Another barrier is that people do not like to feel they are being told what to do. It offends their cult of the individual even though most don’t want to be too individual and keenly check what everyone else is doing to ensure an acceptable modicum of non-conformity.
Maybe we need to go back to those rose tinted halcyon days when respect was given automatically regardless of status, but we just can’t get there from here.
Perhaps instead we should each follow today’s mantra and start earning respect by living and behaving as someone who generates rather than deserves it.
How might we do this?
Think about who you could respect and ask why. What might they do which would cause you to want to respect them?
Then take those traits or behaviours and reflect them in your own life.
It’s an adaptation of the Golden Rule which is far older and wiser than any modern mantra.
Not long after BC became AD, a rabbi was challenged to recite the whole of the Jewish Torah (their bible) whilst standing on one leg.
Rabbi Hillel hoisted himself stork like and replied
“What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour. That is the whole of the Torah, the rest is commentary. Go and learn it!”
Still sounds like good advice, even for deputies.
Sunday, 15 April 2012
Brought up or dragged up?
Are children born bad, or do we make them that way?
Yes, it’s the old Nature versus Nurture debate.
Recent study suggests that as a race we are remarkably pliable as infants. Our brains are born semi made and open to molding.
This is how we easily become human and learn all of the things that we take for granted in later life. Walking, talking and all of the other stuff.
English is reckoned to be one of the most difficult languages to learn and yet by an early age most of us have learned the basics.
Whilst we have genetic dispositions towards certain things, gifts or curses from our parents or grandparents, we also have the ability to become our own person dependent on the circumstances of our upbringing.
So basically, parents get two attempts to screw up your life. They can give you a poor genetic makeup and they can give you a bad upbringing.
As a society, we can’t yet do much about genetic makeup, and I fear the day when we can. But we can do something about the way in which our children are brought up.
Most parents do a reasonable job, even without a manual, but hardly anyone gets everything right. Even after the early stages are passed, there are still many trials to face and life can throw some tough breaks at even the best family.
So we end up with some broken individuals. Am I worrying about an insignificant minority?
Read our newspaper and you might suggest that it is not such an insignificant minority who are getting into trouble.
Somewhere, we as an Island society are going wrong and it isn’t getting any better.
We now have the spiral of despair.
Parents who don’t know how to parent, because of their own upbringing, and children of those parents now having kids of their own.
The trouble is that, as a kid, you take what life throws at you as normal until you see differently. Half of the stuff we take for granted is a foreign country to some. Why read to your child if nobody ever read to you? Why not let them play violent computer games; you did.
It’s not trying to impose nice middle class standards into the estates. It’s trying to find ways of improving the childhood experience to minimise the problems we are later seeing with some of our youngsters.
We can’t change nature but we can do something about the quality of nurture that we as a society give to our young.
What this means in practical terms, I don’t know. Perhaps you can add to the debate?
Yes, it’s the old Nature versus Nurture debate.
Recent study suggests that as a race we are remarkably pliable as infants. Our brains are born semi made and open to molding.
This is how we easily become human and learn all of the things that we take for granted in later life. Walking, talking and all of the other stuff.
English is reckoned to be one of the most difficult languages to learn and yet by an early age most of us have learned the basics.
Whilst we have genetic dispositions towards certain things, gifts or curses from our parents or grandparents, we also have the ability to become our own person dependent on the circumstances of our upbringing.
So basically, parents get two attempts to screw up your life. They can give you a poor genetic makeup and they can give you a bad upbringing.
As a society, we can’t yet do much about genetic makeup, and I fear the day when we can. But we can do something about the way in which our children are brought up.
Most parents do a reasonable job, even without a manual, but hardly anyone gets everything right. Even after the early stages are passed, there are still many trials to face and life can throw some tough breaks at even the best family.
So we end up with some broken individuals. Am I worrying about an insignificant minority?
Read our newspaper and you might suggest that it is not such an insignificant minority who are getting into trouble.
Somewhere, we as an Island society are going wrong and it isn’t getting any better.
We now have the spiral of despair.
Parents who don’t know how to parent, because of their own upbringing, and children of those parents now having kids of their own.
The trouble is that, as a kid, you take what life throws at you as normal until you see differently. Half of the stuff we take for granted is a foreign country to some. Why read to your child if nobody ever read to you? Why not let them play violent computer games; you did.
It’s not trying to impose nice middle class standards into the estates. It’s trying to find ways of improving the childhood experience to minimise the problems we are later seeing with some of our youngsters.
We can’t change nature but we can do something about the quality of nurture that we as a society give to our young.
What this means in practical terms, I don’t know. Perhaps you can add to the debate?
Thursday, 29 March 2012
Paying for other peoples kids
Why does Guernsey have a family allowance?
If you are not familiar with it, I should quote from the States website.
“Family Allowance is a weekly tax free allowance which is payable to people who are bringing up children. It does not depend on how much money you have coming in, or any savings you may have.”
That’s right, it is paid to every family for every child on the Island, regardless of income. If you are poor then you get it, if you are rich then you get it. It’s only £15.40 a week but in some cases this is a needless States expense.
Why do we pay it?
Most affluent families could get by without it. So let’s stop it.
We do not need to encourage people to produce children. We have enough. If we ever do need to take such a course of action then we can offer finical incentives then. Not now.
If you can’t afford to have children then don’t.
Or to put it another way, why should the States support your desire to have kids?
But it’s my right to have children.
No it isn’t.
If you want to have children, then make sure that you can provide for them. Otherwise, don’t.
Does that mean that we cease to support single mums?
Maybe.
Let’s look at this from a different angle.
You don’t have a steady partner. You don’t have money. But you want to have a baby and let someone else pay for it and for you.
Sounds a bit selfish doesn’t it.
Let’s compromise.
We’ll support you but in a different way.
We’ll provide hostel accommodation, with a creche, so that you have somewhere to stay and someone to look after your child while you earn a living. The hostel will have rules but it will be a home, with support for you and your baby until such time as you are able to move on with your life.
Not ideal from your point of view but why should it be. You want to take money to have children. It doesn’t work like that.
If we are not paying family allowances then we are not encouraging larger families. It’s the same argument. If you can’t pay for the extra children, then don’t have them.
Individual circumstances change and we should have a system which recognises and allows for that. What we don’t need is a system which encourages reproduction without responsibility.
If you are not familiar with it, I should quote from the States website.
“Family Allowance is a weekly tax free allowance which is payable to people who are bringing up children. It does not depend on how much money you have coming in, or any savings you may have.”
That’s right, it is paid to every family for every child on the Island, regardless of income. If you are poor then you get it, if you are rich then you get it. It’s only £15.40 a week but in some cases this is a needless States expense.
Why do we pay it?
Most affluent families could get by without it. So let’s stop it.
We do not need to encourage people to produce children. We have enough. If we ever do need to take such a course of action then we can offer finical incentives then. Not now.
If you can’t afford to have children then don’t.
Or to put it another way, why should the States support your desire to have kids?
But it’s my right to have children.
No it isn’t.
If you want to have children, then make sure that you can provide for them. Otherwise, don’t.
Does that mean that we cease to support single mums?
Maybe.
Let’s look at this from a different angle.
You don’t have a steady partner. You don’t have money. But you want to have a baby and let someone else pay for it and for you.
Sounds a bit selfish doesn’t it.
Let’s compromise.
We’ll support you but in a different way.
We’ll provide hostel accommodation, with a creche, so that you have somewhere to stay and someone to look after your child while you earn a living. The hostel will have rules but it will be a home, with support for you and your baby until such time as you are able to move on with your life.
Not ideal from your point of view but why should it be. You want to take money to have children. It doesn’t work like that.
If we are not paying family allowances then we are not encouraging larger families. It’s the same argument. If you can’t pay for the extra children, then don’t have them.
Individual circumstances change and we should have a system which recognises and allows for that. What we don’t need is a system which encourages reproduction without responsibility.
Sunday, 5 February 2012
Helping failing families
I taught myself to juggle.
Nobody else in my family could juggle, nor could any of my friends.
So I just taught myself, and I was pretty good.
Then, one day, I happened to go to a juggling workshop.
I didn’t need to learn to juggle but the workshop was there and I thought maybe I could learn to do more than just three balls or something.
I discovered I couldn’t juggle.
What I was doing was all wrong. I needed to scrap everything and start from scratch if I was ever to get anywhere.
I was devastated.
Fortunately, I was physically shown why what I was doing was wrong and why I needed to change. I now understood where I had gone wrong and I could see how to do it properly.
It was going to take a lot of work and I had a lot of bad habits to break. But I had seen how to juggle correctly and I was shown how to get there.
Recently I watched a programme on social work which followed a case of potential child neglect. It was obvious that the parents were not doing a good job and couldn’t even look after their home, let alone their child.
By now the boy was three and already developmentally delayed and without speech. His behaviour was poor and he was still in nappies.
How do we know these parents were failing?
Because we think we know what a good childhood looks like. Most of us had a reasonable one ourselves and lots of us have had experience of seeing good parenting even if not within our own families.
These people hadn’t. They didn’t have a clue. They needed help.
The social workers told them what they needed to do. They even wrote them lists of what the parents needed to do. But nobody showed them how to do what was needed and nobody helped them do it.
Everybody could see what was going wrong and everybody knew what was needed to put it right. But it wasn’t anybody’s job to actually get their hands dirty and physically help these people on a day to day basis.
It may not have helped. It’s a difficult thing to get someone to appreciate that everything they are doing is wrong and there would have been huge resistance. There was building resistance from the parents anyway, but it was understandable.
Neither of them had good experiences of social workers in the past and knew that their child would probably end up being taken away.
So, they resisted when they could, and did their best to comply with what was asked of them.
Yes, they could have done a lot better. But they did the best that they could in the circumstances. They couldn’t do any better without help and they didn’t get the sort of help they needed.
I thought I could juggle because I didn’t know any better. Just being told I was wrong didn’t help. I was doing the best I could and, to my mind, I was getting by.
It needed someone to explain to me why my methods were wrong.
It needed someone to show me how to do it right.
It needed someone to spend time with me and help me practise doing it right. Giving me positive feedback and gently correcting my mistakes.
It wasn’t in me to admit I was wrong. But I was shown where I was going wrong and why it wouldn’t work in the long term. I was helped to convince myself of the need to change.
The price of failure didn’t worry me. Nobody was going to take my son away from me if I didn’t get it right.
It was easy to label these parents as neglectful because they were.
But they were doing the best that they could.
It just wasn’t good enough.
It was never going to be good enough because nobody was teaching them. Nobody was showing them what good parents do. Telling them wasn’t ever going to help.
There were loads of professionals involved. All were helping in their own way and each was being effective, in their own way.
They were all there to help the child, to protect the child.
There was nobody on the side of the parents. Nobody to really help them to try to get it right.
So they failed.
The case reached the inevitable conclusion and the family ceased to exist. The parents split up during the proceedings and both, no doubt, felt like failures with the world against them.
They seemed damaged individuals to start with and they just got more damaged.
Maybe all the help in the world wouldn’t have worked. But at least someone would have tried.
From the professionals point of view it was the right result and I couldn’t help but agree with them. The children (by then there were two of them) were removed from neglect and will never have to face those circumstances again.
Hopefully they will both end up with good foster families. But for one little boy, the damage is already done.
How does this affect Guernsey?
I looked on the internet for a local organisation that helps struggling parents.
Nothing.
I looked for a local charity.
Nothing.
I looked on the States website.
Nothing.
I did find some parenting classes in Guernsey.
Guernsey, Ohio, USA.
If there is something out there, then it is well hidden.
Meantime, families in Guernsey are failing.
We know they are failing because we keep seeing the results of poor parenting hitting the headlines and hitting the courts.
Hopefully, somewhere out there on this Island, there are trained professionals organising meeting groups of ordinary mums (and dads) where they can talk to each other and receive good advice and practical help on good parenting.
Somewhere, where parents can practise these skills and get sympathetic guidance.
A training school for failing parents.
If there is, then it needs better publicity.
If there isn’t, why not?
Nobody else in my family could juggle, nor could any of my friends.
So I just taught myself, and I was pretty good.
Then, one day, I happened to go to a juggling workshop.
I didn’t need to learn to juggle but the workshop was there and I thought maybe I could learn to do more than just three balls or something.
I discovered I couldn’t juggle.
What I was doing was all wrong. I needed to scrap everything and start from scratch if I was ever to get anywhere.
I was devastated.
Fortunately, I was physically shown why what I was doing was wrong and why I needed to change. I now understood where I had gone wrong and I could see how to do it properly.
It was going to take a lot of work and I had a lot of bad habits to break. But I had seen how to juggle correctly and I was shown how to get there.
Recently I watched a programme on social work which followed a case of potential child neglect. It was obvious that the parents were not doing a good job and couldn’t even look after their home, let alone their child.
By now the boy was three and already developmentally delayed and without speech. His behaviour was poor and he was still in nappies.
How do we know these parents were failing?
Because we think we know what a good childhood looks like. Most of us had a reasonable one ourselves and lots of us have had experience of seeing good parenting even if not within our own families.
These people hadn’t. They didn’t have a clue. They needed help.
The social workers told them what they needed to do. They even wrote them lists of what the parents needed to do. But nobody showed them how to do what was needed and nobody helped them do it.
Everybody could see what was going wrong and everybody knew what was needed to put it right. But it wasn’t anybody’s job to actually get their hands dirty and physically help these people on a day to day basis.
It may not have helped. It’s a difficult thing to get someone to appreciate that everything they are doing is wrong and there would have been huge resistance. There was building resistance from the parents anyway, but it was understandable.
Neither of them had good experiences of social workers in the past and knew that their child would probably end up being taken away.
So, they resisted when they could, and did their best to comply with what was asked of them.
Yes, they could have done a lot better. But they did the best that they could in the circumstances. They couldn’t do any better without help and they didn’t get the sort of help they needed.
I thought I could juggle because I didn’t know any better. Just being told I was wrong didn’t help. I was doing the best I could and, to my mind, I was getting by.
It needed someone to explain to me why my methods were wrong.
It needed someone to show me how to do it right.
It needed someone to spend time with me and help me practise doing it right. Giving me positive feedback and gently correcting my mistakes.
It wasn’t in me to admit I was wrong. But I was shown where I was going wrong and why it wouldn’t work in the long term. I was helped to convince myself of the need to change.
The price of failure didn’t worry me. Nobody was going to take my son away from me if I didn’t get it right.
It was easy to label these parents as neglectful because they were.
But they were doing the best that they could.
It just wasn’t good enough.
It was never going to be good enough because nobody was teaching them. Nobody was showing them what good parents do. Telling them wasn’t ever going to help.
There were loads of professionals involved. All were helping in their own way and each was being effective, in their own way.
They were all there to help the child, to protect the child.
There was nobody on the side of the parents. Nobody to really help them to try to get it right.
So they failed.
The case reached the inevitable conclusion and the family ceased to exist. The parents split up during the proceedings and both, no doubt, felt like failures with the world against them.
They seemed damaged individuals to start with and they just got more damaged.
Maybe all the help in the world wouldn’t have worked. But at least someone would have tried.
From the professionals point of view it was the right result and I couldn’t help but agree with them. The children (by then there were two of them) were removed from neglect and will never have to face those circumstances again.
Hopefully they will both end up with good foster families. But for one little boy, the damage is already done.
How does this affect Guernsey?
I looked on the internet for a local organisation that helps struggling parents.
Nothing.
I looked for a local charity.
Nothing.
I looked on the States website.
Nothing.
I did find some parenting classes in Guernsey.
Guernsey, Ohio, USA.
If there is something out there, then it is well hidden.
Meantime, families in Guernsey are failing.
We know they are failing because we keep seeing the results of poor parenting hitting the headlines and hitting the courts.
Hopefully, somewhere out there on this Island, there are trained professionals organising meeting groups of ordinary mums (and dads) where they can talk to each other and receive good advice and practical help on good parenting.
Somewhere, where parents can practise these skills and get sympathetic guidance.
A training school for failing parents.
If there is, then it needs better publicity.
If there isn’t, why not?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)