|
|
When Hillary and Obama were arguing about who would invest most in getting disadvantaged kids to university, black Harvard Professor Roland Fryer appeared on TV to contradict them. He said that poverty was not holding these kids back, but the negative peer pressure of the community. I instantly knew that the professor was right, because exactly the same thing happened to me. Fryer’s study was entitled “Acting White” and concerned itself with the way that black Americans use peer pressure to stop their brightest youngsters from getting educated, or from “selling out” by “acting white.”. His study is not peculiar to black Americans. The arguments put forward were striking to my own experience of growing up in white working-class east London. In fact wherever you go in the world, marginalised communities will tend to build a wall around themselves. Fryer argues that this happens when two communities live side by side, where one community is more successful than the other. In his case, black Americans, in mine, the white working class. If a young person is bright, then the community pressures that young person not to go to university, for fear that they will lose this young person to the more successful group; the white middle class. In my case it was pressure from my mates. “I’m earning hundred pound a week driving a van and you’re still at school.” The pressure was not my parents, (although that happens to others) but it was still enough to cause me to drop out and get a job. After flitting across various unskilled employs, I finally did the best thing I’ve ever done in my life; I took-off to Israel and lived on a Kibbutz. It made me realise that the world is a lot bigger than the Ocean Estate in Stepney, and I overcame the mentality of the walled-in community. Labour party members will recognise the manner in which the working-class build a wall about them. Party canvassers will recognise the family on the run-down estate who seem to have an absolute contempt for Labour and say they’ll vote Tory or BNP. This is not a voting promise based on self-interest, or ideology, but more a contemptuous rejection of your middle-class values by a people who feel threatened by well-intentioned outsiders. They consider you as, “these do-gooders with their posh accents and stuck up noses, come around here like they own the place. Well we’ve got each other, and that’s something they can never take that away from us”. However, this walled-in attitude is potentially undermined if the daughter of this family is bright enough that a teacher starts encouraging her that she could make it to university. The youngster, on approaching her family about this idea, would be ridiculed by her parents and she would quickly revert to being contemptuous of the teacher, for her, “posh accent and stuck up nose”. If the socialist movement is ever to truly bring education to the masses, then we must break down these walls. I believe the gap-year is the answer because it takes the youngster out of the walled-in community and allows her to consider the world for herself. To me the problem is not whether this is the right solution; it is the right solution, but the problem is in how to do the implementation. Who is responsible for young people who are between school and work? It seems to me that the moment a young person leaves school, the relationship between school and pupil comes to an abrupt end. Can you imagine that the moment a bird flies the nest is the moment she is abandoned by the mother? As if the responsibility is over. Kaput! End of relationship. Or do you imagine that while most chicks fly from the nest and just keep on flying without looking back, some are less successful and flutter to the ground, where the mother comes to encourage her chick to flap her wings and keep on trying? I’d say the latter is typical of nature while the former is typical of policy, and whenever policy goes against nature we should question it carefully. It is necessary for schools to continue to be responsible for their students beyond the term of education. For a school to invest five to seven years of effort into an individual only to abandon the child at the completion of the contract does appear to go against all common sense. If a partnership between the local authority and the schools existed to identify youngsters who would be suitable for this scheme, then opportunities can be offered. These need not be ostentatious trips; it would be far better to have schemes that cause the youngsters to get jobs and work their way through, but the important thing is simply to inspire them to go; to break out of the mentality of the estate and to discover who they are in the big wide world. Dan McCurry
On Wednesday last week, the High Court in Seoul ruled in favour of a man who sued four major Internet portals for failure to delete postings that defamed his character. Essentially the lawsuit emanated from an original posting alleging the man caused his pregnant partner to commit suicide by instigating the breakup of their relationship. The posting was extended across various internet portals attracting thousands of further defamatory comments culminating with his personal details published online. The man was forced to leave his job and move home.
The nub of the Seoul ruling asserted that the portals were responsible for placing the postings in prime locations and at the same time allowed the use of their search engines to further propagate defamation. As such, the court ruled that “Internet portals should decide whether the contents of a posting defames a person's character and should either delete or block access to those postings if they do, even if the person being targeted does not request that they be deleted.”
The Seoul case comes on the back of several others highlighting the difficulties of inherent in social networking and associated technologies and is of particular concern where young people are involved. A Missouri woman pleaded not guilty a few weeks ago to charges relating to an web hoax that led to the suicide of a 13 year old girl. A boy in Brighton was given community service after admitting to homophobically defaming a “friend” through Bebo, which resulted in a failed suicide attempt. There are countless other cases coming to light.
As in the Seoul case, often the dominant view is that portals and websites need to take responsibility for the information posted on their sites. If the sites concerned are moderating comments and postings, this is possible to achieve given intelligent and responsible moderation, but nigh on impossible if no moderation is taking place.
We do need effective, toothful laws governing online conduct. We do need forcible safeguards. But rather than getting hysterical and distracted by the roles and responsibilities of the providers and portals, should we not instead be concentrating on our collective responsibility to our young people and to each other? We have a duty as a society to set good role models for our young citizens, to provide them with a positive experience online and crucially, to help them help each other.
Online environments do foster and harbour bullying, harassing, malign and malevolent behaviours, but so do offline environments. Just as we put measures in place in the real world to prevent and mitigate these behaviours, so must we introduce measures online to prevent such conduct in the first instance. And who are the best people to set down web etiquettes and codes for young people? Other young people.
Imagine the impact of an army of well-trained young people on the next net generation and how they might put to shame their flaming, spamming, abusive, craven, contemptuous bullying forbears.
Sources:
The Argus | USAToday | MSNBC | Digital Chosunilbo
Emma-Jane Cross
CyberMentors - a Beatbullying programme - coming soon to a PC near you!
The NASUWT published the interim findings of their Gangs and Schools Report today, which suggest that gangs are not a widespread problem in schools, but schools need significant help to tackle the problem head on where it exists. It’s only the interim findings, the full report is out in September, but it makes some interesting points.
Firstly, it is heartening to see the NASUWT painting a responsible, realistic picture of the problem, acknowledging it without blowing it out of proportion or scaremongering, and offering positive and sensible recommendations.
The findings show that gang related activities can stem from truancy, and are linked to poor interfaith and interracial relations. They also acknowledge that bullying is inextricably linked with both of these issues, and it’s not too big a leap to see that prevention work around bullying will therefore have a significant effect in tackling the problem of gangs in schools as well.
At Beatbullying the Charity I work for, we’ve been acutely aware of the links between bullying, violent behaviour, and gang culture for a long time. Bullying often operates with a pack mentality, with young people forming groups both to target others and to protect themselves. This can be seen as a precursor to gang behaviour, with young people searching for an identity and common ground, to ingratiate themselves with others, and for protection. As tensions increase, violent behaviour is not uncommon. Interestingly, however, many young people state that they carry weapons more as a self defence mechanism than as an offensive weapon. The fear element here is something that needs further attention I think – young people aren’t out to commit violent behaviour, but they fear attack themselves. Perhaps the biggest challenge here must be promoting levels of knowledge and tolerance, rather than hatred and fear, between young people.
Most interestingly and laudably, the NASUWT strongly advocates the use of peer mentoring schemes, working directly with young people involved, to change behaviour, re-educate, and prevent further involvement in undesirable activities.
For years NGO’s such as Beatbullying, Childline and The Mentoring and Befriending Network has been lobbying the Government to introduce peer mentoring programmes in all schools across the UK, to tackle bullying and other inappropriate behaviour. Peer to Peer mentoring works, when embedded in our schools, bullying is reduced by up to 40% (Beatbullying 2007). TMBN report similar results. Scaled up Government committing to supporting these schemes will mean that thousands and thousands of violent and inappropriate behaviours from our young people will not happen.
The NASUWT findings are simply a further indication that we need these schemes in all schools now. All schools need peer mentoring programmes, and with Government spending on education at an all time high, it’s time that funding was given to peer mentoring schemes so that every young person has access to it, and we can effectively tackle these issues that concern young people and families the most.
>Emma-Jane Cross
Earlier this week, it was revealed that Gordon Brown backed plans to extend the Cadet force in more British comprehensive schools. The Tories aren’t against the idea either, and they outlined their own separate plans to tackle discipline and behaviour in schools on Monday in policy document titled Giving Power Back to Teachers.
While it’s pleasing that both parties are trying to tackle behaviour in schools and address the problems facing our young people, I can’t help but think that some of their strategies won’t be as effective as they claim.
The Tories main proposals include boosting powers of exclusion and giving teachers more power in dealing with violent and disruptive pupils, pressing for an end to the ‘no touch’ policy. Some of the obvious flaws in the proposals have already been outlined in the Independent.
Yes, we need to improve levels of behaviour and discipline within schools, but it seems to me like this is all ‘stick’ and no ‘carrot’ for pupils. Young people behave well in environments where they are valued, where they can contribute, and where they can progress. Not surprisingly, these are also the environments where they will respect others. I doubt that many pupils will find this environment within the Tories plans. Will they make teachers feel happier? Yes. Teachers can forcefully restrain pupils, can take away possessions without reason, and can turf them out of education if they don’t like it. Will the fear of being restrained and expelled without appeal improve pupil behaviour? There’s no substantial evidence to say so.
Now, there is an argument that the cadet environment is precisely one where young people can contribute, be valued, and respect each other. Yes, but only for a small minority of young people. In relation to the 35,000 young people Beatbullying has worked with directly over the last few years, only a very small percentage would react well to a bootcamp environment. For all those who do not enjoy physical activity or games, the prospect of a cadet lifestyle is unlikely to have a beneficial effect on their behaviour.
Furthermore, you can’t help but be a little worried about the prospect that bullies will migrate towards this system, and the allure of power that they will be in a position to exert over their junior officers. Perish the thought that we might even be putting bullies in uniform and putting them in a position to abuse any authority. Without substantial evidence, beyond the anecdotal, that cadet forces significantly improve behaviour among its recruits, then you’d have to wonder whether this is the best system of anti-conflict education.
Yes, we need to improve levels of discipline and respect, and encourage youth participation in activity, but let’s not limit this within an army environment. Perhaps what would be a better, more mixed and more inclusive, policy response in the way we tackle behavioural problems in schools, is the roll out of mentoring schemes in both schools and communities.
We know that mentoring schemes work – they reduce bullying, they improve behaviour, increase attainment, increase attendance. Unlike the cadet force proposal, they are all inclusive – sporty kids mentor sporty kids, young people who like music can find a mentor they can relate to, and so on. And unlike the Tories plan, mentoring proposals actually take into consideration the position of young people. They are monitored by adults, and their results undoubtedly make life easier for teachers, yet young people are at the heart of them, and unlike the Tories proposals, young people benefit too.
Dr Tanya Byron's report "Safer children in a digital world" was published today, and the Government, who commissioned the review 6 months ago, welcomed it and committed to respond to its recommendations to ensure that young people are safe online.
The Byron Review looked at the risks to children's safety and wellbeing of exposure to harmful or inappropriate material on the internet and in video games. The report recognises the need to develop a shared culture of responsibility to reduce and prevent harmful content on the internet, and increase children’s ability to understand and tackle any problems.
There has been a fair bit in the media today on the report's recommendations into the classification of video games. Indeed a neutral stumbling across the story, might wonder whether this was all the report entailed. Video games is clearly a key area in the consultation, and people, including many charities and commentators, have questioned the nature of some inappropriate games in the past.
I can't help but feel, however, that the adult voices are still drowning out the young people, and once again, the Government is listening to the adult voice (questioning video games), and sidelining the young person. In general, Young people weren't complaining overtly about video games, and most of them said that they knew how to avoid the harmful content on their computer. Let's give them credit - they choose not to play some video games, and if they stumble across something inappropriate on the net, they can 'click away'.
The key finding of the report is that young people are telling us that cyberbullying is the biggest issue for them. The big problem is not a parent’s fear of inappropriate material on the web, but direct cyberbullying from other young people, which they feel they can’t avoid as easily or ‘click away’ from.
So the message from the young people is clear: the Government needs to tackle cyberbullying, and it needs to do it now. Raising awareness is important, and advice on what to do is useful, but the solution must involve young people, giving them the information and tools to tackle the problem themselves.
The Charity I work for Beatbullying is about to launch its Cybermentors programme: an online adaptation of our proven bullying prevention model. Thousands of young people will be trained as Cybermentors to help, support and assist young people being bullied online. Young people can take responsibility for bullying, whether it’s happening in school or online, and do something positive to tackle it.
The Government has committed to following the Byron Review's recommendations, so perhaps it will now listen to the young people and tackle cyberbullying? It could do this by supporting and investing in practical solution which are teh considered reponse of thousands of young people across the UK, and not the voice of adults. Now that would certainly be a giant step towards keeping young people safe online.
Emma-Jane Cross
Despite much opposition – indeed downright hostility from some quarters – it would appear that the government’s flag ship academy programme is beginning to prove successful. There are now 83 academies open in 49 local authorities. They are achieving fast-rising results. The proportion of pupils in academies getting five or more good GCSEs has doubled over the past six years, compared to the underperforming schools they replaced, and their rate of improvement is almost double the national average over the same period. Their rate of improvement in English and maths is also significantly above the national average in both GCSE and the national key stage 3 tests sat by 14-year-olds.
Last year, the National Audit Office reported that academies are "on track to deliver good value for money", and are meeting their attainment objectives. As for parents, they are voting with their feet. There are, on average, three applicants for every academy place.
Despite all of this the idea of creating an additional 400 academies - backed by Gordon Brown - is still too much for many teachers and education commentators. The common argument against academies is that once established they might well end up sucking resources from other local comprehensive schools. But will they? Academies are required by law to be all-ability schools; they have to comply fully with the admissions code and this is monitored by the government directly.
The 2007 school census shows that the proportion of pupils with special educational needs in academies is 29.5% - compared with an average of 19.2% for all schools. The proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals in academies is 33.8% - compared with the national average of 13.1% for secondary schools. Speaking at the recent NASUWT conference Ed Balls highlighted the fact that academies are also collaborating with other schools in local behaviour partnerships, ensuring that they take their fair share of "hard to place" and excluded pupils
What many critics of the academy programme overlook is that in the setting up of so many of these new academies in areas of significant social and economic deprivation, the government has rediscovered what many used to call "compensating measures". The truth is that for communities trapped in a cycle of educational failure and under achievement the academy programme can and does offer new energy, new purpose and new opportunities for young people and for local communities who have long deserved better.
This year's GCSE results revealed a promising performance from city academies. Are they beginning to work?
A brief analysis of this year's GCSE results indicates that the government's new city academies are likely to show a faster rate of improvement than other schools nationally.
It would appear that in academies the proportion of pupils gaining 5 or more A*-C grades has increased by an average of 7% and by 5% when English and mathematics are included. Although the national benchmarks for 2007 will not be available until league tables are published in January 2008 it is unlikely that the rate of increase will be much above the 2.1% figure for last year (0.9% including English and mathematics).
Despite this it seems that the idea of creating an additional 400 academies - backed by Gordon Brown - is still too much for many Labour party members and supporters (including many MPs). The common argument against academies is that once established they might well end up sucking resources from other local comprehensive schools. But will they?
As long as academies remain in the depressed hearts of the old towns and cities and, perhaps most importantly of all, maintain their all-ability intake, I do not think that Labour party members should worry too much. The real challenge for party members and supporters is how to make education in the inner city both transformational and inspirational. It is just possible that academies may provide a means of local communities meeting these challenges.
What many people overlook is that in the setting up of so many of these new academies in areas of significant social and economic deprivation, the government has rediscovered what many used to call "compensating measures". Yet should we not just give existing academies a chance? In the short term the answer has to be a qualified "yes". There are, after all, some encouraging indicators. Ofsted has stated that academies are having "remarkable" effects but there is more work to do to ensure that they all successful.
A PWC report said that academies had largely won the support of pupils and parents but still faced problems, including widespread bullying and inappropriate buildings. The 2007 GCSE results show several academies doubling the number of pupils achieving 5 or more A*-Cs or better at GCSE. For example the Trinity Academy in Doncaster this year increased the proportion achieving five good GCSEs from 30% last year to 63%. The truth is that for communities trapped in a cycle of educational failure and under achievement the academy programme can offer new energy, new purpose and new opportunities for young people who deserve better.
However it is incumbent on all of us to ensure that such ambitious and expensive programmes benefit the communities that they are intended for and do not become the preserves of the middle classes.
With the Conservatives now convinced that grammar schools are bad for Britain and with the nation about to have a new Prime Minister in need of some passion-rousing policies that will unite his movement’s natural supporters and signal a shift towards a more radical and egalitarian agenda, are we nearing the time when selection by ability will finally be abolished for good? Almost all of the main political parties in Britain now agree that getting rid of selection in England’s schools (there is no selection in Wales or Scotland and it is on the way out in Northern Ireland) would produce an immediate improvement in the overall exam performance of the nation’s children, reduce poverty and inequality in many of our most deprived inner-city areas and overtly and transparently attack privilege that all too often masquerades as excellence.
However it is important to emphasise that it is selection that needs to be got rid of, no one is suggesting that particular schools should be closed. There is no reason why the remaining 164 grammar schools themselves should not remain pretty much as they are now. They would have the same buildings, the same governors, the same headteachers and staff, the same resources, the same curriculum, uniform and largely the same funding. The only real change will be in the academic profile of the pupils attending the school.
A selective system of schooling does not lead to diversity of provision it simply leads to division. Selection is not the creation of choice rather it is the denial of choice for the many. A selective system (be it based on ability or aptitude) does not help promote a diverse system of schooling; it simply helps perpetuate division in society as a whole. Selective schools are not escape routes from poverty, they do not offer good value for money and they do not help raise standards overall? The Tories do not want a return to selection and the Lib Dems are opposed in principle. This is why a Brown led Government should seek to end selection in the state sector once and for all.
According to Tony Blair one day every secondary school will be either a trust or a city academy. He may well be correct and I am of the view that it may not be a bad thing. As long as Academies remain in the depressed hearts of the old towns and cities and, perhaps most importantly of all, maintain their all-ability intake then progressive thinkers on the Left should not worry too much.
I think that it is just possible that in the setting up of so many of these new academies in areas of significant social and economic deprivation, that the government has re-found what many used to call "compensating measures".
For communities trapped in a cycle of failure such schools can offer new energy, new purpose and new opportunities for the young people who deserve better. But it is an obligation for all of us to ensure that such ambitious and expensive programmes benefit the communities that they are intended for
The elections for Labour in the Scottish Parliament are hotting up. The Scottish National Party simply attacks England and the rest of the UK at every opportunity – that is, after all, the only
policy that holds the SNP together – but other political parties are unveiling a host of new policies.
One recent proposal from the Liberal Democrats merits particular analysis: their call to abolish the first year of primary school.
The cut-back would be achieved by holding children back from school until the age of 6. Educationalists have been quick to criticise the idea. There is overwhelming evidence from many European countries – and further a field – that education at an early age produces
better attainment at secondary school. Indeed, there is specific evidence to
show that the intervention of trained teachers at an early stage is critical in
promoting better learning throughout life.
The Lib Dem belief all that parents are better suited, equipped or motivated than schools to educate 5 and 6 year olds at home is mystifying and out of touch with the reality of family life for many
people.
I’ve been highlighting the idea in the constituency of Aberdeen South where I am the Labour candidate, and it is proving very unpopular on the doorsteps. Many parents have pointed out to me that the cut-back would significantly reduce their household income as one of the
parents would often we required to stay at home or only work for when their
child was in nursery. I believe this would have a disproportionately adverse
effect on young women who want to work.
By contract, Labour has unveiled a raft of
new policies: year-on-year cuts in class sizes, a massive increase in the
school rebuilding programme, and raising the school leaving age to 18 by 2012. At
the same time, we will create exemptions and opportunities whereby over 16’s
can leave school on the condition that they are in full time education,
employment, training or volunteering.
There will be additional places in further and higher education for 16-18 year olds, thousands more modern apprenticeships and we will expand Project Scotland, a full-time, structured volunteering scheme.
The choice is clear: more schooling with Labour, or less schooling with the Lib Dems.
|
|
