³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

The Government's Big Plan for Children

Comments

1. At 04:25 PM on 11 Dec 2007, Big Sister wrote:

   Modern languages for all primary school children - At last, say I! The children I taught at secondary school who came from primary schools teaching a language always came with genuine enthusiasm and an encouraging grasp of the basics.

   Many EU countries teach languages at primary level, when children are generaly much more receptive and able (and willing) to grapple with pronunciation, etc. A large part of language learning involves lack of inhibition, something which disappears as children turn into adolescents.

   I'd also lay a bet that it will reduce the number of children who turn away from MFL as they progress through secondary education.

   I am really thrilled by this development.

2. At 05:34 PM on 11 Dec 2007, Rob Curl wrote:

   At last. Oliver James saying *on* the radio the things I routinely shout *at* the radio.

3. At 05:39 PM on 11 Dec 2007, S. Chambers wrote:

   I would like to say "well done" to Oliver James for pointing out what many have remarked ever since Cherie Blair and co. appeared, namely the New Labour elite all use nannies and grannies (both of these in the Blairs case). Their children are not left in nurseries for many hours a day, some from 7.30 through to early evening. Would these adults like to spend all day in the same environment, often even during the summer holidays (I know of such a child)? It is obviously not good for babies and toddlers to have multiple carers rather than one loving adult with whom they have a close bond.
   What has been distressing under New Labour is that this has been touted as the thing to do.
   Unless it is absolutely necessary financially it is not a kind or loving thing to do.
   Children thrive if they know their parents enjoy their company and love their presence.
   It is not ideal either that when older children get home from school there is no adult there, often not for many hours.
   Such attitudes towards children that have been promulgated and condoned by New Labour have contributed towards many of the social ills caused by children who do not have enough loving adult company from babyhood onwards.

4. At 05:40 PM on 11 Dec 2007, Dan Brinsdon wrote:

   As a primary teacher I would like to know where the time is going to come from for me to check, read and respond to all the e-mails from parents that the government now want me to read.

   I find the easiest and best way to find out what parents want is to talk to them at the door at the end of the day. (I know that this system does not work for my secondary friends.)

5. At 05:44 PM on 11 Dec 2007, Richard Bevan wrote:

   How about teachers in schools being allowed to tell the truth to children: that bringing up a child as a single teenage mother reduces that child's life-chances in every respect. At the moment teachers are not allowed to say that, in case it offends anyone in front of them who is from that background. Instead it is presented as yet another of life's choices that is no better or worse than any other choice. Let's tell the truth to children instead of worrying who we might offend.

6. At 05:56 PM on 11 Dec 2007, Ben wrote:

   I'm a student in secondary education. Through "student voice" we were consulted about the "Big Plan" however the government only gave us a couple of weeks to respond to the consultation and they gave it to us in a "jargon-complicated" format. Once it had been made available to us in a non-jargon format there were only 3 days in which we were able to campaign for responses to the consultation.

   It is no surprise we were only able to collate 140 responses to the government to represent the views of the UK!

7. At 05:57 PM on 11 Dec 2007, Osmo wrote:

   Oh, Big Sister! Oh, Ed Balls! What about the 20% of children who are struggling with English as a first language? What about an English curriculum full of stuff I didn't even learn at Grammar School?
   If language could be taught within a country-based topic that covered the art, music and folk tales of the place along with some cookery, geography and any history that is relevant and interesting, then there could be a place for it.

8. At 06:10 PM on 11 Dec 2007, Brian Christley wrote:

   The Soviet Bloc leaders believed that their people would accept carbolic soap if they prevented them from experiencing the more refined soaps available in the West. Ed Balls, to prove that he is real socialist, believes that if same concept was applied to TV advertising our children would be more contented

9. At 06:51 PM on 11 Dec 2007, Lucy Taussig wrote:

   Children would be far better off if they could step outside into their own street and meet other children and engage in creative and energetic play in and with their local environment. Kids cannot enjoy their immediate world because of one thing- traffic. So what an enormous oversight for the Government's big plan for children to deal so little with the problem of traffic as a barrier to play and socialisation for children. Even 20mph zones don't allow for safe child play. Rather than dealing with the ubiquitous problem of motorists, who kill and seriously injure thousands of children each year, the Government prefers to build localised, artificial and expensive play areas. This doesn't encourage independence or creativity since young children can't even get to these play areas unaccompanied because of traffic. If we to do as well for children in the league tables as Holland and Denmark, we need to make our streets pedestrian and cycle friendly for children.

10. At 08:45 PM on 11 Dec 2007, Bedd Gelert wrote:

    I have only a passing interest in this topic, as I have no school age children. But it does amuse me that the lingo used for this announcement echoes the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ Vision tosh about 'We are now seeing things through the lens of 'Find', 'Play' and 'Share'. '

    Well whoopie-doo...

11. At 08:50 PM on 11 Dec 2007, Gillian wrote:

    I am delighted by the inclusion of the ''stage not age'' philosophy - something which the Scots have been benefitting from for years. I always considered the ''same level, same day'' testing regime to be callous, and a large number of children were automatically doomed to fail.
    I am worried about the inference that the very youngest children will be put under more pressure to ''perform'' well. I would have liked to see some regard given to learning through play, and for some acknowledgement that certain children are not capable of learning formal skills at the age of five. These children need to be allowed to mature and develop social and language skills before having to worry about failing to read and write.

12. At 09:59 PM on 11 Dec 2007, ChrisB wrote:

    Well I suppose we now have a Minister whose name says it all about his philosophy!
    As a science teacher educator I see that the Core has been reduced to English and Mathematics. Having decimated the Key Stage 3 science they now reduce it further in Primary! Having said that there is then a budget for getting more teachers of science, though what they will have left to teach is debatable.

    I also see we are to be a Masters profession which again shows the lack of understanding by this Government. I trained as a teacher for three years and had a Certificate of Education – no degree but good subject knowledge and a wealth of experience in schools. Later I went on to train teachers in the BEd and here they spent four year again being fully grounded in theory and practice. It was in this area of Higher education my Masters was useful, never when teaching in school. Sadly our PGCE’s have now to write Masters level essays whilst trying to cope with learning to teach. It is highly pressurised, has little if any impact on their teaching ability but ticks the box Balls et al think makes this a better profession.
    Anyone care to guess where we will be in the international league tables come 2020?
    

13. At 10:04 PM on 11 Dec 2007, ChrisB wrote:

    Well I suppose we now have a Minister whose name says it all about his philosophy!
    As a science teacher educator I see that the Core has been reduced to English and Mathematics. Having decimated the Key Stage 3 science they now reduce it further in Primary! Having said that there is then a budget for getting more teachers of science, though what they will have left to teach is debatable.

    I also see we are to be a Masters profession which again shows the lack of understanding by this Government. I trained as a teacher for three years and had a Certificate of Education – no degree but good subject knowledge and a wealth of experience in schools. Later I went on to train teachers in the BEd and here they spent four year again being fully grounded in theory and practice. It was in this area of Higher education my Masters was useful, never when teaching in school. Sadly our PGCE’s have now to write Masters level essays whilst trying to cope with learning to teach. It is highly pressurised, has little if any impact on their teaching ability but ticks the box Balls et al think makes this a better profession.
    Anyone care to guess where we will be in the international league tables come 2020?
    

14. At 10:29 PM on 11 Dec 2007, Andrew wrote:

    Yet more window dressing. Yet more production of future drones as Oliver James alluded to.

    This is small change compared to the investment we really need. In any case, the new playgrounds will be used, as were many of the government's previous initiatives, by the usual suspects - middle class, educated, literate parents. Those they are truly intended for will still stay in, glued to countless channels of mediocre TV or trying to squeeze their normal household power supply through festive lighting displays of near industrial complexity.

    Examine those European neighbours we envy for their civility and their level of education. Look at the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries. The Swedes employ graduates in child developement to look after children in nursery schools; we entrust our dearest to 16 year old school leavers with no qualifications. I have met Danish teachers complaining that their class is "huge" when the number of children in it reaches twenty while New Labour boasted proudly of reducing a few class sizes to 30. Danish school funding is skewed to favour smaller schools. Dutch secondary education is selective, producing educated and well rounded people across the board - how many petrol station attendants or railway ticket office staff in the UK could hold an intelligent conversation in a foreign language?

    Britain is great in many ways. But it also hosts an exceptionally greedy, selfish, blinkered and oafish society. Change big enough to alter that will take far more than fancy aspirations, a few million pounds and more emails. How about halving class sizes, re-introducing selective education, throwing out the rooms full of computers, making those who fail to progress in a given school year repeat it and banning TV one day a week for a start...?

15. At 10:33 PM on 11 Dec 2007, Andrew Leitch wrote:

    Yet more window dressing. Yet more production of future drones as Oliver James alluded to.

    This is small change compared to the investment we really need. In any case, the new playgrounds will be used, as were many of the government's previous initiatives, by the usual suspects - middle class, educated, literate parents. Those they are truly intended for will still stay in, glued to countless channels of mediocre TV or trying to squeeze their normal household power supply through festive lighting displays of near industrial complexity.

    Examine those European neighbours we envy for their civility and their level of education. Look at the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries. The Swedes employ graduates in child developement to look after children in nursery schools; we entrust our dearest to 16 year old school leavers with no qualifications. I have met Danish teachers complaining that their class is "huge" when the number of children in it reaches twenty while New Labour boasted proudly of reducing a few class sizes to 30. Danish school funding is skewed to favour smaller schools. Dutch secondary education is selective, producing educated and well rounded people across the board - how many petrol station attendants or railway ticket office staff in the UK could hold an intelligent conversation in a foreign language?

    Britain is great in many ways. But it also hosts an exceptionally greedy, selfish, blinkered and oafish society. Change big enough to alter that will take far more than fancy aspirations, a few million pounds and more emails. How about halving class sizes, re-introducing selective education, throwing out the rooms full of computers, making those who fail to progress in a given school year repeat it and banning TV one day a week for a start...?

16. At 11:57 PM on 11 Dec 2007, Amanda wrote:

    No one has mentioned the 'elephant in the room'. Class size! A key aim of the report is:

    'All children should receive teaching according to their needs' How can this possibly be achieved with a class of 30 or more children.

    The report seems to rely on more parental support, but surely this will involve even more work and planning from the teachers.

    Better training, parental support and making allowances for age and maturity may all be worthy aims, but the only way for children to get the individual attention they need is for the teacher to have the time to understand their needs and develop their individual abilities. Am I truly the only one who doubts this can be achieved for all children in a class of 30?
    

17. At 12:41 AM on 12 Dec 2007, Louise wrote:

    Delighted though I am to hear that extra funding has been made available for the benefit of children I wonder if that if it in any way equals money that has slowly be surely taken away from them?
    I have been astounded by the lack of funding made available to help the most vulnerable children in our society - those to be considered for adoption (and to have got to that stage all these children will have had the most dreaful experiences and all will be damaged we are advised). I worked with children suffering the most awful lives and these were NOT children that were considered needing adoption.
    My husband and I are hoping to adopt older, sibling children (evidently the country is crying out for people like us). However, the process to become APPROVED will take at least a year, maybe more, and that is before we are even considered for children because there is no money in the system. There are only 4 training courses for potential adoptive parents in the whole of 2008 in our county - these are obligatory - and having applied in Septemer we can attend an Introduction Evening in January whereupon we MAY be able to attend the next course in February or maybe we will have to wait till June. A minimum of four months later we MAY be approved whereupon attempts to match us with children will be allowed but by then I may just consider myself too old.

18. At 09:59 AM on 12 Dec 2007, Martin. wrote:

    For the record, I have never received a satisfactory reply to my query as to why, when he was a politically appointed civil servant but a civil servant nonetheless, Ed Balls MP, now the holder of the sinister title of "Children, Schools and Families Secretary", had been reported as being a three-time attendee at an ultra-secretive, international non-governmental forum to which the United Kingdom is bound by neither law nor treaty nor protocol.

    Also for the record, my attempts to find this out from Balls himself were brushed off by "Carol Moran", his "Constituency Office Manager"as not being constituency business.

    So that's all right then - although I hope both he and George Osborne enjoyed their trips to Ottawa in 2006 and Istanbul in 2007.
    That's five times and counting, Ed...sooner or later somebody's going to ask questions...
    Ed has unveiled a "plan for children"; given the rather neoliberal economic worldview shared by the people with whom he seems to spend so much time, it's a bit like putting The Child Catcher in charge of Barnardo's.

    But it shouldn't be surprising; EdWorld is a place where the labour market is wonderfully flexible, so it doesn't really matter to him whether children leave school able to read or write at all.

    It's just a natural progression of policy; after all, the only logical reason British children are tested so heavily and yet perform so poorly is that the international political cosmopolitan class amongst whom Balls is so at ease think that childhood education should be training for adult work - which is we treat going to school as being a job in itself.

19. At 10:48 AM on 12 Dec 2007, Big Sister wrote:

    Osmo: I agree with all your points, as it happens - and the cultural, 'fun' side of language learning is totally appropriate for primary children. Any language teacher worth their salt would not teach a language without teaching the context.

    As to teaching English - One may very well help the other. As a language teacher of many years, I well understand the problems to which you refer. And I appreciate, too, that in our multicultural world, there are many children who do not have English as a first language. This, however, is not a reason for ensuring our children are equipped for thinking beyond their national boundaries.

20. At 12:21 PM on 12 Dec 2007, wrote:

    Sis ,

    Do I detect a missing "not"? (last sentence)
    xx
    ed

21. At 01:24 PM on 12 Dec 2007, Big Sister wrote:

    Ed: I do believe you're right! :o)

22. At 01:47 PM on 12 Dec 2007, Fiona wrote:

    Grrr, am annoyed!!! I typed out a very long post earlier on this thread and its flippin' well been 502'd and now I've lost it!!!!

    Anyway in a nutshell....... the general tone of my message that I was getting extremely frustrated and fed up the way everything is politicised. Labour make an announcement that they are going to do something and those who oppose them tear it to shreds (and vice versa), its just all so very tiresome and samey to listen to. As a mum to a 5 and 3 year old (and excuse me if I am being terribly niave here) any action such as this is welcome. I have only skimmed through the summary so am no expert but on the whole I found the proposals very encouraging and positive.

    I also took great offence at the remarks made by both Oliver James and S. Chambers here regarding daycare nurseries. I have had to work for financial reasons and grandparents are not an option for us. However, even if they were I would probably still have gone down the route of nursery. To me it offers the most stimulating, most fun, most consistent environment. Both my children have always been extremely happy there and have grown very attached to the their carers who offer them loads of cuddles and affection. They have made friends, they do loads of activities and I feel its very safe. The tone of the remark about left at nurseries for many hours a day almost implied parents abandoned them to a Romanian orphanage! All (without exception) of the ladies that I have met at nursery have been extremely dedicated - they work there because they love children and for very little financial reward. On the other hand I have met many childminders and on many occasion they have seen fit to drag their charges around the supermarket while doing their own weekly shop. I know where my children have more fun. So until I win the lottery and never working again is a realistic option (and until my youngest goes to school) I will continue to use the same nursery (which incidentally is fully organic and the meals they provide the children are plentiful and delicious). So to say that sending your children to nursery is "not a kind or loving thing to do" (S. Chambers @ 3) is an insult to mothers like myself.

    That was it really!