.
Blimey. No sooner had I (belatedly) posted the previous blog (6.47pm) than Channel 4 News (7.00pm) announced that General Motors has gone into receivership. This is pretty unbelievable. According to the beliefs of the Chicago Boys and their followers the company, which was presumably a basket case and very badly run, ought to be allowed to disappear. However, it looks as though the government is going to bail it out with massive amounts of public money, around $30 billion, which looks suspiciously like socialism or at least social democracy. I wonder what the bright sparks who were driving economic policy these many years have to say about that. A 60% government stake in the company means that it's basically now a nationalised concern. Quite right too. Why only 60%?
------------------------------------------------------------
THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN POSTED ON SATURDAY
----- ---------------------
A friend mentioned today that cuckoos are becoming scarcer in this country. We wondered why that might be. I suggested that other birds might be developing bigger brains, to the point where they go, "Holy shit! How did THAT egg get in here? Well it's not one of mine, and I'm damned if I'm going to sit on it!"
I've never been very sympathetic to the fact that a cuckoo can just dump an egg in another bird's nest. And then, as if that's not bad enough in itself - expecting another bird to incubate and then feed your offspring - for the cuckoo's offspring to then murder its nest mates by shoving them overboard; this is just outrageous.
So should we care if the cuckoo dies out as a species? Wouldn't that be a kind of natural justice? If every cuckoo chick kills 4 other chicks, isn't the extinction of cuckoos to be welcomed? Discuss.
---------------------------------
There's a wonderful children's book in which the central character emerges one day from a billabong and asks, Where am I? What am I? (Berkeley's Creek. A Bunyip)
It's an open question as to when children (or adults) first ask themselves these questions.
Looking out from themselves - Where am I? I'm in a city? (What's that?) In a county? In a country? On a continent? On a planet? In a solar system? In a galaxy? In a universe? What do you mean - there's only one universe? As far as we're aware?
(OK - we can't actually see beyond our universe, but doesn't logic tell us there's no such thing as a singularity? There's always more than one of something? )
Looking within - What am I? Am I the same as others? Am I different? Am I similar? In what ways? Am I unique? Why? How come?
--------------------------------------
If we sit in meditation and try to look within - what do we find, and what might we discover? At what age do children (or adults) start to develop real in-sight? Is this the same or different to developing self-awareness or self-consciousness? And what roles should parents, teachers and schools play in such processes?
--------------------------------
Last night I was talking to a friend of a friend about the role of teachers and classroom assistants in developing children's social, emotional and spiritual intelligences.
Isn't that what parents should be doing? Yes, I said, but won't those intelligences grow much faster if they're also being nurtured throughout each school day, by people who are experts at doing it?
And what happens to children whose parents are not good role models of kindness, patience, generosity, unselfishness, etc? Because there are plenty of them about. In all social groups and classes. For that matter, there are plenty of them working in our schools.
What happens to children who's parents teach them that greed is good, to always retaliate to insult or injury, and whenever possible to get your retaliation in first?
Which is more important in Primary schools - that children get to Level 4 or 5 in science & maths, or they get to Level 4 at least in being a decent human being who knows how to live harmoniously with other human beings and has real insight into themselves and are capable of recognizing their own (and other people's) strengths and weaknesses?
Should we care that thousands of children are left to stagger along at Levels 1 and 2 because no-one sees it as a priority to (or knows how to) give those children the support and knowledge they need?
----------- -----------------------
What am I?
The interesting thing about horoscopes and zodiacs is that they plant in our minds the notion that one twelfth of the planet's population is like us and eleven twelfths are not.
They also suggest that one quarter of the population is earthy (whatever that means), one quarter is fundamentally fiery, one quarter is airy & breezy, and the rest are watery.
At what age do children look in their parents' newspaper or magazine and say, "So if I'm a Leo, what does that mean?" Or, "If I'm a pair of scales, what's that supposed to mean? What is it that's 'in balance'? What's justice? What's equilibrium?" Or, "What's watery mean?"
At what age do children begin to recognise the various characteristics and attributes of human beings – to begin to ask themselves whether or not they do in fact think, feel and behave in certain ways, to recognise the ways in which they are similar to or different from their friends, and begin to form a complex sense of self?
To what degree are children able to calmly assess whether they recognise a match between themselves and their so-called archetype? If they're aware of the Buddhist zodiac, can they see in themselves elements of the monkey, the rat, the tiger, the dragon, etc? Can they compare their siblings and friends?
At what age can they start to understand that whilst people might be different in certain ways, we're also fundamentally the same, complementary - not better or worse as such - since there are more evolved and less evolved individuals of each type. Just different.
Knowing oneself and understanding others is essential for self-respect and for respecting others. To what extent do schools and teachers set out to develop such understanding and such metaphysical, spiritual and psychological knowledge? To what degree is in-sight considered important?
These are not rhetorical questions. These are real questions that demand real answers. Worth thinking about .
------------------
What is he like?
Talking of billabongs and Australia, Barry Humphries was on Desert Island Discs this week. What a genius he is. A real one-off. He was a gift to that programme with his ability to say insightful, original things about himself in a self-deprecating, honest and humorous way.
“My life is too exciting. I crave dullness.
I've had the grim reaper very close to me, which is very important when I'm feeling too full of myself.
I'm a bibliomanic. It represents my desire for ballast.
My kind of art is cheering people up.
People were absolutely delighted by my existence when I was a child. I must have radiated something.
My career has been some kind of primitive compulsion to find my own voice, to express myself in some way.
It's an inexplicable life. It's one I didn't choose. It must have chosen me.
My mother was impossible to please. She was unfulfilled and cynical.
I have about 5 grey hairs on my left nipple.
The more I struggle to become respectable, the more disreputable I become.
I felt I had to influence people's lives, as an artist should. I wanted to give them a different view of life.
Melbourne was so nice, spotlessly clean and proper. It pretended to be part of the home counties. There wasn't a single Australian tree in our suburb.
Joan Littlewood invited me to join her in Stratford East, her little theatre.
I look back on some of my life with fatuous self-satisfaction.
In the 1960s everyone seemed to be indulging in something or other.
I'd done all I could do with alcohol, except die.
Edna Everage - a rather shrill and dowdy woman. But frumps can sometimes triumph.
Dame Edna – the Marlene Dietrich of the Seventies.
Popularity is important when you're earning a living from the sale of tickets.
Suddenly about 15 years of my life have passed too quickly.”
-----------------------------------------
It's been a while since Oxzen brought readers a news roundup, so here's a selection of earth-shattering events from the front page of the Daily Mirror last week.
"I saw Jade's face looking down from the heavens." Jade's mum speaks for first time. See pages 6 & 7.
"ITV bosses fear for Susan. Susan Boyle [who she?] could be pulled out of tomorrow's Britain's Got Talent final amid fears for her health."
"Mum kept in freezer for 20 years."
So there we have it. Key events of our times. Let the Guardianistas blather on about non-existent political revolutions - the Daily Mirror stays focused on the news that really matters! Who says newspapers are in decline and heading for extinction?
-------------------
Blues Bargains and Festivals
Totnes market was thriving yesterday with more stalls than ever overflowing the market square and having to set up in Castle Hill.
I did well with second hand CDs - £2 each.
John Lee Hooker - Boom Boom, I'm Bad, Bottle Up & Go, etc.
Big Joe Turner - The Blues Singer 1938 - 1942
T-Bone Walker - Chicago Electric Blues
Rhythm & Blues - As Good As It Gets. 52 tracks including John Lee Hooker, Joe Turner, Jimmy Rogers, Snooks Eaglin, etc.
Roots of Rock 'N' Roll - Champion Jack Dupree, Arthur 'Big Boy' Crudup, Louis Jordan, T-Bone Walker, Big Joe Turner, Albert Ammons, etc.
That's 125 tracks at less than 10p per track. Who says there's no bargains any more? What's more there's not a dud track among them.
Amongst many brilliant tracks there's the original of 'Down The Road Apiece' (which stood out on the Rolling Stones' second album) played by Amos Milburn, who also performs a rocking track called "Chicken Shack Boogie" with amazing piano solos.
Pee Wee Crayton's "Blues Before Dawn" is a little instrumental gem that rocks like crazy.
James Cotton's "Kiddy Boy" is a big band rocking rendition from 1971 that contains outstanding solos on blues harp and guitar.
There's the original of 'That's All Right Mama' by Arthur 'Big Boy' Crudup - shamelessly stolen in every detail of arrangement and vocal mannerism by Elvis.
There are also the originals of Move It On Over and House of Blue Lights (subsequently covered brilliantly by George Thorogood & the Destroyers) by Hank Williams & the Drifting Cowboys and Ella Mae Morse with Freddie Slack and his Orchestra respectively.
I hadn't realised till I listened to the Hooker CD that John Lee was the writer of "I'm Bad Like Jesse James", which Eric Burden and the Animals covered so brilliantly on one of their first albums, back in the mid-60s.
We knew about T-Bone Walker's "dynamic showmanship, blistering guitar playing and powerful vocals", but who knew he was named Aaron Thibeaux Walker - hence T-Bone?
-----------------------------------
After discovering there's a blues festival happening in Ashburton this weekend I rushed down to the Town Hall after having dinner at Brother B's last night to catch Paul Lamb and the King Snakes - the headliners on Friday's bill.
This is a great little outfit, with Paul as ever the dynamic frontman blowing his lungs out for two hours on the harmonica, and his son Ryan playing some superb lead guitar. The band clearly enjoy working together and love the blues to the point of obsession, and beyond. The joint was rocking and a great time was had by all. Catch them wherever you can.
As it happens the current incarnation of The Animals are closing the festival on Sunday night, a show that's been sold out for days. Might try to blag my way in though.
--------------------------------------
Bloody hell – forget The Mirror - now Channel 4 are at it – reporting on their flagship news programme that a runner-up in a talent show has been rushed to hospital. They're saying that even the Prime Minister has been putting his oar in about it. What's going on? John Snow spending valuable time showing film of some 'street dancers' and an unattractive singer competing for victory in this rubbish for saddos.
Aaarghh! A 'smiling' Prime Minister chatting on a TV sofa about his concern for this person, saying he's spoken with Piers Morgan and Simon Cowell about the situation. This is fucking MAD. Brown the would-be populist making himself look even more ludicrous.
I've got no problem with crappy talent shows being extremely popular, providing they stay in their proper home on ITV3. But this stuff is NOT front page news fit for a national newspaper and doesn't belong on a serious news programme on Channel 4 either.
.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Layer 163 General Motors, Bankruptcy, Autonomous Learners, Electoral Reform and a Tory Clause 4.
.
THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN POSTED LAST WEDNESDAY
A couple of interesting snippets from the radio.
1. This morning it was reported that the bond-holders of General Motors have said no to swopping their bonds for the company's shares, and thereby refusing to switch from being creditors of GM to being owners of the company. This news is so dire for GM that they are now being advised to file for bankruptcy. It used to be said that what was good for GM was good for America. Does this now mean that the US should file for bankruptcy? If China decided to dump their holdings of dollars then they'd have no choice. So much for the triumph of pure free-market capitalism. The USA is effectively being kept solvent by the fact that a communist country currently chooses to keep its financial reserves in dollars, thereby maintaining the value of the dollar.
2. Last week a spokesperson for British universities was saying that the big transition that undergraduates need to make is to stop seeing university as an extension of school and to start becoming autonomous and lifelong learners. The irony of this is brilliant. Who do they think is to blame for the fact that students have been infantilised by our education system to the point where even young adults have yet to become autonomous learners? Let alone enthusiastic, self-motivated and lifelong learners who love learning for its own sake and eagerly embrace learning every day of their lives?
If children as young as the newborn are capable of being autonomous learners, then who takes away that autonomy? If KS2 children are capable of using the Internet and libraries to pursue their own independent learning - which they are - then who turns them back into dependent and non-autonomous exam-passers? Could the responsibility lie with the expectations of tertiary education, by any chance – with its incessant demands for A grades, which schools are encouraged to pursue (under threat) by cramming and directing pupils' learning to the nth degree?
This is so ludicrous and so sickening it's hard to even discuss it sanely and rationally. It's shameful for a country to have to admit that the vast majority of its young people (and indeed older people) have no idea how to be autonomous learners with an interest in and indeed a love of learning for its own sake.
The majority of our population, those who don't get the A grades at A level, consider themselves academic failures, even as they occasionally discover a talent and an ability to develop expertise in certain skills and subjects. These are the people who discovered that they were goats when the rewards were being given out to the sheep. They were labelled as such, and they feel labelled – second or third class. Even 2nd class honours degree students feel second class. The real academic high flyers might be absolute dunces and clods when it comes to actually applying their knowledge, and totally uncreative as people, and total numbskulls when it comes to other sorts of intelligence, but by jove they're the cream as far as academia is concerned.
It's a miracle in our society if people who were never allowed to enjoy learning suddenly discover that it's enjoyable. But the most ludicrous thing of all is that even when they become undergraduates, and indeed at post-graduate level, students are not allowed to be autonomous learners. Heaven help them if they depart from the syllabus and strike out in directions that are nothing to do with their chosen degree. They're asking for trouble if they depart from the received wisdom of their department and develop ideas of their own, or embrace the alternative ideas, on education for example, of non-approved thinkers and academics.
----------------------------------------------
Electoral Reform.
There's an interesting editorial in today's Guardian about electoral reform. Basically it says that virtually everyone who's been commenting on their features on the New Politics has said that proportional representation is essential, even if Labour and the Tories don't. Well, those people wouldn't, would they?
Oxzen said this on CIF :
NO to proportional representation?
Electing MPs on the basis of members representing a specific geographical area is well and good, but it's only one basis for representation. What's clearly lacking in our geography-obsessed First Past The Post system is proper representation of a range of political IDEAS and ideologies. Why can't Cameron, the Tories and New Labour grasp this? Or, if they do get it, why can't they just be honest and say "we don't want proportional representation because we recognise that people might vote for IDEAS instead of brands (NuLabour, Tory) and personalities (Cameron, Brown, etc), and that's unlikely to be to our advantage"?
The people of Britain DEMAND that they be able to vote on the basis of true PR for parties that most represent their political beliefs rather than the discredited brands known as Conservative, Labour and LibDem. You don't believe me? Hold a referendum.
-----------------------------------------------
And on Cameron's article about the need for a massive radical redistribution of power Oxzen said:
Mr Cameron mentions "bankers who got rich whilst bringing the economy to its knees". Can he honestly say that he raised his concerns about this whilst it was actually happening? And if not, why not? Because plenty of progressives, including writers on The Guardian and The Observer, did so. Is he seriously saying that his "progressive conservatism" will take the necessary steps to ensure it can never happen again?
Whilst it's difficult to disagree with much of what he says here I have to take issue with his superficial understanding of what needs to happen to the education system. He clearly supports a "market" approach, which is a recipe for disorder, waste and fragmentation. The best systems, e.g. Finland, are run as proper integrated systems by professionals who have a thorough understanding of the educational needs of children.
What on earth does he mean by giving funds to "any suitably qualified organisation" to set up and run a school? Organisations, as such, cannot be "qualified". Everything depends on the pedagogic approaches of the organisation, and the ideology or educational philosophy of those who manage and teach within it.
Surely as a parent he knows that it's the needs of children that ought to be paramount, and that the needs of children are not met by schools competing to better their positions in league tables determined by inappropriate summative tests, administered at enormous public expense, which he says nothing about.
And what makes him think that "empowering councils" is more likely to be helpful to schools? Has he really spoken to local politicians about their understanding of the needs of schools and their pupils? This would be a step in the right direction in some cases, since New Labour's centralisation has been so counterproductive, but it's no guarantee of bringing enlightenment to bear on the problems of schools.
As for Mr C's refusal to contemplate proportional representation - he clearly thinks his party is likely to win the next election by a landslide under the current system, and so has no intention of even asking we, the people, whether we want PR. This says everything about how "principled" and "progressive" he really is, or rather isn't.
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a way that was a bit harsh. It's clearly impossible at the moment for Cameron to get his party to support PR. So he's maybe just being pragmatic, rather than unprincipled. Assuming he really is a decent, sensible and progressive Conservative (OK – I know that's pretty much an oxymoron) then the real test of whether he's going to shift his party in the direction he says he wants to go in will be whether he manages to persuade the party to support PR. This will be his Clause 4 moment.
THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN POSTED LAST WEDNESDAY
A couple of interesting snippets from the radio.
1. This morning it was reported that the bond-holders of General Motors have said no to swopping their bonds for the company's shares, and thereby refusing to switch from being creditors of GM to being owners of the company. This news is so dire for GM that they are now being advised to file for bankruptcy. It used to be said that what was good for GM was good for America. Does this now mean that the US should file for bankruptcy? If China decided to dump their holdings of dollars then they'd have no choice. So much for the triumph of pure free-market capitalism. The USA is effectively being kept solvent by the fact that a communist country currently chooses to keep its financial reserves in dollars, thereby maintaining the value of the dollar.
2. Last week a spokesperson for British universities was saying that the big transition that undergraduates need to make is to stop seeing university as an extension of school and to start becoming autonomous and lifelong learners. The irony of this is brilliant. Who do they think is to blame for the fact that students have been infantilised by our education system to the point where even young adults have yet to become autonomous learners? Let alone enthusiastic, self-motivated and lifelong learners who love learning for its own sake and eagerly embrace learning every day of their lives?
If children as young as the newborn are capable of being autonomous learners, then who takes away that autonomy? If KS2 children are capable of using the Internet and libraries to pursue their own independent learning - which they are - then who turns them back into dependent and non-autonomous exam-passers? Could the responsibility lie with the expectations of tertiary education, by any chance – with its incessant demands for A grades, which schools are encouraged to pursue (under threat) by cramming and directing pupils' learning to the nth degree?
This is so ludicrous and so sickening it's hard to even discuss it sanely and rationally. It's shameful for a country to have to admit that the vast majority of its young people (and indeed older people) have no idea how to be autonomous learners with an interest in and indeed a love of learning for its own sake.
The majority of our population, those who don't get the A grades at A level, consider themselves academic failures, even as they occasionally discover a talent and an ability to develop expertise in certain skills and subjects. These are the people who discovered that they were goats when the rewards were being given out to the sheep. They were labelled as such, and they feel labelled – second or third class. Even 2nd class honours degree students feel second class. The real academic high flyers might be absolute dunces and clods when it comes to actually applying their knowledge, and totally uncreative as people, and total numbskulls when it comes to other sorts of intelligence, but by jove they're the cream as far as academia is concerned.
It's a miracle in our society if people who were never allowed to enjoy learning suddenly discover that it's enjoyable. But the most ludicrous thing of all is that even when they become undergraduates, and indeed at post-graduate level, students are not allowed to be autonomous learners. Heaven help them if they depart from the syllabus and strike out in directions that are nothing to do with their chosen degree. They're asking for trouble if they depart from the received wisdom of their department and develop ideas of their own, or embrace the alternative ideas, on education for example, of non-approved thinkers and academics.
----------------------------------------------
Electoral Reform.
There's an interesting editorial in today's Guardian about electoral reform. Basically it says that virtually everyone who's been commenting on their features on the New Politics has said that proportional representation is essential, even if Labour and the Tories don't. Well, those people wouldn't, would they?
Oxzen said this on CIF :
NO to proportional representation?
Electing MPs on the basis of members representing a specific geographical area is well and good, but it's only one basis for representation. What's clearly lacking in our geography-obsessed First Past The Post system is proper representation of a range of political IDEAS and ideologies. Why can't Cameron, the Tories and New Labour grasp this? Or, if they do get it, why can't they just be honest and say "we don't want proportional representation because we recognise that people might vote for IDEAS instead of brands (NuLabour, Tory) and personalities (Cameron, Brown, etc), and that's unlikely to be to our advantage"?
The people of Britain DEMAND that they be able to vote on the basis of true PR for parties that most represent their political beliefs rather than the discredited brands known as Conservative, Labour and LibDem. You don't believe me? Hold a referendum.
-----------------------------------------------
And on Cameron's article about the need for a massive radical redistribution of power Oxzen said:
Mr Cameron mentions "bankers who got rich whilst bringing the economy to its knees". Can he honestly say that he raised his concerns about this whilst it was actually happening? And if not, why not? Because plenty of progressives, including writers on The Guardian and The Observer, did so. Is he seriously saying that his "progressive conservatism" will take the necessary steps to ensure it can never happen again?
Whilst it's difficult to disagree with much of what he says here I have to take issue with his superficial understanding of what needs to happen to the education system. He clearly supports a "market" approach, which is a recipe for disorder, waste and fragmentation. The best systems, e.g. Finland, are run as proper integrated systems by professionals who have a thorough understanding of the educational needs of children.
What on earth does he mean by giving funds to "any suitably qualified organisation" to set up and run a school? Organisations, as such, cannot be "qualified". Everything depends on the pedagogic approaches of the organisation, and the ideology or educational philosophy of those who manage and teach within it.
Surely as a parent he knows that it's the needs of children that ought to be paramount, and that the needs of children are not met by schools competing to better their positions in league tables determined by inappropriate summative tests, administered at enormous public expense, which he says nothing about.
And what makes him think that "empowering councils" is more likely to be helpful to schools? Has he really spoken to local politicians about their understanding of the needs of schools and their pupils? This would be a step in the right direction in some cases, since New Labour's centralisation has been so counterproductive, but it's no guarantee of bringing enlightenment to bear on the problems of schools.
As for Mr C's refusal to contemplate proportional representation - he clearly thinks his party is likely to win the next election by a landslide under the current system, and so has no intention of even asking we, the people, whether we want PR. This says everything about how "principled" and "progressive" he really is, or rather isn't.
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a way that was a bit harsh. It's clearly impossible at the moment for Cameron to get his party to support PR. So he's maybe just being pragmatic, rather than unprincipled. Assuming he really is a decent, sensible and progressive Conservative (OK – I know that's pretty much an oxymoron) then the real test of whether he's going to shift his party in the direction he says he wants to go in will be whether he manages to persuade the party to support PR. This will be his Clause 4 moment.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Layer 162 Social Intelligence and Creative Classrooms.
.
Reflecting on human groups (Layer 161) brings me back to the subject of social intelligence, and, looking back, I notice I referred to Daniel Goleman's book called Social Intelligence in Layer 22. A year's gone by and I've still not finished the book!
Goleman sub-titled this book “The New Science of Human Relationships.”
Here's a taster.
"In this book I aim to lift the curtain on an emerging science, one that almost daily reveals startling insights into our interpersonal world.
The most fundamental revelation of this new discipline: we are wired to connect.
Neuroscience has discovered that our brain's very design makes it sociable, inexorably drawn into an intimate brain-to-brain linkup whenever we engage with another person. That neural bridge lets us affect the brain – and so the body – of everyone we interact with, just as they do us.
--------------------------------------
To a surprising extent, then, our relationships mould not just our experience but also our biology.
That link is a double-edged sword: nourishing relationships have a beneficial impact on our health, while toxic ones can act like slow poison in our bodies.
The spotlight [of this book] now shifts to those ephemeral moments that emerge as we interact. These take on deep consequence as we realise how, through their sum total, we create one another.
Our enquiry speaks to questions like . . . Can we do a better job of helping our children grow up to be happy? How can a teacher or leader enable the brains of students or workers to do their best? What helps groups riven by hatred come to live together in peace? And what do these insights suggest for the kind of society we are able to build – and for what really matters in each of our lives? (My italics)
-------------------------------------------
Today, just as science reveals how crucially important nourishing relationships are, human connections seem increasingly under siege. Social corrosion has many faces.
To the extent that technology absorbs people in a virtual reality, it deadens them to those who are actually nearby. The resulting social autism adds to the ongoing list of unintended human consequences of the continuing invasion of technology into our daily lives.
Email and cell phones penetrate essential barriers around private time and family life. The cell phone can ring on a picnic with the kids, and even at home mum or dad can be absent from the family as they diligently go through their email every evening.
Of course the kids don't really notice – they're fixated on their own email, a Web game, or the TV screen in their bedroom.
---------------------------------
The social brain is the sum of the neural mechanisms that orchestrate our interactions as well as our thoughts and feelings about people and our relationships . . . The social brain represents the only biological system in our bodies that continually attunes us to, and in turn becomes influenced by, the internal state of people we're with . . . Whenever we connect face to face (or voice to voice, or skin to skin) with someone else, our social brains interlock.
By repeatedly driving our brain into a given register, our key relationships can gradually mold certain neural circuitry. In effect, being chronically hurt and angered, or being emotionally nourished, by someone we spend time with daily over the course of years can refashion our brain.
Thus how we connect with others has unimagined significance.
-------------------------------
The social responsiveness of the brain demands that we be wise, that we realise how not just our own moods but our very biology is being driven and moulded by the other people in our lives – and in turn, it demands that we take stock of how we affect other people's emotions and biology. Indeed we can take the measure of a relationship in terms of a person's impact on us, and ours on them.
The biological influence passing from person to person suggests a new dimension of a life well lived: conducting ourselves in ways that are beneficial even at this subtle level for those with whom we connect.
Relationships themselves take on a new meaning, and so we need to think about them in a radically different way. The implications are of more than passing theoretical interest: they compel us to reevaluate how we live our lives.
----------------------------------
The education section of The Guardian today is a real dog's breakfast. There's good stuff in Phil Beadle's column, 'On Teaching': “The Human Cost of Exam Success”.
“Routinely kept in after school and bawled out for their own good, their once bright eyes have taken on a harried nervousness. They are corralled, lectured, cajoled, told it's all in their best interests, and led in the direction of the epiphany that the best preparation for a joy-free life of institutionalised overwork is a joy-free life of institutionalised overwork.
Jemma, who was delicately pretty at the beginning of the year, still is, but she has lost something nearly tangible and replaced it with a ghostly expression . . .
Jodie, Tina, Rita and Janet have joined the ranks of the disappeared. They used to come to school – they don't any more.”
----------------------------------
And that's just the teachers.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/may/26/phil-beadle-exam-success
Estelle Morris, as ever, writes a bland little column that's all sweetness and light and perfectly reasonable and inoffensive and useless. Should schools be prepared to spend some of their own budgets on providing artistic and cultural experiences both in and out of school for their pupils? Yes.
--------------------------------------------------
There's a whole page headed, “We Want the Wow Factor”. OK, OK – but let's force ourselves to read on.
“Is it possible for schools to shake off the constraints of the curriculum and be creative? Says Naomi Westland.”
Who she? Some sort of cub reporter on her first assignment? WHAT constraints? What do you mean by is it POSSIBLE to be creative? OF COURSE IT'S BLEEDING POSSIBLE YOU DIMWIT!
This is the kind of report that ought to be a beacon of hope and inspiration and is in fact utterly depressing in that we really shouldn't be thinking this is brand new and innovative and the answer to everything when it's no different to what good schools have been doing for decades, only now there are so few good Primary schools that offer children meaningful and stimulating ways of learning that's it's worth printing a whole page on the delights of thematic, integrated learning through creative first-hand learning experiences.
WE ALREADY KNOW THIS STUFF! WHO'S BEEN STOPPING US DOING IT? WHY DID WE ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN?
Now go away and write another page around those questions, Naomi dear.
For the record, here's some snippets, so you can see what I'm pissed off about:
“We wanted a 'wow factor' in our curriculum. We wanted the children to have lots of visitors, to go on lots of trips, and to have the chance to learn by doing rather than just by reading and watching videos.”
“We want the children to be outside as much as possible, doing hands-on activities and getting dirty . . .”
“The important thing is that children have deep and rich learning experiences, whether their school follows a creative curriculum or a more traditional one.”
“He believes teachers are at the heart of the creative curriculum and that the 'overly prescriptive' approach of the last 15 years has had a 'deprofessionalising' effect. “The lack of emphasis on creativity has turned teachers into technicians. If teachers are empowered and enthusiastic, that rubs off on the children. This is an exciting time if you have passion, vision and are prepared to take risks.”
“School leaders and teachers should be given time to work out what the needs of the children and the school are and respond to them – the benefits are that children achieve well and teachers enjoy teaching.”
“She maintains that that is the point of a creative curriculum – schools can teach all of the key skills but using the interests of children and teachers to make it fun and engaging for both, she says. “It has had a very positive impact on children's attitude and engagement because we are teaching with relevance and purpose. And my staff are happier.”
Well fucking hell. Just fancy that.
What I want to know is, why did these people ever do things any differently? Didn't they always know this stuff? Why did they allow or encourage their staff to work in any other way? What was stopping them doing the right things all these years?
I think we know the answers to these questions. As the article itself says:
“Tim Burgess, headteacher at Chandler Church of England school in Godalming, Surrey, and author of a report entitled Lifting the Lid on the Creative Curriculum, says schools are often reluctant because of "an oppressive data-police mentality and fear of the standards agenda". He explains that the Excellence and Enjoyment strategy for primary schools introduced in 2003 gave schools the green light to be more flexible with the curriculum, but at the same time they were "under huge pressure to meet targets and adhere to standards". "Moving to a creative curriculum involves taking risks - some schools don't believe it will improve results," he says.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/may/26/creativity-schools
------------------------------------
Last Saturday Mike Baker wrote a column called “Benefits of Creative Classrooms” for the BBC website. This one is actually worth a read, since it deals with WHY the government-commissioned report “All Our Futures” was never actioned.
"Ten years ago this month a 243-page report on the importance of promoting creativity and culture in schools landed on ministers' desks.
It had been commissioned in the heady early days of the Blair government to recommend ways to make progress in the "creative and cultural development of young people" both in and out of school.
The review was led by Sir Ken Robinson and included leading scientists, business leaders, and key figures from the arts world.
It was widely acclaimed.
It argued that creativity was a skill that could be taught.
It was not about progressive teaching or loose discipline. Nor was it in any way an alternative to the essential skills of numeracy and literacy.
Rather it was about encouraging pupils to be innovative and to develop the ability to problem-solve in all areas of the curriculum, from maths to technology.
It argued that such skills were essential to individuals, employers and the whole economy.
Tough
But what has happened since?
There has certainly been cultural activity in schools but even the strongest champions of creative and cultural education would have to admit that the report - called All Our Futures - has not dominated schools policy.
That's because it came out just at a time when the new Labour government was investing its energy in boosting standards in the "three Rs".
Determined to show it was tough in standards, Labour's drive was focused on the Numeracy and Literacy Hours.
Ask a primary school pupil in England what numeracy or literacy is and they will have no hesitation in describing what they do in class for an hour each day.
But creativity? Even if All Our Futures had suggested a "creativity hour" it would probably have been seen as a distraction from the key message on standards.
Of course, it did not recommend anything as gimmicky, since the whole tenor of the report was that creativity and culture are not some sort of bolt-on activities, but are skills that should be developed throughout all aspects of teaching and learning, in science as much as in the arts.
In some ways the report was ahead of its time.
It called for a reduction in the burden of assessment and said the national curriculum should be reduced to take up no more than 80% of the timetable.
The latter recommendation probably now seems too modest, an indication of how far the call for greater freedom for schools has been reflected in subsequent reforms of the curriculum.
Results 'boost'
But any satisfaction the authors of All Our Futures may draw from subsequent events must, surely, be tempered by recognition that there is still a long way to go before creativity is seen as fundamental to teaching and learning in schools.
The current fierce debate about the national tests, or Sats, at age 11 hinges on whether they contribute to a narrowing of the curriculum, with many teachers and schools feeling they dominate the final years of primary school.
Indeed, the accountability criteria that determine success or failure for schools and teachers are overwhelmingly based on formal tests, particularly covering English and maths, not on indicators that reflect pupils' creativity.
So you could not blame head teachers if they felt it was more important to secure their school against league table failure - or the triggering of an Ofsted inspection - than to promote creativity.
However, a report published this week by the new charity Creativity, Culture and Education (CCE) highlights research suggesting that a focus on creativity in schools need not be at the expense of achievement in the basics.
Indeed, it claims the very opposite: that creativity boost exam results and attendance.
The report looks at the record of a programme called Creative Partnerships.
--------------------------------------
And so on.
The piece concludes by saying:
"The evidence so far seems to back the view that putting a real emphasis on creative and cultural education in schools has broad benefits.
However, getting all schools to take this route will continue to be difficult when the accountability measures that determine the success or failure of schools continue to emphasise short-term improvements in formal qualifications.
Perhaps the government's proposed new School Report Cards can find a way of indicating whether a school is successfully promoting creative and cultural education?"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8064306.stm
.
Reflecting on human groups (Layer 161) brings me back to the subject of social intelligence, and, looking back, I notice I referred to Daniel Goleman's book called Social Intelligence in Layer 22. A year's gone by and I've still not finished the book!
Goleman sub-titled this book “The New Science of Human Relationships.”
Here's a taster.
"In this book I aim to lift the curtain on an emerging science, one that almost daily reveals startling insights into our interpersonal world.
The most fundamental revelation of this new discipline: we are wired to connect.
Neuroscience has discovered that our brain's very design makes it sociable, inexorably drawn into an intimate brain-to-brain linkup whenever we engage with another person. That neural bridge lets us affect the brain – and so the body – of everyone we interact with, just as they do us.
--------------------------------------
To a surprising extent, then, our relationships mould not just our experience but also our biology.
That link is a double-edged sword: nourishing relationships have a beneficial impact on our health, while toxic ones can act like slow poison in our bodies.
The spotlight [of this book] now shifts to those ephemeral moments that emerge as we interact. These take on deep consequence as we realise how, through their sum total, we create one another.
Our enquiry speaks to questions like . . . Can we do a better job of helping our children grow up to be happy? How can a teacher or leader enable the brains of students or workers to do their best? What helps groups riven by hatred come to live together in peace? And what do these insights suggest for the kind of society we are able to build – and for what really matters in each of our lives? (My italics)
-------------------------------------------
Today, just as science reveals how crucially important nourishing relationships are, human connections seem increasingly under siege. Social corrosion has many faces.
To the extent that technology absorbs people in a virtual reality, it deadens them to those who are actually nearby. The resulting social autism adds to the ongoing list of unintended human consequences of the continuing invasion of technology into our daily lives.
Email and cell phones penetrate essential barriers around private time and family life. The cell phone can ring on a picnic with the kids, and even at home mum or dad can be absent from the family as they diligently go through their email every evening.
Of course the kids don't really notice – they're fixated on their own email, a Web game, or the TV screen in their bedroom.
---------------------------------
The social brain is the sum of the neural mechanisms that orchestrate our interactions as well as our thoughts and feelings about people and our relationships . . . The social brain represents the only biological system in our bodies that continually attunes us to, and in turn becomes influenced by, the internal state of people we're with . . . Whenever we connect face to face (or voice to voice, or skin to skin) with someone else, our social brains interlock.
By repeatedly driving our brain into a given register, our key relationships can gradually mold certain neural circuitry. In effect, being chronically hurt and angered, or being emotionally nourished, by someone we spend time with daily over the course of years can refashion our brain.
Thus how we connect with others has unimagined significance.
-------------------------------
The social responsiveness of the brain demands that we be wise, that we realise how not just our own moods but our very biology is being driven and moulded by the other people in our lives – and in turn, it demands that we take stock of how we affect other people's emotions and biology. Indeed we can take the measure of a relationship in terms of a person's impact on us, and ours on them.
The biological influence passing from person to person suggests a new dimension of a life well lived: conducting ourselves in ways that are beneficial even at this subtle level for those with whom we connect.
Relationships themselves take on a new meaning, and so we need to think about them in a radically different way. The implications are of more than passing theoretical interest: they compel us to reevaluate how we live our lives.
----------------------------------
The education section of The Guardian today is a real dog's breakfast. There's good stuff in Phil Beadle's column, 'On Teaching': “The Human Cost of Exam Success”.
“Routinely kept in after school and bawled out for their own good, their once bright eyes have taken on a harried nervousness. They are corralled, lectured, cajoled, told it's all in their best interests, and led in the direction of the epiphany that the best preparation for a joy-free life of institutionalised overwork is a joy-free life of institutionalised overwork.
Jemma, who was delicately pretty at the beginning of the year, still is, but she has lost something nearly tangible and replaced it with a ghostly expression . . .
Jodie, Tina, Rita and Janet have joined the ranks of the disappeared. They used to come to school – they don't any more.”
----------------------------------
And that's just the teachers.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/may/26/phil-beadle-exam-success
Estelle Morris, as ever, writes a bland little column that's all sweetness and light and perfectly reasonable and inoffensive and useless. Should schools be prepared to spend some of their own budgets on providing artistic and cultural experiences both in and out of school for their pupils? Yes.
--------------------------------------------------
There's a whole page headed, “We Want the Wow Factor”. OK, OK – but let's force ourselves to read on.
“Is it possible for schools to shake off the constraints of the curriculum and be creative? Says Naomi Westland.”
Who she? Some sort of cub reporter on her first assignment? WHAT constraints? What do you mean by is it POSSIBLE to be creative? OF COURSE IT'S BLEEDING POSSIBLE YOU DIMWIT!
This is the kind of report that ought to be a beacon of hope and inspiration and is in fact utterly depressing in that we really shouldn't be thinking this is brand new and innovative and the answer to everything when it's no different to what good schools have been doing for decades, only now there are so few good Primary schools that offer children meaningful and stimulating ways of learning that's it's worth printing a whole page on the delights of thematic, integrated learning through creative first-hand learning experiences.
WE ALREADY KNOW THIS STUFF! WHO'S BEEN STOPPING US DOING IT? WHY DID WE ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN?
Now go away and write another page around those questions, Naomi dear.
For the record, here's some snippets, so you can see what I'm pissed off about:
“We wanted a 'wow factor' in our curriculum. We wanted the children to have lots of visitors, to go on lots of trips, and to have the chance to learn by doing rather than just by reading and watching videos.”
“We want the children to be outside as much as possible, doing hands-on activities and getting dirty . . .”
“The important thing is that children have deep and rich learning experiences, whether their school follows a creative curriculum or a more traditional one.”
“He believes teachers are at the heart of the creative curriculum and that the 'overly prescriptive' approach of the last 15 years has had a 'deprofessionalising' effect. “The lack of emphasis on creativity has turned teachers into technicians. If teachers are empowered and enthusiastic, that rubs off on the children. This is an exciting time if you have passion, vision and are prepared to take risks.”
“School leaders and teachers should be given time to work out what the needs of the children and the school are and respond to them – the benefits are that children achieve well and teachers enjoy teaching.”
“She maintains that that is the point of a creative curriculum – schools can teach all of the key skills but using the interests of children and teachers to make it fun and engaging for both, she says. “It has had a very positive impact on children's attitude and engagement because we are teaching with relevance and purpose. And my staff are happier.”
Well fucking hell. Just fancy that.
What I want to know is, why did these people ever do things any differently? Didn't they always know this stuff? Why did they allow or encourage their staff to work in any other way? What was stopping them doing the right things all these years?
I think we know the answers to these questions. As the article itself says:
“Tim Burgess, headteacher at Chandler Church of England school in Godalming, Surrey, and author of a report entitled Lifting the Lid on the Creative Curriculum, says schools are often reluctant because of "an oppressive data-police mentality and fear of the standards agenda". He explains that the Excellence and Enjoyment strategy for primary schools introduced in 2003 gave schools the green light to be more flexible with the curriculum, but at the same time they were "under huge pressure to meet targets and adhere to standards". "Moving to a creative curriculum involves taking risks - some schools don't believe it will improve results," he says.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/may/26/creativity-schools
------------------------------------
Last Saturday Mike Baker wrote a column called “Benefits of Creative Classrooms” for the BBC website. This one is actually worth a read, since it deals with WHY the government-commissioned report “All Our Futures” was never actioned.
"Ten years ago this month a 243-page report on the importance of promoting creativity and culture in schools landed on ministers' desks.
It had been commissioned in the heady early days of the Blair government to recommend ways to make progress in the "creative and cultural development of young people" both in and out of school.
The review was led by Sir Ken Robinson and included leading scientists, business leaders, and key figures from the arts world.
It was widely acclaimed.
It argued that creativity was a skill that could be taught.
It was not about progressive teaching or loose discipline. Nor was it in any way an alternative to the essential skills of numeracy and literacy.
Rather it was about encouraging pupils to be innovative and to develop the ability to problem-solve in all areas of the curriculum, from maths to technology.
It argued that such skills were essential to individuals, employers and the whole economy.
Tough
But what has happened since?
There has certainly been cultural activity in schools but even the strongest champions of creative and cultural education would have to admit that the report - called All Our Futures - has not dominated schools policy.
That's because it came out just at a time when the new Labour government was investing its energy in boosting standards in the "three Rs".
Determined to show it was tough in standards, Labour's drive was focused on the Numeracy and Literacy Hours.
Ask a primary school pupil in England what numeracy or literacy is and they will have no hesitation in describing what they do in class for an hour each day.
But creativity? Even if All Our Futures had suggested a "creativity hour" it would probably have been seen as a distraction from the key message on standards.
Of course, it did not recommend anything as gimmicky, since the whole tenor of the report was that creativity and culture are not some sort of bolt-on activities, but are skills that should be developed throughout all aspects of teaching and learning, in science as much as in the arts.
In some ways the report was ahead of its time.
It called for a reduction in the burden of assessment and said the national curriculum should be reduced to take up no more than 80% of the timetable.
The latter recommendation probably now seems too modest, an indication of how far the call for greater freedom for schools has been reflected in subsequent reforms of the curriculum.
Results 'boost'
But any satisfaction the authors of All Our Futures may draw from subsequent events must, surely, be tempered by recognition that there is still a long way to go before creativity is seen as fundamental to teaching and learning in schools.
The current fierce debate about the national tests, or Sats, at age 11 hinges on whether they contribute to a narrowing of the curriculum, with many teachers and schools feeling they dominate the final years of primary school.
Indeed, the accountability criteria that determine success or failure for schools and teachers are overwhelmingly based on formal tests, particularly covering English and maths, not on indicators that reflect pupils' creativity.
So you could not blame head teachers if they felt it was more important to secure their school against league table failure - or the triggering of an Ofsted inspection - than to promote creativity.
However, a report published this week by the new charity Creativity, Culture and Education (CCE) highlights research suggesting that a focus on creativity in schools need not be at the expense of achievement in the basics.
Indeed, it claims the very opposite: that creativity boost exam results and attendance.
The report looks at the record of a programme called Creative Partnerships.
--------------------------------------
And so on.
The piece concludes by saying:
"The evidence so far seems to back the view that putting a real emphasis on creative and cultural education in schools has broad benefits.
However, getting all schools to take this route will continue to be difficult when the accountability measures that determine the success or failure of schools continue to emphasise short-term improvements in formal qualifications.
Perhaps the government's proposed new School Report Cards can find a way of indicating whether a school is successfully promoting creative and cultural education?"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8064306.stm
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)