Five years ago I wrote a wee book on Family Learning. A friend referred to it recently and I replied dismissively that it was out of date. I haven’t had it down from the shelf for some time; my interests have moved on and I am out of touch with education these days. Anyway, who wants to hear from a teacher who hasn’t been in the classroom for years and has only a theoretical knowledge of A Curriculum for Excellence? What could I possibly contribute to the debate about the introduction of national standardised testing? But the truth is I’ve been stuffing hankies in my mouth and chaining my hands together in an effort not to join in the debate about raising attainment. I find I can’t be silent any longer.
First of all, full recognition to Nicola Sturgeon for attempts to level the playing field,
‘… nobody can be comfortable living in a country where different levels of wealth create such a significant gap in the attainment levels - and therefore the life chances - of so many children.’
My problem is with her suggestions for closing the gap. I don’t have any particular issue with standardised testing itself; my most recent school experience was in a climate where standardised testing was regarded as essential management information – how else could we know what we were doing was working unless we could measure the value we hoped to add? My argument is not so much with the method itself it is with the assumption that it is principally in schools that we make a difference to the attainment gap.
Now I don’t mean to disregard the teacher effect – in my long career in education I have worked with teachers who made herculean attempts to engage with the most disenchanted pupils, using their awesome skill to promote a love for learning in the most unpromising youngsters. One of them even got me through O Level Arithmetic and to this day I have no idea how he managed it. The teacher effect can be hugely positive (and hugely negative – but that’s another story).
Yes, some teachers are better at raising the attainment of less advantaged children, and some schools in poor areas outperform others in wealthier areas. There is much to learn from these outliers and standardised testing might just be the answer.
The problem is that we tend to over value the teacher and school effect and therefore this is what we fund. We either cannot or will not accept that there are much greater effects that we either underfund or completely ignore. And the greatest effect lies within the family. The extend to which the family provides a good learning experience for children from birth has more effect on attainment than nursery, school, the social class or education of the parents. The locus of the greatest effect is paid the least attention.
Any primary one teacher knows this – ask some. Those I worked with could predict accurately in the first weeks of school which children were likely not to be in education, employment or training at 16. While we might be concerned about the determinism involved and the effect of a lowered expectation, the overall message remains – at five years old it is already too late for many of our children. We have already let them down.
Yet we refuse to fund adequately the many excellent programmes developed over the years to engage with families and to support learning in the home and the community.
It is high time to stop tinkering with schools and start supporting families in the early years more effectively.
Enough. Read the book. I’ll lend you a copy.
First of all, full recognition to Nicola Sturgeon for attempts to level the playing field,
‘… nobody can be comfortable living in a country where different levels of wealth create such a significant gap in the attainment levels - and therefore the life chances - of so many children.’
My problem is with her suggestions for closing the gap. I don’t have any particular issue with standardised testing itself; my most recent school experience was in a climate where standardised testing was regarded as essential management information – how else could we know what we were doing was working unless we could measure the value we hoped to add? My argument is not so much with the method itself it is with the assumption that it is principally in schools that we make a difference to the attainment gap.
Now I don’t mean to disregard the teacher effect – in my long career in education I have worked with teachers who made herculean attempts to engage with the most disenchanted pupils, using their awesome skill to promote a love for learning in the most unpromising youngsters. One of them even got me through O Level Arithmetic and to this day I have no idea how he managed it. The teacher effect can be hugely positive (and hugely negative – but that’s another story).
Yes, some teachers are better at raising the attainment of less advantaged children, and some schools in poor areas outperform others in wealthier areas. There is much to learn from these outliers and standardised testing might just be the answer.
The problem is that we tend to over value the teacher and school effect and therefore this is what we fund. We either cannot or will not accept that there are much greater effects that we either underfund or completely ignore. And the greatest effect lies within the family. The extend to which the family provides a good learning experience for children from birth has more effect on attainment than nursery, school, the social class or education of the parents. The locus of the greatest effect is paid the least attention.
Any primary one teacher knows this – ask some. Those I worked with could predict accurately in the first weeks of school which children were likely not to be in education, employment or training at 16. While we might be concerned about the determinism involved and the effect of a lowered expectation, the overall message remains – at five years old it is already too late for many of our children. We have already let them down.
Yet we refuse to fund adequately the many excellent programmes developed over the years to engage with families and to support learning in the home and the community.
It is high time to stop tinkering with schools and start supporting families in the early years more effectively.
Enough. Read the book. I’ll lend you a copy.