Happy-go-Lucky

I won't mess around with any second rate film-crit about Mike Leigh's latest film Happy-Go-Lucky. But, at the end of the film, I was left wondering about how it represents the schooling of young children.

First of all, the birds. Poppy spends Sunday with her flatmate Zoe getting materials together to make bird masks with the children. She introduces the idea to the children on Monday in an animated way - they look at a big map together, and she traces a line with her finger to show the extent of the migration routes. Then the children start making bird masks and Poppy moves around them encouragingly, suggesting a bit of extra glitter here, or another feather there. It's charming, in a way, and it's what I remember wanting to go into teaching to do. And it all ends with a lot of fun as the children move around, a little, and make noises, bird-masked.

So - how does Poppy see the children? First of all she stands before them all with a big map. Can little children relate the tracing of a finger on a map, to a thousand-mile journey? No. Then they make "bird masks" - not any particular bird (unless I missed something), just birds. Whatever. A bit of extra glitter here, some more feathers here. They all make these masks. And then, following her urging, they move around a little bit and make some noises.

Aren't the children, then, just elements in Poppy's own play. She wants to play birds. They are obliged to join in. It doesn't relate to their understanding of distance, nor to any observations of bird appearance or movement they might have done. It's for the teacher's enjoyment. I would call this schooling - the children have to be there, and they have to do that - rather than education, where the focus is on development and learning. And though it appears superficially child-centred, it is not at all - it is just as adult-led as any literacy hour or worksheet session.

The other school scene I found interesting, is the bit where the social worker comes in to speak to the child. He just seems to drop in. The child is seated with him and Poppy, and brought into a discussion of how life is at home. No one seems to have discussed this first with the child's mother, or asked whether when she brought her child into school that day, would she mind him being interviewed by a social worker. It couldn't happen in an English school - the chance of even getting social services to take an interest in a case like this is minimal, let alone getting a social worker to come to a school, and parental consent would be needed in a case like this first.

But leaving such procedural nit-picks aside, I think what the film presents here is an idea of school as salvation. The school can go straight to work saving the child - never mind the parent or the family.

Overall, Happy-Go-Lucky (which is well worth seeing) told me two important things about how some left-liberal people see infant education. First, they are easily bamboozled into thinking that poorly-thought out, adult-controlled experiences like the bird-mask-making are creative and a good way for children to learn. They are neither. It was careless thinking like that, which destroyed child-centred education by labelling everything that was informal as child-centred.
Second, they think that schools and social workers act with a kind of benign informality: being nice to children and saving them from harmful experiences. In fact, for very good reasons, the interface between school and social services is quite formal. Unless a child is absolutely in danger of significant harm that day, social workers will always, quite rightly, begin by talking to the parent. When the system works well, long and careful work will then proceed with the family and the child, with the focus on the child's needs. Helping children and their families is much more than an informal drop in and a quick chat.

Social workers are either shown as being so terribly nice, as here, or as callous bungling child-snatchers, as in Ken Loach's Ladybird Laybird. I wonder why?

EYFS Review - Open EYE and Parliament's Children, Schools and Families Committee

The media-friendly Open EYE campaigners are (justifiably) pleased with their latest success, which is to get the Children, Schools and Families Committee at Parliament to discuss the Early Years Foundation Stage on Wednesday 21st May.

Here's my submission to the committee. If you want to do the same then you need to email Susan Ramsay - csfcom@parliament.uk

Dear Ms Ramsay

I understand that the Early Years Foundation Stage will come under scrutiny from the Children, Schools and Families Committee next Wednesday, 21st May, and that the Committee would be interested in written submissions.

I am the headteacher of a nursery school and children's centre (Kate Greenaway, in Islington, London); I am also engaged in research and staff development and training work as a doctoral student (part time) at the Institute of Education. Although the views I express below are informed by this, they are my personal views.

I have a number of concerns about the EYFS, which I will detail below, and which I have previously made public during the consultation phase and since. However I believe that on balance, the EYFS is not the damaging framework which it is being made out to be, and that whilst I would wish for changes and improvements in some respects I think that it will on balance improve the quality of early childhood education and care in England.

I have tried to keep my comments brief.

Over-regulation

My understanding of international research is that weak regulation goes hand in hand with poor quality early childhood services, the USA being perhaps the most notable example. The EYFS will effectively bring together an appropriate level of regulation, within the context of stated principles around children's entitlement to play and high levels of care (including a key person system). There are many further important principles, one of which is that Steiner and Montessori schools should be allowed to offer their distinctive approach to early years education and care. My understanding is that there is ongoing and satisfactory dialogue between the DCSF and these sectors to ensure this. The further objection to regulation is that it unduly constrains the freedom of private operators of nurseries. My view is that tighter regulation is essential to improved quality. Children deserve better quality than they receive in many private nurseries (with, of course, notable exceptions - there are good private nurseries, but both the EPPE research and Ofsted inspection system indicate that there is a statistically significant difference in the quality of the maintained sector compared to the private, in favour of the former).

As the state supplies considerable funding (both through the tax credit system, and the NEG) it can reasonably expect good quality and legislate for this.

For the future, I think that government should aim for a better qualified early years workforce, to include early years specialist teachers and with continued encouragement for nursery staff to gain degree-level qualifications. As the workforce becomes better qualified, it is reasonable to expect that the extent and detail of regulation could then be reduced.

Over-formal curriculum

In my view, there are a number of the early learning goals (especially in the area of reading and writing) which are inappropriate for young children. Their impact can then extend backwards through the system and encourage inappropriately early attempts to teach children formal reading and writing skills at too young an age. In effect these are left over from the old Foundation Stage. With the introduction of the new EYFS, the opportunity should have been taken to remove them. I also think that in extent and detail, the "Development Matters" section of the EYFS is unhelpful. However it should be noted that this section is advisory, not statutory. The EYFS places a statutory duty on providers of early education to promote play, to work closely with families, and to develop a key person system. The EYFS training I have been involved with has emphasized the principles and commitments, and has stressed that the "Development Matters" section is for guidance only.

A "toxic childhood"

Objections to the EYFS also seem to see it as part of a larger picture of how society is making childhood "toxic" in the UK. Whilst it is right to be concerned and vigilant on this front, my view is that currently the expansion of Children's Centres and early childhood education and care is making a very positive difference to the lives of many families and wider communities. There are many reasons why it is difficult to bring up children in today's conditions; there are also many aspects of children's and families' lives which are much, much better than they used to be in the days when the state took virtually no interest in early childhood services. The "toxic childhood" discussion also seems to me to end up essentially as an expression of age-old fears amongst some middle class people that their happiness and their children's prospects must be defended against a nasty and growing mob of barbarous others. I want to keep this brief; I have commented previously on this here.

Babies, the media and ethics

[Unedited]

Hi Julian,

I am working on The Charlotte Church show, for Channel 4 which will air in July.

At the moment I am approaching nursery schools to feature in our show.

Charlotte gave birth to a baby girl in September, so her new series will include baby related items.

We would like to film a fun video insert in the next few weeks.

We would be a small crew and we would quite simply film two young toddlers who have just learnt to walk 'racing' each other dressed up in mini sports wear.

Obviously, this would be a very short race that would last until one of them toppled over! We would need the babies for less than half an hour and would not put them under any stress.

It would be great if we could come and film at your nusery.

Please give me a call to discuss if you are interested.

Thanks so much

[I have deleted the name]