Gove letters straight from the heart.

This is a follow up post to …."Yes Sir we have no bananas today" because I wrote to my MP about the whole Sex Ed Bill thing and, my goodness, had a letter back. It turns out he forwarded my letter to Mr Gove, and so I also have a copy of Gove’s response.

I get ahead of myself. Let’s recap.

What is the Sex Ed Bill?
The Sex Ed Bill is a 10 minute Bill proposed by Nadine Dorries, which gets its second hearing in January. Dorries proposes, amongst other things, that girls be taught abstinence as part of their Sex Ed. She doesn’t feel that current teaching deals with the pressure to have sex and that girls need to be taught to say no.

Which is bad because....
It’s utter nonsense. Nonsense of the most perfidious kind because it hides a multitude of dangers.
Firstly, there is no documented proof that abstinence reduces teenage pregnancy rates. It is not a commonly adopted policy, I’m only aware of it being taught in the US, where it has failed to achieve its aims. The current Teenage Pregnancy strategy in the UK is lowering pregnancy rates.

Less obvious, and more worrying though, are the underlying messages here. Girls are given responsibility for managing the sexual side of their relationships, mostly by saying no to mean old boys. This creates an unequal power balance. It makes girls more responsible for sexual health and contraception. It also creates a climate where seeking advice on sexual health or worries is Wrong and Bad for girls. I believe this paves the way for further rises in STIs amongst young people, and puts young women more at risk of abuse and sexual assault in relationships.

Amidst the nonsense, Nadine Dorries lies about what is taught in schools. Maybe it’s just good old fashioned ignorance on her part, in which case she shouldn’t be let anywhere near a Sex Ed Bill, but I’m inclined to believe she knows full well kids aren’t taught to put condoms on in primary school. However, it makes for great headlines and Dorries does love a headline. Let’s not let the truth stand in the way of that.

So, what did I say to my MP?

Well, in addition to outlining my concerns as above, I explained to him exactly how Sex and Relationships Education is taught, as in my original post here. I made him aware of the high teenage pregnancy rate in his constituency relative to other local areas and how the Teenage Pregnancy Strategy is reducing it. His response indicates that this point at least hit home, as I suspected it might.
So, my MP passed on my concerns to Michael Gove.  I’m no great fan of Gove as Education Secretary, as …."EBac: Victorian Delivery after years of modern education" may indicate. To be honest, I’m not sure he understands the nature and needs of modern education.  However, for the record, this is what Gove says in his letter about SRE in schools,

“I remain convinced that schools are best placed to decide the content and presentation of SRE lessons and to tailor them to their particular pupils and to the ethos of the school.  It is possible for schools to engage in a much more meaningful dialogue with parents at a local level than it is from central Government.  Although we shall need to await the outcome of Ms Nadine Dorries’s Bill, I have no plans to specify the teaching of abstinence for any age group and would want to trust schools to handle this issue appropriately and sensitively.”

(Any grammatical errors are Mr Gove’s own.)

What does this mean?

Well, on the plus side, I think this is a pretty clear indication that there will be no statutory changes to SRE. Mr Gove is as clear as a politician can be that Ms Dorries agenda is not the same as that of the Dept for Education.

On the down side, it means no statutory changes for SRE.  This is a disappointment to anyone who supported the SRE Steering Committee’s recommendations to remove the legal parental right to withdrawal. It also leaves a lot of leeway for schools to not provide good SRE for reasons of school ethos, (perhaps some faith schools?) or sensitive issues. Hmmm. I don’t think that there should be exemptions from SRE at a local level, but I am going to try to be optimistic about Gove’s response. And you really have no idea how hard that is for me, as my usual response to anything from Gove involves the hurling of derision/abuse/small projectiles.

I suspect the leniency towards Dorries’ entirely bonkernuts attitude to SRE is just another example of how our current Government allows ludicrous ideas to be thrown into the media just to see if anyone objects and whether they can get away with it... What, you mean people *don’t* want to dismantle the NHS? Oh, well we’ll have another look at that then.

Meanwhile, as we all get hot under the collar about silly old Nadine’s involvement in Education, Gove will continue to centralise control of Education way beyond the usual remit of an Education minister, introduce ridiculous reading lists for children, reduce Teacher Training places for the Arts and Music, and ensure that secondary education doesn’t prioritise any of that modern nonsense like ICT.

Oh dear, looks like my glass is less than half-full again. Time to open another bottle...

Life in Harper Valley

If you read my twitterfeed you might have noticed some moaning about the PTA. If you pay too much attention, you will have noticed a lot of moaning about the PTA. 

This all started in January when I put myself forward, or at least failed to step backwards, as Chair of the PTA. Since then, planning has lurched into events which have lurched into clearing up and then the whole cycle starts again. This however is not the blog where I want to talk about how the PTA works.

PTAs have a bad rep. PTAs are a pain. Yesterday a friend asked me “Why did you do this to yourself?” This is the blog where I want to answer that question.  

Why am I Chair of the PTA? Putting aside the obvious answers around the theme of being the kind of fool who can’t say “No”, there are genuine reasons why I think it’s important to have a PTA and why, when faced with the option of having no PTA at school, I agreed to be Chair.

1. What are your best memories of school?

Mine are of school trips, the school discos where we all did the “Superman” dance (it was the 80s) and stayed up past midnight, the Fete where me and my best friend would spend hours on the swing boats and the Pantomime where the Deputy would always play the role of the Dame. And all of these events and many more were made possible by the PTA. I wouldn’t want a generation of kids to go without the experience of making themselves sick on Dandelion and Burdock at the School Disco, or not have a gift from school to mark their leaving. The PTA provides the fun stuff. That’s worth doing.

2. There are holes in the ring fence.

Here comes the political bit. Education funding is not good at the moment. The government’s promise to maintain the Education budget is not, strictly speaking, being kept. Increasing numbers of schools are having to make redundancies and, at a County level, Support Staff are having their salary cut.  Schools no longer receive their budget annually, but are allocated money on a monthly basis. Like  pocket money. Altogether, this leaves many Headteachers, including ours, in an unenviable position. Something’s got to give. So far ours has done a great job of keeping all the Staff and resourcing the learning, but there is no room for extras. Things like playtime games, a new stage, and trips to the panto at Christmas can’t come out of the school budget. This lack of funding, especially when coupled with the funding going to Free Schools, enrages me. It made me angry enough to join the PTA, and also have a right go about Free Schools (here).

The PTA can, and must, fund these things. Experiences like being in a play on a real stage are key parts of school life. We all remember from age 5 who got to be Mary (for the second year running just cos she had long hair and it wasn’t FAIR) and performing is good for kids, it’s good for the school community. So are playground games. Busy kids are well behaved kids. Bored kids will invent all manner of destructive games, so it’s nice to be able to afford to buy tubs of skipping ropes, balls, stilts and hoops. Thank you PTA for calmer, happier playtimes. And the opportunity to see CJ off of Eggheads in Panto. 

3. Community.

Schools are not just buildings full of kids (actually they’re lovely when they’re not full of kids, but that’s another story), they’re communities in the best sense of the word. And communities need to get together and blow off some steam. Or they’re simply a load of people trapped in the same space, building up their hatred of each other by the day.  Our PTA manifesto (manifestos are more fun than Mission Statements) isn’t just about fundraising, it’s about improving the life experiences of the children. It’s about pulling everyone along in the same direction. It’s about Events. It’s good for kids to see adults all working together to create something that’s fun. In teaching circles we call that modelling and it helps children learn how to get along together. The PTA also gives the children the chance to fundraise, to help their school and other charities and to learn the importance of giving back. And if that’s not Citizenship in action, I don’t know what is.

4. Broadening Horizons

In an effort to find novel ways to part you from your cash, PTA’s offer some great activities for kids: ice skating in school, Chess clubs, being published in a book, modelling in a fashion show, making a scarecrow, fancy dress competitions, talent shows, fireworks displays. These events take children out of their everyday routine and give them a chance to discover new loves and skills. For some kids, school is their only chance to get this stuff. 

So, however much I gripe about the PTA and my place in it, I come back to this. The PTA does an important job. We do it for our children, and to support our teachers. Sometimes we’re a damn nuisance, sometimes we’re bossy, sometimes you wish we’d all go away: I feel like that most days. You’d really rather not send in donations to the tombola or pay £1 for non-uniform day or buy another raffle ticket or hang around on a Friday night waiting to collect sticky discoers. 

But schools need us, now more than ever. So, if it helps,  think of us as a Fairy Godmother saying to the kids “You SHALL go to the Panto!” and think of how much the kids love all this stuff even if we don’t. Then just take a deep breath, smile, and open up your wallet. There now, that didn’t hurt a bit, did it?

Big Rant about Big Writing

This article has been updated since I wrote it after Ros Wilson contacted me via Twitter, I am editing the post to incorporate her comments and will state again that these are my personal views. The green text indicates changes I have made. The grounded opinions I express are simply that. 

The other night I was being childish about Big Writing and its creator, Ros Wilson, on twitter. Here’s what I really think. If you’ve never heard of Big Writing please at least read down to the weblinks so you know.

And if you’re not a Primary School teacher you probably never have heard of Big Writing, which is a worry really, given that thousands of  primary schools use it as a means to teach English. It’s not a government initiative, it’s not part of the National Curriculum and it’s not included in the National Literacy Strategy but it is used increasingly in  schools.

Many schools state that it is improving writing. The courses, provided by the consultancy firm Andrell Education Ltd, aim to “raise standards” and lots of schools believe this method of teaching does just that. It is a question of belief, however, as Big Writing is a set of principles which is not underpinned by any specific educational theory. It has not been subject to academic or peer review and there is no recognised research on its efficacy. Ros Wilson herself has said here

“We currently have a Marketing Student from Huddersfield Uni on sandwich year placement with andrell, doing some action research... but otherwise nothing I know of… We have deliberately never sought national attention but have relied on filtering upwards through children and schools... the way we believe best practice will always disseminate, and that has worked for us…”
[Ros Wilson points out that this forum post is two years old. As such the word "current" should be ignored. I don't know if there is any more recent research, only that there was none up to this point]


If you would like to find out more about Big Writing, the Andrell Education website is the source of all information. A quick google will find you lots of resources, discussion and testimony from people using Big Writing. It won’t find you any objective or independent research.

This is the "home of Big Writing" http://www.andrelleducation.co.uk/home/
This is the best summary I found by a school using Big Writing. It's a really good beginners guide to the ideas http://www.staveley.cumbria.sch.uk/BigWriting.htm

Now, what I’m going to say isn’t objective either, but it’s as relevant as any other writing on the topic. If you’re still with me let’s go…

Candles and Mozart

Big Writing sessions are supposed to take place in calm and quiet, which is undeniably a good thing for writing. However, Ros Wilson suggests you take this further and light a candle and play Mozart while the children write. I like candles, I like using them in meditation, PSHE and RE. I like Advent candles, divali lights and menorahs. I don’t like creating an esoteric environment for writing though because I think writing needs to be firmly rooted in the real world where children will be writing for the rest of their lives.  A Year Six tutee said to me last week,

“I hate writing. Maths is much better, because it’s something you actually use. You need Maths all the time. Writing is just writing.”


We need to engage children like this, especially boys, and suggesting that you can only write when the moon is in the seventh house and Venus is aligned with Mars is not going to help. Keep writing real, give it a purpose, give it an audience.
[Of this comment, Ros Wilson says "You obviously know nothing about what I, personally, say Bird". This is true: this post is not about Ros Wilson personally. My knowledge of what Ros Wilson says is based purely on Big Writing training materials and my experience of using them.]
In real life, I've got my lappy on my knee, tea by by side, the telly is on, the kids are winding up the cats and I'm writing.  And whilst calming or inspirational music can be great in the classroom, let’s not limit it to Mozart. The alleged "Mozart Effect" was the interpreted result of one study which has never been replicated satisfactorily and we need to look at the bigger picture regarding music and intellectual development. The only magic in Mozart is his flute.

VCOP

For the uninitiated, this is the core of Big Writing. It stands for Vocabulary, Connectives, Openers and Punctuation. These are the elements that Big Writing deems to be core in learning to write. The whole of grammar, syntax, punctuation, coherence and content is pared down to these four areas.

I first came across “VCOP” scrawled by children in the margin of KS2 SATs Papers when I was marking. The children who did this wrote in the most peculiar way. The writing was disjointed and repetitive. I was baffled by the number of children who wrote lovely pieces, then went back and “corrected” them according to VCOP practices thereby rendering their writing completely incomprehensible.  The diagnosis in Marker circles for these children is that they’ve been “VCOP’ed to death”.

VCOP is a piecemeal way of teaching writing. It sticky tapes quick fixes over limited teaching.
[Ros Wilson states that this is factually wrong. It is my opinion]
The result is children who don’t understand how their language functions trying to use rules that cannot be generally applied.

For example, children are taught to use “openers” to make their sentences more “interesting”. Good openers are words like Firstly, suddenly, sadly.  What you then get are sentences like, ‘Strangely, I opened the door’ and ‘Slowly, I thought the room looked weird'. It doesn’t make sense, because no-one has taught the children these “openers” are adverbs and that adverbs give context to actions by telling you how, when, where or why something happened. They are taught that “openers” vary your sentences, not that sentence structure can be varied by beginning with an adverbial phrase, or switching the subject and the object to create a passive voice or a host of other ways. And are our expectations so low that we don't think they can understand this?

Ros Wilson states that this sort of "stulted purple prose" is not typical of children who have grasped the concepts of Big Writing, but may be seen in "emergent BW". I should add that these are examples from Y6 writing. Maybe Big Writing was introduced late to these children and that is why they show a very limited grasp of the use of adverbs as openers. Perhaps then we should worry about Big Writing being introduced to children in late KS2, as their SATs writing may be peppered with this inappropriate use of language? Or perhaps other ways of teaching writing would not result in these artificial constructs.

Punctuation is scattered liberally throughout VCOP’d children’s work. Often they don’t know why they are punctuating. They just know they’ll get more marks if they use all the things on their Punctuation Pyramid: bonus points for a colon.

Many Big Writers in Year 6 no longer know what an adjective is, or a noun or a verb. They don’t know how to use clauses. In short, they don’t have the tools to use their language. They aren’t learning to write. VCOP may provide useful signposts, but it cannot and should not replace thorough teaching in different writing styles and genres and in the basics of language structure.  The natural writer doesn't need VCOP, the struggling writer needs much more. We as teachers must give students the tools to do the job properly.

Vernacular

Like many movements, Big Writing has it’s own vocabulary. Let’s look at some examples.
Vocabulary itself becomes “wow words”. This isn’t enough. What of technical vocabulary? What of making it appropriate, relevant and original? Stealing a “wow word” off the board doesn’t tackle that.

Children “up-level” sentences to make them more interesting. What’s wrong with calling it editing, like the rest of the world does? Making writing “interesting” is a ubiquitous goal in Big Writing. Please note that in a SATs reading paper that asks “Why did the author do this?” (and most of them do ask); the answer “to make it more interesting” gets zero points. Always.

We won’t go into “tickled pink” marking and “green to grow” pens here because I don’t have the strength. I’ll just conclude that the over simplification of language in a method of teaching language depresses me, and makes life difficult for later teachers. We expect children to develop mathematical language, scientific language - why not language for language? We wouldn’t want to hear Year 6 children saying “I’m doing an All Together Now” sum when they meant addition. I don’t want to hear them using “shouting sticks” when they mean exclamation marks either.

Oh, it also advocates Received Pronunciation, which children is told is your “writer’s voice” or “posh voice”.  You don’t have to be a sociologist to see worrying connotations there.

What have we learned?

Well, let’s hope as a profession we have learned from the lessons of Brain Gym which saw many teachers ridiculed for embracing really, really Bad Science. Brain Gym had some lovely ideas, like exercise and co-ordination games being good for learning, but it had no sound theoretical basis, in fact quite the opposite.

Big Writing has some lovely ideas - dedicated writing time, engaging games, modelling and preparing for writing. It doesn’t have a theoretical start point, or any research supporting its claims. Using the resources may give your teaching an added dimension, but let’s not get evangelical about it. It's not a pedagogy, it's an activity. Honestly, if you’re a good teacher, you don’t need Big Writing. Have faith in your ability to teach your language. And if you’re not confident, do what we tell our students to do - read! Go and learn from the real masters of English.

I’ll get down off my soapbox and put my shouting stick away now. I’ve got a Dan Brown to read [JOKE. Honest.]

Addendum: Ros Wilson has contacted me to inform me that this post is "interesting but superficial and ill-informed". I am sorry that my light-hearted writing style has been viewed as superficial. I agree that it is not an in depth or academically rigorous analysis. This article is not aimed specifically at educators so I felt the need to explain in a very non-pedagogical way.


However, I have had Big Writing training and worked in a school where Big Writing is embedded. I also researched Big Writing for myself and tried to find other research articles to support or contradict my views. I am a trained and experienced teacher (with S-level English Lit no less), so I don't feel ill informed about the teaching of writing. 


To read more of my brief twitter discussion with Ros Wilson, see here. I thank her for taking the time to express her concerns to me and offering me a Big Writing training day. Now, back to that Dan Brown...

2013 update: This rant is the most read thing on my blog,  so I just wanted to say thanks for reading and do read the comments, because I think they add to the discussion around Big Writing. Better yet, add your own opinion of Big Writing. I'm reassured that people are questioning this way of teaching, I think questioning is something we need to do more and more as private companies worm their way into state education. We should question their value and purpose, always. For more on that, see here. It's another rant, really. But it has owls in.

Reply

Forward

Here come the Mind Twizzlers.

Free Schools have been in the offing for ages, so why am I particularly riled now?

It’s not just that Toby Young’s proposed West London Free School was in the news as a number of charities will be evicted from their premises to make way for it,  although that does make me seethe. It’s not just that a large County Council has this week given its backing to Free Schools, offering to support them rather than creating its own schools in areas of need. Although, that makes me very worried.

What has really got on my extremities is an interview I read in the magazine for the National Confederation of PTAs. PTAs are my new soapbox as I was just made chair of one. I only vaguely volunteered, but now I’m involved, I’m giving it my all. This includes settling down with a notepad, cuppa and the NCPTA magazine.

Half way through I discover a very long, very prominent interview with Toby Young, complete with the obligatory photo of him looking serious and smug in equal measures, which was a bad start.

That is the “After” shot.

He makes his usual crass and provocative statements throughout. Like pretending there’s an outside chance that his own children won’t get into his school, and that all staff will be made to wear “suits and ties”.  There’s also a comment that has worryingly racist overtones. He is, of course, not the right person to be running a school. Not many people are. Many Heads struggle, and they have the backing of LEAs, Councils, School Development Advisors, Mentors, Cluster Groups, Unions and all the other professionals that surround schools. A Free School distances itself from that support and puts itself in the sights of corporations ready to part schools and their money.

Belonging to a wider system offers some protection from that, protection for the students, who should not be a marketing opportunity. And schools should not be businesses. Who sets the curriculum when private money is involved? When school dinners were franchised out to private companies we ended up in a situation with children being fed the most appalling garbage in the name of the profit margin. It took a TV chef to begin to put it right. How much more risk is there when a school effectively puts its curriculum up for sale? Turkey twizzlers for the mind.

But I STILL haven’t explained why I am so angry. No, really.

The magazine is for PTAs. Most PTAs’ primary motivation is to raise much needed funds for their schools. At the moment their job is getting harder. School budgets are getting tighter. Businesses are feeling the pinch and are less likely to offer the donations and grants that they used to. Whilst some school funding has that magical ringfence around it, the auxiliary organisations that support schools are feeling the effects of the cuts. As they vanish, schools are left to dip into their budget to provide for the same needs that were once met by support services. Times are getting tough, PTAs are feeling that.

And into the PTA fundraising magazine waltzes Toby Young, knowing full well that free schools will be eating into school funding, leaving everyone else worse off. I’m furious they gave him the space in which to patronise everyone who works so hard to support their children’s schools.  He suggests that the type of person who cares enough about their school to join the PTA would also be open to setting up their own school. Last time I looked the PTAs of this country were only there to make up a funding gap that shouldn’t exist. Why on earth would those people want to become part of something that takes money away from our schools? Away from the professional teachers (in a Free School you don’t need to be a qualified teacher), away from the support provided by LEAs and away from the obligation to teach a balanced curriculum.

I oppose Free Schools on idealogical grounds, and because they are poorly researched, and because the funding sources aren’t even finalised, and because they are an untried experiment in this country, and I don’t think children make good guinea pigs. I am annoyed by Toby Young in particular because his rationale is a sham. He is doing what he fancies doing and the government is letting him. It reminds me a little of the “Reason” programme invented by Douglas Adams in the Dirk Gently novels. All his arguments work backwards from the point of “because I want to”.

Meanwhile, us on the PTAs will keep on going for a different reason. Because we have to.

EBac: Victorian Delivery after years of modern education?

There are so many things I don’t understand about the introduction of the English Baccalaureate it’s hard to know where to start.  So, for fun, let’s assume the Gove hasn’t introduced this measure as a way to re-establish a two tier education system, that this isn’t a hopelessly naive nostalgia trip seeking to downgrade the subjects important to 21st Century life-long learning, and that the measure isn’t merely making no sense because no-one has thought it through.

No, let’s be rational and analytical like the well-educated individuals Gove wants. Let’s ask some questions.


1.Will including one language GCSE in the Ebac will improve the general ability of this country to speak Modern Foreign Languages? 
It’s a bit late by then, to be honest. We all know that early language learning is the key to competancy. Gove’s comment that without language learning “ an integral part of the brain's learning capacity rusts unused” leaves me bewildered. The brain’s ability to learn language in a natural way that is distinct from other learning declines rapidly from infancy onwards. It plays no part in learning at GCSE, it barely impacts on language learning in KS2 when MFLs are introduced. One language in the EBac is not going to make the enormous cultural shift in learning that this country really needs to improve communication in MFLs (not that all of Gove’s languages are Modern. The lack of uptake in Ancient Greek is just as worrying to Gove), and his comment on the brain is dangerously close to Bad Science.


2. Will the EBac help improve uptake of Science subjects? 
No. As with language, just the one science is needed, a requirement most schools make voluntarily. One science at GCSE does not a scientist make. It won’t help you study at A-level standard and cannot possibly of any use at university level, given the current Science A levels only just meet the mark.

3. Will the Ebac help your University chances?
No. A levels are what Universities look at. And if you’re applying for Engineering, will your Geography and Written Hebrew GCSEs really help you get in? No more than that week at Cub Camp you padded your UCAS form with.

4. Does the EBac imply you’re smart?
Gove wants students who achieve the Ebac to get a Special Certificate. To show how special they are. Maybe they’d like a sticker too, which is just as meaningful.  My Husband studied no humanities at school, would not have got his EBac sticker, but can calculate cumulative interest payments in his head, which is pretty handy. We all know people who are brilliant in their field and hopeless outside of it. Taking EBac subjects does not imply that you are any more intelligent than someone who has studied Music or Sociology or Theology or ICT. However, the fact that other subjects are  no longer ”core” and referred to as “soft” does devalue your ability in them. We have no need, EBac says, for the engineers or the designers, let alone the Artists or Musicians. Let their needs and talents go by the wayside. Because that’s what will happen to those subjects when schools don’t have to account for learning in them.  There is only so much budget to not-quite-go-round, after all.

5. Why isn’t the EBac being made compulsory?
The National Curriculum is a legal document. It is a legal requirement of schools to teach the National Curriculum. To make the EBac compulsory would require all sorts of complicated law-passing activities, which need consultation, research and evidence-based rationale. Why bother with all of that when you can simply pressure schools into using it through the menace of League Tables? Much simpler this way.

6. Are Geography and History the most valuable humanities?
Of course not. They are no more demanding intellectually than sociology, psychology or RE. To classify them as harder than other subjects is ridiculous. Questions are only easy if you know the answers. I studied History and Geography at GCSE. I got an A in both without too much effort. The subject that made me sweat blood was Graphic Design. Our abilities are diverse, a fact recognised by the breadth of GCSE subjects currently taught.

7. Isn’t it good that we should make able students take challenging subjects?
See above. Also, no. All children should be free to study the subjects they feel passionate about, be it Ancient History or Cooking. They should be able to specialise in the area they want to work in, and academically able students should be free as any other to study in whichever field they may want to devote their working life to. Otherwise it really is Education with all the reality taken out. It might reduce University attrition rates too. Oh, and improve children’s well being (which given that the UK comes bottom out of 21 wealthy nations in 2 of the 6 dimensions on the Unicef child well-being index, may not be a bad thing http://www.unicef.org/media/files/ChildPovertyReport.pdf).

8. Does anyone else think the term EBac sounds unfortunately similar to VBAC? That’s Vaginal Birth After Caesarean, to clarify non-teaching jargon.
Just me? Oh well.

Anyway, this analysis has now taken us from Gove to Vagina. Which is probably where we should stop for today.

An Apple for the teacher. Please.

I’m a little uncomfortable about what I’m going to advocate here, as it feels a bit like brand endorsement. I am not a fan of branding, especially around kids. No, not branding as in cattle marking; although that is also a very bad idea around kids. I just don’t like children being viewed as a marketing opportunity, they’re not cynical enough.

However: I think all schools should use Apple.  There, I said it.  Now I’d better explain it.

Schools are essentially slow moving things, and technology is a fast moving thing.  This often means that schools lag behind current developments a ridiculous amount. I mean, there are teachers out there who still think that “doing a powerpoint” is the cutting edge, whereas most private companies are encouraging people to move away from powerpoint and really engage with their audience, something that teachers already do brilliantly. But we were blindsided by the arrival of interactive whiteboards and whizzy slides and forgot that these tools cannot replace a charismatic, knowledgeable expert at the helm.

The relationship between primary schools and technology is always an uneasy one. Anyone remember the NOF training? Money spent trying to update teachers’ IT knowledge, and oh how we all hated its misguided efforts.  Then came Computers for Schools vouchers and as a result millions of digital microscopes serve as bookends in stock cupboards up and down the country.

ICT lessons themselves are too often about teaching processes, learning how to use equipment. I used to spend at least 10min of each precious half hour lesson reminding children how to save work; a route so convoluted that it was like talking them through defusing a bomb. And there was still always That Child who cut the red wire.

And don’t get me started on RM Window Boxes (http://www.rm.com/generic.asp?cref=GP1225202). A “child friendly” interface aimed at simplifying things for primary aged children. Children don’t generally need their IT simplified, so who’s that for? Never mind “Number Magic”, just let them use Excel and stop messing about.

It sometimes feels like schools just aren’t getting it.

Which is where Apple comes in. They have always been about the interface, or more importantly the removal of the interface. This is the aim of good technology, that there is no barrier to its use. Perfectly intuitive technology is the Holy Grail of work psychologists and Apple is its Champion.

Recently I was coveting an iPad in the phone shop, and when I turned round dd1 was cheerfully using one to play the piano... “Mummy, I REALLY want an iPad”. She can dream on, but it does sum up what IT should do in primary schools. It should enable children, give them options, support them. With no-interface technology we can get on with teaching children to become rigorous and analytical appliers of technology, not just competent users of Windows.

It's not all schools, some get it perfectly. Want to see what an iPod Touch can do? Look at @ebd35’s blog (http://ebd35.wordpress.com/). A boy with no special love of writing created this:

http://ebd35.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/martian-story.pdf

Isn’t it brilliant? This is what happens when we let technology support the learning, not the other way round.

Please may I have an iPhone now?