the primary head's blog

At 1:09am I decided to go to bed. The referendum vote was leaning towards ‘Leave’ but I assumed that when I woke up order would be restored. It was a rather unpleasant surprise to find out that, several hours later, ‘vote leave’ had continued to gain momentum and that Britain was now set on a course to leave the European Union. My stomach positively turned, however, when I accidentally clicked on a link to footage of Nigel Farage grandstanding like some tin-pot Henry V.

It was with his words ringing in my ears that I addressed the staff in my school at this morning’s briefing. The mood seemed pretty glum, when I brought up Brexit, and I was careful not to dwell too much on the politics. The last thing I would want to do is to make a member of my team feel awkward or marginalized because they had voted differently to me or other staff members. But, after I had watched Farage’s victory speech, I realized that I needed to raise this political issue with my staff. I needed to remind my staff that we have a moral duty to safeguard children from fear and prejudice. Because when I heard Farage say that ‘we’re back to being a normal country’ I felt a real concern over the social implications Brexit could have on our country.

This goes way beyond any concerns I have over the practical considerations leaving the European Union may have on this country. In my opinion, the very worst outcome of this public vote would be that an unacceptance of anything perceived as ‘non-British’ will become legitimized. The provocative language that made up the brunt of the ‘Leave’ campaign’s rhetoric could very well, if not stamped on, spread and become normalized. The decision to leave the European Union could breathe life into dormant prejudice and convert it into explicit and misplaced hatred. Lines could blur. Immigration, already a misunderstood and deliberately perverted issue, could become the reason why non-white Britons become marginalized further and made to feel like temporary and unwelcome tourists rather than deserving citizens.

This is a matter for educators.

We have a duty to protect children, more than ever, from being isolated. Global citizenship has, overnight, become one of the most important curriculum areas in our schools. Whatever happens, in terms of Britain’s new position in the world, we must ensure that children learn to respect and engage with all members of their local, national and global communities. Similarly, learning about the history of hate, discrimination and persecution must also loom large on the educational landscape so that they learn about the dangers of national extremism.

When we teach our children about British Values, in the years post Brexit, we must make certain that we never refer to our country as being ‘normal again’, as Mr. Farage so vilely pontificated this morning. We must continue to celebrate the diversity of this country and pass on the message that embracing different cultures, and adapting to the constant changes that are thrust upon society, are what allows a country to thrive. We must enable them to challenge small-mindedness and see the virtues in the world around them.

Then again, maybe I’m overreacting. Children aren’t stupid. Not as stupid as us anyway. #BorisTrump

I have always enjoyed a conference. Over the years I have been to many: PHAB, Inspiring Leadership, Primary Rocks, and now, I can add Northern Rocks to the list. Conferences are great. You get to meet up with lots of friends and make new ones along the way. Since Twitter, it is also a chance to get to meet the people behind the accounts that you follow; although this prompted one person at Northern Rocks to point out that ‘going out to a strange place to meet people you’ve never met before and who don’t use their real name’ probably means we don’t understand anything about safeguarding.

The real draw of a conference, however, is the people from whom you learn during the talks, workshops, debates and panels. I’ve always been impressed by success. As in, people who have been successful due to talent, hard work, creativity and their all-round cleverness. I sit there in awe, and wonder if I will ever be able to demonstrate such success. I also, as is expected, steal as many ideas as I possibly can.

I’m sure it is the same for any Head going on a conference: the staff wait with trepidation for me to return, wondering what I’ll announce that we’re now going to start doing. It’s very easy to be inspired by the people that present at conferences. And, at the time, it seems so simple: do what they’re doing. I have, over time, learnt that this is not an effective strategy for successful implementation of new ideas. It would be like trying to go on tour as a tribute band after hearing their greatest hits CD once: stupid, ill-conceived and likely to be abandoned after one week.

But it’s so tempting. For me, I know why it’s so tempting. I want to be successful. Not for fame or fortune but because I want to be good at my job. And, when I see people who are brilliant at their job, I can’t help but think: I wanna be like you.

Take Northern Rocks 2016.

I want to be as calm and measured a strategic thinker as @johntomsett who exudes warmth, strength and security even as @HuntingEnglish tries to reassure us that he is in fact a pessimistic doomsayer. I don’t care. I look at John, quietly commanding the attention in the room, and I ask myself if I will ever attain such stature in my own headship. Then I go along to see @Sue_Cowley and witness her energy and passion for helping teachers with behaviour and learning. I sit in awe of the sheer volume of ideas she has at her fingertips for fostering good behaviour and, as I wait to be called down to the front so I can claim my two marshmallows and raffle ticket, I scold myself for not having learnt and retained as many strategies as she has. Then I make the mistake of seeing @HYWEL_ROBERTS in action. For 60 minutes he reminds me of why I went into teaching in the first place. It’s the second time I’ve seen the weeds and overgrown greenery get hacked away to reveal the rusted ‘WW’ on the abandoned factory gates, yet still I feel a rush of emotion as I realise their significance. Why, I ask myself, have I left the classroom? Why am I not changing the world, one lesson at a time, like Hywel? Finally, I witness @pivotalpaul and am simply stunned by the man’s deep understanding of behaviour and the complex web of issues that can affect children’s trust of the adult world. Paul’s explanation of counter-intuitive behaviour management is rooted in his understanding of human beings, and all I want to do is sit down and listen to all 150 of his podcasts in the vain hope that this will make me more like him.

Afterwards I think about my way forward. Am I going to rush back to school and put in place everything I’ve seen? No. If I did that, not only would it all fail but it would not be in the best interests of the children or staff in my school. Because, if I did do that, it would be self-serving. It would be because I wanted to emulate their success in order to call it my own. Despite my deep respect for these individuals, I have learnt that aping and imitating are not worthy pursuits when it comes to leading a school.

Instead, I will look beyond my own admiration of the people and focus on those times when, after hearing an idea, an individual’s name popped into my head. Many times, when listening to the stories, advice and pedagogy that flew around the conference, I would picture the child or member of staff in my school that they might benefit. All I’ll need to do is to consider some tiny changes, a slightly different approach or a small gesture that, if actioned, could really make a difference to a handful of children. No need to change policy. No need to hold an Inset. In some cases, no need to tell anyone else about it. But little things that might just work. And if they do, maybe then I’ll think about taking them further. If I do, I’ll not only be indebted to the speakers at Northern Rocks, but I’ll be a little bit closer to becoming the Head I want to be.

That is the joy of a conference. And that is why, thanks to @emmaannhardy and @debrakidd, Northern Rocked.

A former adviser to David Cameron says he is so concerned about children accessing internet pornography that he wants under 16-year-olds to be banned from having smart phones and tablet computers. Whilst I agree that access to pornography is alarmingly easy (I’m told) I am not entirely convinced that banning the gadgets used to watch it on is an appropriate response.

Let’s leave aside the logistical inanity of the adviser’s idea; actually, let’s explore it for a bit because it will probably be a good laugh. So step one, presumably, would be to initiate the ban. Starting…now, no one will be able to have a smart phone or tablet if they are under 16. This will either result in all summer born children achieving a higher level of moral decency than their older peers, or, further stunt their naturally slow moving progress towards achieving age related expectations because all they can think about is when they will be able to join their older, and more perverted peers, in a bout of tablet onanism. But at least, the ministers will say, actual hits on pornographic websites will be down, even if fantasised hits are way, way up.

Step two will be a mass-amnesty of all mobile devices belonging to children who managed to get one before the ban. Now, what happens to these devices? Do they get sold on with the children receiving a cash lump sum as a form of compensation? Or will this money go into a special bank and accrue enough interest so that, when they finally come of age, the amount of money will be enough to buy a new device of equivalent power and specification? Or, will all the collected devices be stored away until their owners are 16 whereupon they will be reunited with their little black mirrors? Imagine that, finally being reunited with your smartphone after two years, only to have to endure 24 months’ worth of app updates!

I’m sure both of these steps could happen, allowing Cameron’s friend to sleep at night, but in reality these measures would be worthless. Just like prohibition, it would simply serve to take away the means but not the motive. Maybe, as in during prohibition, it would become an ironic failure and force the habit underground. It certainly would not do, what I imagine Cameron’s troubled imaginer intended, and stop pornography from influencing and shaping children’s attitudes towards sex and relationships. The reason why it would not do this is because it is a void-centric solution that does not place better education and information at the root of the problem.

I can assure you, dear reader, that I have not done any research to back up my reasoning here, but I am willing to believe that the content of hardcore pornography is damaging to children. Not only is it likely to be misogynistic it is also likely to be unrealistic. Unfortunately, however, it is very likely to be highly impressionable – explicit images often are – and this is where our concerns should lie. I don’t want to speak for everyone here but I’m guessing that none of us want short clips of graphic sex to be the biggest influencer on children’s relationships. We don’t want boys and girls to think that pornographic performances are in any way idealised models of consensual sex just as much as we don’t want children thinking that the contents of a pornographic website is a blueprint for expected sexual behaviour.

Online pornography is damaging because it focusses on sexual gratification as a basis for relationships. The degree of damage will depend on the specific content and nature of the online clip but, the long-lasting and negative influence of pornography over time, is normalisation. What else are children meant to think when they have millions of similar clips to choose from? You can criticise whole films or TV programmes for presenting sex in a negative or irresponsible way but at least they often provide a contextualised narrative through which you can apply your own thoughts and opinions. Online pornography just presents the viewer with sex: blunt and explicit sex that, when viewed enough times, can only serve to reinforce a notion that ‘this is real’, and that is damaging. This should not be considered to be the same argument as not allowing children to play violent computer games or watch an 18 rated movie, because most people don’t want to commit violent crime. Most people do want to have sex; so the potential harm of freely available and explicit sexual content without any moral or ethical backbone is more damaging for more people.

To really stop Cameron’s chum from worrying, we should educate children properly about sex, relationships and porn. Yes, there should be porn lessons. Under 16s should be taught about porn*. They should have access to documentaries about the porn industry; they should read about the lives of ex-porn stars and the lessons they learned; they should be told, by sexually active people with whom they can identify (basically not teachers), that porn is not real. Boys should read case-studies of the men that ended up in jail because they thought acting like a porn star, with a girl they couldn’t be bothered to listen to, was acceptable, whilst girls should hear the tales of the women who stood up to those types of men and came out on top.

Relationships and sex education should include the good, the bad and the ugly, because only then will children grow up able to make informed choices, not just about the online content they access, but about the relationships they build with other human beings. If we get the education right then we don’t have to worry about children using their phones and we certainly don’t have to adopt any other idea that may seem at first to be big and bold, but turns out to be rather limp.

 

*I’m primary based and, as I said, I did no research for this, so apologies if secondary schools and colleges already do this. And I’m not suggesting that primary schools should use porn to teach RSE. I just read a news article and started