A new government report on children reveals what Basil Fawlty would call “the bleedin’ obvious” - that parents believe political correctness in schools is destroying their kids’ education and childhood. Barmy health and safety rules and the ludicrous mentality that “all must have prizes” are cited as examples of how education is being undermined.
The report says parents of children who are exceptionally gifted at sport, dance, music and drama are angry because their offspring are being paired with “klutzes” - kids who are useless at those subjects - in a zeal for inclusion and equality. It even quotes a Watford mother as saying her child’s school cancelled a sports day because the grass was damp!
I wish these reports - no doubt costing thousands of pounds to research and write - would tell us something that isn’t blindingly obvious to all but a mentally retarted budgerigar.
The notion that all children must be equal and everyone must have prizes is pie-in-the-sky, egalitarian nonsense. Of course all children are not equal - for the simple reason that people are not born equal, never have been and never will be.
As long as the human race exists, there will always be those who are born with superior talents and gifts denied to others. These lucky souls should be encouraged and promoted and pushed to their limits, not dragged down to the lowest common denominator of mediocrity by those riddled with envy.
The world has always been divided into winners and losers. However, if Paula Radcliffe was at school today and just starting out on her way to becoming the greatest female marathon runner in history, some pathetic wimp of a teacher would probably tell her to slow down because it wasn’t fair on others trying to keep up with her!
The crackpot PC theory seems to be that some poor little souls will be traumatised for the rest of their lives by not winning prizes - utter bilge, of course. Cushioning kids from the fear of failure is hardly preparing them for the far greater pressures they will face when they leave school.
If we don’t encourage gifted youngsters to allow their talents to blossom in full, where on earth is our next generation of top political and business leaders, scientists, engineers, actors, artists and Olympic champions coming from?
This is not elitism but accepting the fact that there will always be people who are superior in their field. However, all the sanctimonious prattling about diversity, equality and inclusion is dragging us down to the level of a third-rate, Third World nation.
Posted by: John Howard Norfolk at 11:49pm on Fri 29 Feb 08
So - winners and losers?
I found this fascinating passage from a speech by George Lansbury MP to Harrow County School for Boys (Speech Day 1936):
Referring to the prizes he had distributed, Mr. Lansbury admitted that he didn't like prizes, adding: "I always back the losers." It didn't matter whether you got the book or the label, so long as you had done your best. We could not all be top, or we should topple over. The losers had let the others win, and therefore they deserve praise more than the winners! He congratulated every boy on what his prize had meant in hard work.
This is, I believe, the message our schools should be trying to deliver. Just do your best.
So - winners and losers?
I found this fascinating passage from a speech by George Lansbury MP to Harrow County School for Boys (Speech Day 1936):
Referring to the prizes he had distributed, Mr. Lansbury admitted that he didn't like prizes, adding: "I always back the losers." It didn't matter whether you got the book or the label, so long as you had done your best. We could not all be top, or we should topple over. The losers had let the others win, and therefore they deserve praise more than the winners! He congratulated every boy on what his prize had meant in hard work.
This is, I believe, the message our schools should be trying to deliver. Just do your best.
'Do your best' is a sound message. But schools also have a duty to help each child in their care to develop their individual talents to the maximum possible. The equality needed is the equality of opportunity. And schools should try as far as possible to avoid confronting children with situations that will demotivate them. That's why they so often concentrate on the taking part rather than the winning.
But is the world really the bleak dog eat dog hell that Roy describes divided starkly into winners and losers? In this country at least most people seem to jog along nicely neither econonmic super achievers nor in grinding poverty. Perhaps it's his journalistic background that prompts him to see the world in black and white and headlines when it fact it's the greys in life that dominate. go back Roy to last week's WO and read about the life of Janet Hosier and see if you still feel so pessimistic.
'Do your best' is a sound message. But schools also have a duty to help each child in their care to develop their individual talents to the maximum possible. The equality needed is the equality of opportunity. And schools should try as far as possible to avoid confronting children with situations that will demotivate them. That's why they so often concentrate on the taking part rather than the winning.
But is the world really the bleak dog eat dog hell that Roy describes divided starkly into winners and losers? In this country at least most people seem to jog along nicely neither econonmic super achievers nor in grinding poverty. Perhaps it's his journalistic background that prompts him to see the world in black and white and headlines when it fact it's the greys in life that dominate. go back Roy to last week's WO and read about the life of Janet Hosier and see if you still feel so pessimistic.
Posted by: John Howard Norfolk at 11:40pm on Sat 1 Mar 08
Children are [bold]bold[/bold] not[bold]bold[/bold] equal and this is the root of the schools' difficulties. So long as classes are run as mixed ability there is a tremendous strain on staff to provide differentiated teaching. With insufficient numbers of competent and experienced teachers there will always be difficulties in promoting learning. We need to use the prospect of prizes to motivate children - but we need also to reward those kids who are [quote]quote[/quote] doing their best[quote]quote[/quote] .
Children are not equal and this is the root of the schools' difficulties. So long as classes are run as mixed ability there is a tremendous strain on staff to provide differentiated teaching. With insufficient numbers of competent and experienced teachers there will always be difficulties in promoting learning. We need to use the prospect of prizes to motivate children - but we need also to reward those kids who are
Posted by: Roy Stockdill at 1:36pm on Sun 2 Mar 08
I certainly agree with the philosophy of always try and do your best. There were things I under-achieved in at school - certainly academically because there were other things I preferred doing, like playing football and cricket and cross-country running!
However, we hear about teachers who are opposed to competition and naively believe that all children should get prizes just for trying. I'm afraid the world doesn't work like that and, if schools turn out kids believing everything is going to come to them naturally, then they are going to be bitterly disappointed when they emerge into the wider world of employment, etc.
I believe strongly in the promotion of excellence and am an unashamed admirer of those with superior talents. Those children who are exceptionally gifted, whether it be academically, artistically or at sports, must be given special encouragement and coaching and pushed to the pinnacle of achievement, not held back by the mediocrity of others. The PC theory is that by mixing the gifted with the less talented, the latter will be pulled up to the level of those above them or somewhere near. But the reality is that it's almost always the other way round and those with superior gifts are dragged down.
I certainly agree with the philosophy of always try and do your best. There were things I under-achieved in at school - certainly academically because there were other things I preferred doing, like playing football and cricket and cross-country running!
However, we hear about teachers who are opposed to competition and naively believe that all children should get prizes just for trying. I'm afraid the world doesn't work like that and, if schools turn out kids believing everything is going to come to them naturally, then they are going to be bitterly disappointed when they emerge into the wider world of employment, etc.
I believe strongly in the promotion of excellence and am an unashamed admirer of those with superior talents. Those children who are exceptionally gifted, whether it be academically, artistically or at sports, must be given special encouragement and coaching and pushed to the pinnacle of achievement, not held back by the mediocrity of others. The PC theory is that by mixing the gifted with the less talented, the latter will be pulled up to the level of those above them or somewhere near. But the reality is that it's almost always the other way round and those with superior gifts are dragged down.
Posted by: The Plinth of Darkneth at 4:36pm on Sun 2 Mar 08
"But the reality is that it's almost always the other way round and those with superior gifts are dragged down."
As usual, I doubt there is any evidence to support this theory.
"But the reality is that it's almost always the other way round and those with superior gifts are dragged down."
As usual, I doubt there is any evidence to support this theory.
Posted by: The Plinth of Darkneth at 4:38pm on Sun 2 Mar 08
"But the reality is that it's almost always the other way round and those with superior gifts are dragged down."
As usual, I doubt there is any evidence to support this theory.
"But the reality is that it's almost always the other way round and those with superior gifts are dragged down."
As usual, I doubt there is any evidence to support this theory.
Posted by: Roy Stockdill at 5:35pm on Sun 2 Mar 08
[quote][bold]The Plinth of Darkneth[/bold] wrote:
"But the reality is that it's almost always the other way round and those with superior gifts are dragged down." As usual, I doubt there is any evidence to support this theory.[/quote] Try asking some parents with gifted children at comprehensive schools, mixed up with complete duffers!
The government report from which I quoted came out earlier in the week and cites parents who are firmly of the opinion that their kids are being held back by being paired off with "klutzes" - the report's word, not mine - in a zeal for inclusion. "All must be equal and no child should be better than any other," is the PC brigade's lunatic thirst for equality. How does this help those kids who are outstanding and brilliant at a particular subject?
I especially want to see our future Olympic champions and world-class sportsmen and women singled out for special coaching and treatment, otherwise we very soon won't have any! Where is the next Paula Radcliffe coming from, the next Kelly Holmes, the next Lewis Hamilton, the next David Beckham, the next Tim Henman, the next Andrew Flintoff, etc?
The Plinth of Darkneth wrote:
"But the reality is that it's almost always the other way round and those with superior gifts are dragged down." As usual, I doubt there is any evidence to support this theory.
Try asking some parents with gifted children at comprehensive schools, mixed up with complete duffers!
The government report from which I quoted came out earlier in the week and cites parents who are firmly of the opinion that their kids are being held back by being paired off with "klutzes" - the report's word, not mine - in a zeal for inclusion. "All must be equal and no child should be better than any other," is the PC brigade's lunatic thirst for equality. How does this help those kids who are outstanding and brilliant at a particular subject?
I especially want to see our future Olympic champions and world-class sportsmen and women singled out for special coaching and treatment, otherwise we very soon won't have any! Where is the next Paula Radcliffe coming from, the next Kelly Holmes, the next Lewis Hamilton, the next David Beckham, the next Tim Henman, the next Andrew Flintoff, etc?
So called Klutzes are human beings Mr Stockdill. You are a very judgemental old man aren't you? How about trying to bring the strugglers up to the levels of the achievers?
Teaching to the talented is obviously a lot less challenging than getting all children to achieve their potential. Don't be lazy.
So called Klutzes are human beings Mr Stockdill. You are a very judgemental old man aren't you? How about trying to bring the strugglers up to the levels of the achievers?
Teaching to the talented is obviously a lot less challenging than getting all children to achieve their potential. Don't be lazy.
Posted by: Roy Stockdill at 10:14am on Mon 3 Mar 08
[quote][bold]JohnBoy[/bold] wrote:
So called Klutzes are human beings Mr Stockdill. You are a very judgemental old man aren't you? How about trying to bring the strugglers up to the levels of the achievers? Teaching to the talented is obviously a lot less challenging than getting all children to achieve their potential. Don't be lazy.[/quote] As usual, you miss the point. Getting all children to achieve their potential is praiseworthy, of course, but the simple fact remains that there will ALWAYS be people who are quite exceptionally gifted in their field and stand head and shoulders above the rest of the herd and they merit special treatment.
Very few can ever become as great an actress as, say, Judi Dench or Helen Mirren. Only a very tiny number can ever hope to become as great a distance runner as Paula Radcliffe. So to suggest that all should be brought up to their level is nonsense. If that were the case, then all 35,000 runners in the London Marathon would cross the winning line exactly together! BTW, if memory serves me correctly, Paula finished something like 245th in the very first cross country race she ever ran as a child, so somebody spotted her potential early on, didn't they? In her case, I suspect it was her parents far more than her school, however, plus her intense dedication to her sport. Very few have the kind of physical and mental discipline that she possesses, which makes the difference between winners and runners-up. Spotting that talent and nurturing it is how champions are made, not by trying to bring everyone up - actually, I would say DOWN - to the same level. That way lies only mediocrity.
JohnBoy wrote:
So called Klutzes are human beings Mr Stockdill. You are a very judgemental old man aren't you? How about trying to bring the strugglers up to the levels of the achievers? Teaching to the talented is obviously a lot less challenging than getting all children to achieve their potential. Don't be lazy.
As usual, you miss the point. Getting all children to achieve their potential is praiseworthy, of course, but the simple fact remains that there will ALWAYS be people who are quite exceptionally gifted in their field and stand head and shoulders above the rest of the herd and they merit special treatment.
Very few can ever become as great an actress as, say, Judi Dench or Helen Mirren. Only a very tiny number can ever hope to become as great a distance runner as Paula Radcliffe. So to suggest that all should be brought up to their level is nonsense. If that were the case, then all 35,000 runners in the London Marathon would cross the winning line exactly together! BTW, if memory serves me correctly, Paula finished something like 245th in the very first cross country race she ever ran as a child, so somebody spotted her potential early on, didn't they? In her case, I suspect it was her parents far more than her school, however, plus her intense dedication to her sport. Very few have the kind of physical and mental discipline that she possesses, which makes the difference between winners and runners-up. Spotting that talent and nurturing it is how champions are made, not by trying to bring everyone up - actually, I would say DOWN - to the same level. That way lies only mediocrity.
You tell me Roy, is improving a lot of children by a small amount worth as much as improving a few by a large amount? How do you want your taxes spent? On improvements for all or for the elite few?
You tell me Roy, is improving a lot of children by a small amount worth as much as improving a few by a large amount? How do you want your taxes spent? On improvements for all or for the elite few?
Posted by: Roy Stockdill at 11:57pm on Mon 3 Mar 08
[quote][bold]JohnBoy[/bold] wrote:
You tell me Roy, is improving a lot of children by a small amount worth as much as improving a few by a large amount? How do you want your taxes spent? On improvements for all or for the elite few?[/quote] No contest! I want us to become recognised as one of the great sporting and cultural nations of the world once more. I don't want us to be the first major nation to host the Olympics and not win a single gold medal, as we would seem to be in danger of doing in 2012. I inwardly rejoice when British stars win Hollywood Oscars and when British sportsmen and women become world champions and Olympic gold medallists because, whether you approve or not, that is how the rest of the world judges success - being WINNERS. I do not cheer mass mediocrity, however egalitarian it may be. So, yes, I am content to see my taxes spent on the elite few if it produces champions and gold medallists for Britain. In any event, as you must well know, it's not just about taxation, since most elite sportsmen and women get private sponsorship from big commercial concerns, anyway.
JohnBoy wrote:
You tell me Roy, is improving a lot of children by a small amount worth as much as improving a few by a large amount? How do you want your taxes spent? On improvements for all or for the elite few?
No contest! I want us to become recognised as one of the great sporting and cultural nations of the world once more. I don't want us to be the first major nation to host the Olympics and not win a single gold medal, as we would seem to be in danger of doing in 2012. I inwardly rejoice when British stars win Hollywood Oscars and when British sportsmen and women become world champions and Olympic gold medallists because, whether you approve or not, that is how the rest of the world judges success - being WINNERS. I do not cheer mass mediocrity, however egalitarian it may be. So, yes, I am content to see my taxes spent on the elite few if it produces champions and gold medallists for Britain. In any event, as you must well know, it's not just about taxation, since most elite sportsmen and women get private sponsorship from big commercial concerns, anyway.
Posted by: John Howard Norfolk at 1:00pm on Tue 4 Mar 08
We have some interesting examples of nurturing talent in Watford schools: take for example the Purcell School in Aldenham Road (OK - I know its probably in Hertsmere Council territory but their local paper is the WO!). They have the most exceptionally gifted and talented young boys and girls studying music. There is absolutely no way that these children will fulfill their potential if mixed with mass comprehensive mediocrity. AND, there is no way in which your average comprehensive school teacher could motivate such gifted children to achieve their destinies.
We have some interesting examples of nurturing talent in Watford schools: take for example the Purcell School in Aldenham Road (OK - I know its probably in Hertsmere Council territory but their local paper is the WO!). They have the most exceptionally gifted and talented young boys and girls studying music. There is absolutely no way that these children will fulfill their potential if mixed with mass comprehensive mediocrity. AND, there is no way in which your average comprehensive school teacher could motivate such gifted children to achieve their destinies.
Your example of The Purcell School is perfect to illustrate the inequality of our education system.
The school is mainly funded by the Government's Music and Dance Scheme which the school says ensures all pupils join the School on the strength of their musical potential irrespective of their parents' ability to pay.
This is fine in theory but it makes me wonder how many children from underpriveleged backgrounds could be discovered as budding musicians if they had the opportunity to play an instrunment. Little Johnny from the council estate will probably never get the chance to hold a violin whereas cute little Tarquin from the right side of the tracks was given one for his 5th birthday.
Perhaps if we spent some of that funding on getting all youngsters involved we might discover some even brighter youngsters.
Your example of The Purcell School is perfect to illustrate the inequality of our education system.
The school is mainly funded by the Government's Music and Dance Scheme which the school says ensures all pupils join the School on the strength of their musical potential irrespective of their parents' ability to pay.
This is fine in theory but it makes me wonder how many children from underpriveleged backgrounds could be discovered as budding musicians if they had the opportunity to play an instrunment. Little Johnny from the council estate will probably never get the chance to hold a violin whereas cute little Tarquin from the right side of the tracks was given one for his 5th birthday.
Perhaps if we spent some of that funding on getting all youngsters involved we might discover some even brighter youngsters.
Posted by: John Howard Norfolk at 10:53pm on Tue 4 Mar 08
Yes - I wonder too. Around ten years ago our local schools were served by a Careers Service which provided guidance towards appropriate education and training. This would have included advice for gifted and talented children in comprehensives. Sadly this superb guidance service (free!) was dismantled and our schoolchildren no longer have universal access to impartial careers advice. So much is now left to the schools' own staff who may be tempted to retain their talented children rather than offer advice on alternatives elsewhere such as the Purcell School.
Yes - I wonder too. Around ten years ago our local schools were served by a Careers Service which provided guidance towards appropriate education and training. This would have included advice for gifted and talented children in comprehensives. Sadly this superb guidance service (free!) was dismantled and our schoolchildren no longer have universal access to impartial careers advice. So much is now left to the schools' own staff who may be tempted to retain their talented children rather than offer advice on alternatives elsewhere such as the Purcell School.
Well Said,Roy.
What's even worse though, is the alarming levels of children,whose parents are "British",yet allow them to start school without the basic requirement of speaking the Queen's English.
This is a disgrace and holds back even the English speaking "Klutzes".
I am ,of course refering to Pakistanis and not our Eastern European immigrants whom,I may add, have only been here for a fraction of the time that the Asians have.
Well done,Roy.
Well Said,Roy.
What's even worse though, is the alarming levels of children,whose parents are "British",yet allow them to start school without the basic requirement of speaking the Queen's English.
This is a disgrace and holds back even the English speaking "Klutzes".
I am ,of course refering to Pakistanis and not our Eastern European immigrants whom,I may add, have only been here for a fraction of the time that the Asians have.
Well done,Roy.
Readers who submit articles must agree to our terms of use.
The content is the sole responsibility of the contributor and is unmoderated.
But we will react if anything that breaks the rules comes to our attention.
If you wish to complain about this article, contact us here.
