The Heretic Speaks…

Twitter gets strange at the best of times but today’s Twitter was a little bit weirder.

I read this post by Michael Rosen, which consisted of the following statement that was sent to him by a child’s mother:

“My 6-year-old daughter was crying at bedtime tonight, utterly inconsolable. When I asked her what was wrong, she said: “Mummy, I tried hard to write a whole page in English today, but it wasn’t good enough because I didn’t have enough subordinating conjunctions.”

No one wants a child to be upset, but this one incident does not mean that the national curriculum should be changed or is, as Rosen puts it, ‘crap.’ The discussion that followed was basically what is the problem in education. Any child is upset, and a thousand liberal hearts start bleeding. Is it too much to ask that the brain is engaged at some point.

For a start:

  • We don’t know anything about the school this child goes to.
  • We don’t know anything about the teacher.
  • We don’t know anything about the child apart from the fact that according to her mother she was upset because she was told she didn’t have any subordinating conjunctions in her writing.
  • We don’t even know the home situation.
  • We don’t even know if this is real. It’s a message sent to an author anonymously, which he has willingly reproduced as evidence for what he already believes.

Even if we accept the person is real:

  • Why would you message an author before talking to the teacher?
  • Why would you not check if this incident even happened? If you are from the school that says a child’s word is gospel then please just block me now as I don’t need to interact with someone who’s understanding of reality is that poor.

I have yet to know or meet a child who has not lied at some point or another. It is a normal part of growing up, and there are many reasons why we do it. Even if it were the gospel truth,

  • The child could have misunderstood the task.
  • Maybe the task was not explained well.
  • Maybe it was the first time she had done a task like this, and she didn’t get the hang of it.
  • Maybe she was looking out of the window instead of listening.
  • She wrote a page which may not have been the task she was asked to do.
  • Maybe she just got caught up with what she was writing and forgot to include them.

There are a million and one reasons why a child does not achieve. There is no need for a full-blown political response to this or to send a message an author before talking to the teacher.

It could also be that:

  • the feedback was given insensitively.
  • the teacher was having a bad day.
  • the child had a bad day.
  • it was not the child’s normal teacher – yes we don’t even know if it was her class teacher, a PPA teacher, a supply teacher, etc.
  • the child is a bit sensitive to criticism and needs to learn how to cope with it. Yes even at 6 – what do you want people to do lie to children when they get something wrong and pretend it’s correct? There’s this thing called trust which takes a hammering if you constantly lie to another person, regardless of age.
  • the child is a bit of a perfectionist already and struggles if she gets anything wrong. In which case some guidance is needed to learn how to cope.
  • the teacher/parent is a perfectionist, and the child worries that if she gets things wrong, it will upset the adult or has learnt that it does.
  • we don’t even know that the child was spoken to by the teacher!!! It could be that the teacher read another child’s work and pointed out the subordinating conjunctions that had been used. The child realised they hadn’t used any and understood that they hadn’t completed the task as was expected. It may be the fact that she is worried about what the teacher will say the next day.
Is it too much to think that maybe there are many reasons, more plausible even than the idea that teaching grammar is wrong, that could explain this situation? Apparently not!

Someone else posted an example of a child ,who when asked to review a book, talked about the sentence openers and adjectives.

Again a million and one reasons.

Bizarro twist of the night goes to the supposed grandmother of the 6-year-old child who managed to send about ten passive/aggressive tweets before stating who she was. WTF is an expression invented for such an occurrence. So, instead of clarifying the situation, you go on the offensive? Most of the tweets were not even about her grandchild; they were about this second child, but hey why bother to read the conversation at all when you want to get angry about the fact that a child ON ONE OCCASION as far as we know got UPSET.

Here’s the thing that is even better – we don’t even know the child goes to a school which follows the national curriculum!! Let’s all condemn the national curriculum, the teaching of grammar, and the teaching of subordinating conjunctions, regardless. Which by the way, I taught to Year 2 children five years ago. Regarding words, subordinating conjunctions is a bit posher than connectives, but it doesn’t matter what you call them – it’s still a bunch of words that we are teaching children to use correctly. And sometimes they don’t. And sometimes they get upset.

Have we lost the art of helping children to cope when they fail at something or don’t get it right? Because that is what is the problem here – the inability of the adults to help and support.

If this one incident kills off her ability to write ever again, I doubt it’ll be because she was told to include the words ‘because’, ‘if’ and ‘when’  in her writing.

It’ll be because she is surrounded by hysterical adults who think the appropriate response to this situation is to contact an author to publicise the incident, and make a royal song and dance about it, rather than simply talking to the teacher and finding out what happened.

But what am I saying? Hush heretic!! We all know that when a child gets upset, the national curriculum should be changed this instant. We all know that we shouldn’t teach children anything that they may get wrong because occasionally children will get upset if they get things wrong. And that is the real reason there is illiteracy and innumeracy in our society.

UPDATE: It turns out that the parent of the 6-year-old was actually following the debate and cheerleading Rosen’s tweets from the sidelines. At no point did she state she was the child’s mother, just like the grandmother waited a whole heap of tweets, or that the child had used two subordinating conjunctions but that was not enough. 

Being oversensitive when your child is upset is one thing, but to use your child to score points against a curriculum you don’t like is a whole other level of craziness. Shame on any adult who can’t debate their ideas in the cold light of day, on their merits, and has to use tactics like this. 

Lies, damn lies and Michael Rosen’s posts.

6 Comments Add yours

  1. Brian says:

    An interesting if perhaps a little sad blogpost.

    The child’s mother, who is herself a primary scholl teacher, sent this message as a result of some distress.

    You have taken the opportunity to criticise and vilify most of those involved in discussions in order to justify your own position while suggesting that Michael Rosen has wrongly used the post to support his position.

    You are very likely a nice and reasonable person and the information we have is limited but based upon this post and associated writings I would be concerned if my grandchildren joined your class. This concern might dissipate quickly, I am sure it might but I would be worried.

    I dont think I am a bleeding heart liberal. For instance I feel that students who disrupt the learning of others should be removed from classrooms and taught in purposely created environments or by their parents at home.

    I believe that stduents should develop the biggest body of knowledge possible and that this should be supported by thinking skills that they use to apply this knowledge to solving problems. This for me is the purpose of education. The more problems they can solve the better.

    I don’t regard myself as either progressive or traditional although I can adopt teaching strategies that might be associated with each by some when necessary.

    Your criticisms of the parent are for me wholly out of all proportion. You talk of “cheerleading” and “oversensitive” and “craziness”. They are probably descriptions I might apply to this post and update.

    Just because a parent does not debate the issue in the way that you would like, does not make them stupid or unthinking. Being sensitive to the needs of their own child when the education system is likely less so is for me to be applauded.

    “But what am I saying? Hush heretic!! We all know that when a child gets upset, the national curriculum should be changed this instant. We all know that we shouldn’t teach children anything that they may get wrong because occasionally children will get upset if they get things wrong. And that is the real reason there is illiteracy and innumeracy in our society.”

    I would have thought, some with your intellect would have realised the difference between…..

    1 An isolated issue has occured here and we need to change the system as a result
    2 There are lots of reasons whay we should change the system and this example illustrates one or two

    Maybe you illustrate well the need to focus on critical thinking skills.

    Like

    1. teachwell says:

      “The child’s mother, who is herself a primary school teacher, sent this message as a result of some distress.”

      No proof of this whatsoever, what there is evidence of is a teacher who is against the changes in the national curriculum, using an incident which neither of us knows has actually happened or occurred in the way it has been outlined chose to go the Rosen with it and then chose to get involved without stating who she was. Or, for example, providing some context which was completely missing from the message itself.

      “You have taken the opportunity to criticise and vilify most of those involved in discussions in order to justify your own position while suggesting that Michael Rosen has wrongly used the post to support his position.”

      Criticise – yes, vilify – hardly – people choose to act the way they choose to act, there is a choice to be made between honesty and dishonesty. This was conducted in the most dishonest way possible. I don’t trust that one bit. Both the mother and grandmother chose to weigh in without saying who they were – if they wanted to remain anonymous fine but don’t get involved, attack me and then reveal who you are afterwards. What kind of game-playing is that? Don’t trust it, never have.

      “You are very likely a nice and reasonable person and the information we have is limited but based upon this post and associated writings I would be concerned if my grandchildren joined your class. This concern might dissipate quickly, I am sure it might but I would be worried.”

      It doesn’t really matter what you think of me or what you think I might be like – like all other teachers I have been trained, observed throughout my career and have had to pass a CRB. Equally I have been subject to the exact same standards as all other teachers. What one person considers a nice, reasonable person is different to another. As for the thing about being worried – I find that a highly manipulative statement. I am not going to change my mind or who I am because you or another human being may not like me personally.

      “Your criticisms of the parent are for me wholly out of all proportion. You talk of “cheerleading” and “oversensitive” and “craziness”. They are probably descriptions I might apply to this post and update.”
      You are welcome to do so – though one can only cheerlead other people not oneself by definition.

      “Just because a parent does not debate the issue in the way that you would like, does not make them stupid or unthinking. Being sensitive to the needs of their own child when the education system is likely less so is for me to be applauded.”
      Being sensitive to the needs of ones child doesn’t have to involve running to an author who is going to use the example to make a wider political point.

      “I would have thought, some with your intellect would have realised the difference between…..
      1 An isolated issue has occurred here and we need to change the system as a result
      2 There are lots of reasons why we should change the system and this example illustrates one or two”

      Except that it is not proof at all, you still do not know that anything happened. Any changes to the curriculum involve hundreds of thousands of children. It can not be centred around – a) a child being upset – I reiterate children get upset, our role as adults is to support them to learn to cope with their feelings, especially negative ones. b) I don’t think you can have it both ways here – it is narcissistic to think that one’s child is so important the curriculum should change because they were upset on one occasion.

      “Maybe you illustrate well the need to focus on critical thinking skills.”
      If you are going to criticise my post on the basis that you have – including this statement is hypocritical.

      The one question no one seems to have an answer for is why, if your child is upset, would you go to Rosen, not the teacher?

      Liked by 1 person

  2. madeupteacher says:

    Great post. The last sentence says it all. “……,why, if your child is upset, would you go to Rosen, not the teacher?” This reminds me of some who go on about the ‘pseudo’ word homework lists given out to children as if it’s the end of civilisation as we know it. Why do they not challenge the school to justify its position or explain its reasoning?It’s always good to hear both sides of the story. I don’t agree with pseudo word lists for homework by the way🙂

    Liked by 1 person

    1. teachwell says:

      I don’t think anyone who supports SSP does!! It misses the point entirely which is that they should be words that the child has not encountered before and how well the have learnt the code. For example -if ‘y’ is last letter of a word whether real or pseudo – it should be pronounced as ‘ee’. In other cases – have they chosen what is phonetically possible/plausible? The whole idea of pseudo words for homework is due to the misguided idea that they need to be taught those words as whole words.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Does this whole thing just highlight the difficulties attached to arguing point’s on Twitter? I find Twitter a great source of information but I avoid debating anything controversial on it. The restraints of x number of characters leads to an inability to provide a full picture of one’s position and often a decent , real or perceived, into rudeness.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s