Conkers

Ed Balls is continuing to impress me. And I haven't yet learnt not to be sarcastic.
Actually, in fairness to the poor bloke, it's probably just that he's now officially a Useless Politician dealing with something with which he has little experience, forced to answer fantastically inane questions posed by ever more ludicrous media representatives. So despite all the inevitable words against "him" that I'll write (and say), I do feel sorry for the chap and am aware it's not all his fault, and that there is lots of good work going on, unreported, somewhere. But he has such a good name to ridicule...so unto the breach.

Balls has recently demonstrated his suitability for his post (as Minister for Children, Skools & Families) by stating that childhood should be a "time for learning and exploring" - profound and groundbreaking stuff. Remember that this man is mainly qualified for his post because he is "father of three" (this fact crops up every time his credentials are needed. Ruth Kelly has more kids - I think that means she was a better Minister, or something). He goes further and demonstrates a naivety that would be laughable if it weren't tragic: "My assumption," he says, "is that if it snows, kids go out and build snowmen and have snowball fights, that in October kids go out and play with conkers, that they play with marbles". Okay, he's probably right with the snow; conkers would be on the agenda if schools allowed kids to play with them (many don't) - but marbles?! When was the last time a (normal) child played with marbles? Balls is supposed to be one of the 'young and in-touch' members of government, not one who reminisces about childhood games of marbles.

Although Balls says some silly things, the context from which the above is taken is less cause for despair. Essentially he is calling for an end to pampered, pandered and stifled children, and a return to fun, less structured, rough-and-tumble childhood (of a kind that involves neither knives nor drugs). One of the results of our compensation culture is the banning of things like conkers, snowball fights and violent tag (well, just tag, but we all know it turns violent. The only time I've been punched properly in the face was in a primary school game - and the assailant wasn't even a Horrid Smelly Boy. There was gushing blood. What larks!). This has led to the most boring playgrounds ever, and Balls is now joining groups such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (a comic misnomer) in calling for a return of common sense and fun. Between them there's an effort to get children outside, running about and - probably, hopefully - breaking a few bones doing exciting things like climbing trees; which is something I very much believe is good. Clearly my (hypothetical) children are going to have a great time - "There you go, kids, there's a field. Go and kick each other around for a bit. Don't be late for tea!"

What made me think about this 'issue', though, aside from the contrasting common sense and utter lunacy involved on either side of the argument (insofar as there is one), is the fact the government doesn't seem to be talking to itself. As ever. In May (*before Balls was in his post*, I hasten to add) there were reports of the newest shiny government Academy in Peterborough (still under construction, I think), which is being built without a playground. It's difficult to get a genuine idea of what's really going on, as all media coverage of it was incredibly one-sided (anti-academy, obviously), and I really suspect that, even more so than usual, we were not getting the full story. That makes the situation impossible to properly evaluate. The government thinking that a school without a playground was a good idea, however, is a cause for concern. Point of info: they are intending no substantial break-times, and a 30-minute lunch break; school hours would be 8.45am till after 4pm (for older pupils). The arguments put forward for why this model is preferable seem to run thus:

1) 2,200 pupils (11-18) would be uncontrollable running around at break times & lunch.
2) Only "organised physical activity" is worthwhile, so any running & playing will take place in designated Physical Education lessons.
3) "Research has shown that if children concentrate on lessons throughout the day, then their work improves." (So no substantial breaks)
4) "Pupils won't need to let off steam because they will not be bored."
5) "We have taken away an uncontrollable space to prevent bullying and truancy."
6) The intention is to treat pupils as responsible 'employees' - and there's no playtime for bankers or lawyers...

These arguments are untenable and completely dismissible. Why?

1) 2,200 pupils might be a lot, but it's not substantially huger than other big schools that manage quite well. Presumably with the necessary increase of staff (and with the vast sums of money these academies apparently have at their disposal), there will be enough people around to control the rampaging teenagers. Anyone who has stepped into a school recently (one that's not been primed for The Inspectors or Important Visitors, that is!) will know that the vast majority of 11-18 yr olds don't run around. A few do. But most mill about, sit in favourite corners, retreat to their classrooms and eat sandwiches, do homework that should have been handed in yesterday, go to detention, stand outside the gates having a fag, go to orchestral rehearsals or clubs...
"So they don't need playgrounds after all!", you might cry - well, yes, they do. For those times when the teenagers stop putting on a strop show and just want to be daft - there's a lot of that in skools (when staff aren't looking). So, there will not be an uncontrollable rabble rioting around the grounds.

2) Everyone knows that designated P.E. lessons only exist to be skived, for half the pupils. For very few they might provide access to sport they wouldn't otherwise do - this is a minority. For the rest, the sporty ones, P.E. is wholly inadequate and a waste of time; because of curriculum pressures (yep, there's a P.E. curriculum) most of the lessons are spent listening to teachers explain the rules, or practicing underarm throwing or balancing techniques or something useless. Very little running around is done. Those who are that way inclined have to find other time and places to do sport - it doesn't always happen in P.E. lessons. To argue that only the "organised" activities are worthwhile, then, is to raise the question "For whom?". (And, again, anyone who's been near a playground will know that there are plenty of kids organising games at lunchtime, involving tearing round the place and jumping on friends. It works).

3) "Research has shown that if children concentrate on lessons throughout the day, then their work improves." Horrendously, this was said by Dr Alan McMurdo, the principal of the academy. Firstly, well, yes - obviously concentration improves work; we don't need a Doctorate to figure that out. But concentration isn't at its best in a full, unbroken day's work! This is madness. Dr McMurdo doesn't come across as the most brilliant potential principal, as demonstrated (again) by this:

4) "Pupils won't need to let off steam because they will not be bored." This indicates a befuddling lack of awareness of what teenagers are like on the part of McMurdo, and the comment is so insanely off the mark that I can't imagine many people not questioning it. How is a school (it's still a school, no matter what fancy name it has) intending to keep 2,200 pupils from boredom? That's not going to happen, ever. Of course some teachers are fantastic and some lessons riveting - but most aren't, and there aren't many people who can get through a school day without day dreaming at some point. Be realistic, you stupid man! What on earth makes him think that his school and his staff (and his pupils) will be so much better than those in the rest of the country? Barking.

5) "We have taken away an uncontrollable space to prevent bullying and truancy." (Miles Delap, managing the project). Outwardly true. Bullying, however, is not going to stop because the playground has gone - it will simply move; and there are more effective ways of tackling it than just removing the spaces. There will always be a toilet/behind-the-bikesheds equivalent, and although environment plays a part, attitude is more the problem. Toilets and playgrounds do not cause bullying. Truancy, hmm - I'm sure there are other places to play truant than in the playground. I used the library. Most normal kids use somewhere out of the school grounds.

6) School pupils are not employees, and they are not adults. They are not in a business workplace - they are at school. There are differences. Treating (particularly young) kids indiscriminately as adults does not make them adults. And it completely goes against what Balls is now campaigning for: the return of childhood.

Sometimes it feels like the world has gone potty.

To end, from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents stating more profundities, this: "Of course, we don't want exposure to risks where children are likely to die or be permanently injured". I feel safe in the hands of these people.

*******
*Balls quotations and conkers stuff from a Guardian article, 18/07/07
**Academy information was reported in May (link to a Telegraph article, from which quotations were taken). I've not seen anything updating this, though I'll have a search around to see if anyone is making any sense yet.
***Linking to articles on the internet has been an interesting learning curve - though I read all the major broadsheets (and occasionally tabloids) in steady rotation (I don't trust any of them), the Telegraph seems the best to link to. It's got the most searchable database, and more often than not has better pictures. Shame about the political bias, but never mind.