​This year the Department for Education committed nearly £8m to the Curriculum Fund, to help teachers deliver the more challenging National Curriculum introduced in 2014, while reducing the unnecessary workload burden associated with curriculum planning and resourcing.  A laudable ambition.
 
The pilot programme is focused on three elements: a knowledge-rich curriculum, whole-class teaching and teacher-led instruction. What’s important in the Government’s approach, however, is ensuring that ‘teacher-led’ doesn’t minimise the importance of the need for children to take ownership of their own education. The Montessori approach for example, perhaps the antithesis of ‘teacher-led’ has produced exceptional outliers such as Jeff Bezos, Larry Page and Sergey Brin. It’s important to recognize that there is no ‘one-size fits all’ methodology, so why not make sure we take the very best bits from all approaches?
 
So how do we take useful child-led elements from the likes of Montessori, apply them to existing classroom methods, and not overburden teachers with more work?
 
Best-selling non-fiction author Christopher Lloyd has launched a new initiative to raise awareness of the importance of an interconnected, cross-curricular approach to knowledge and education. He says, “Only by connecting knowledge back together again can children learn to think out of the box, develop critical thinking skills and become their own self-learning systems.”
 
As the Institute of Education’s Ruth Dann says, “Recognition of the importance of curiosity is evident in policy directives and regulatory frameworks governing both the teaching profession and the curriculum”. And now a pilot based on Lloyds latest book Absolutely Everything, the ‘Curiosity Curriculum’, gives pupils the opportunity to develop their own learning journey along a world history timeline that spans 3000 years. As they travel on six subject lines, rather than being told what to learn, students choose from a library of hundreds of Challenges spread across the timeline. The lines intersect, and the pupils must constantly hop between the different subjects in order to progress.
 
Taking another approach, at Learn2Think we are developing a way for pupils to cultivate their critical thinking through questioning skills, whilst working within existing lesson formats. Questioning can be seen as a measure of engagement and of depth of thinking.  By pupils asking the questions they get to own their own ‘knowledge goals’. A. Ram, whose background is in computer science, states: “The ability to ask questions is central to the process of learning, reasoning and understanding,” supporting Choinard’s claim that, “The content of children’s questions parallel their conceptual advances.”   
 
It is telling that levels of questioning fall off from the age of 5, and continue to diminish as children move through the school system. Is this because they’ve just stopped asking questions or because their motivations and engagement have plummeted?
 
Is it because we assume that asking questions is something children are born with, so we don’t need to teach it?  Is it just a thing we do naturally? Does asking questions imply a degree of ‘not knowing’, which pupils are reluctant to admit to? Do teacher’s find the asking of questions disruptive?
 
Learn2Think believe that if teachers are given a framework for question generation at certain points of the lesson, and pupils learn to use questions to further their own learning, questioning can be a powerful tool for teachers to increase levels of engagement whilst still leading the process.
 
And don’t forget, if you want to encourage your children to engage in some questioning, enter your pupils in the Learn2Think Young Journalism Competition, part of Tolerance Day 2018. For more information http://www.toleranceday.org/young-journalist-prize-2018.html
 
Further detail of the Curiosity programme can be found at www.gocuriosity.com

At the Learn2Think Foundation we are heavily focused on the importance of questioning, and how we can embed that within the curriculum. The goal is to encourage the development of curiosity and personal voice in every student. You may ask, why? The reason is that questioning is one of the only ways that we can assess and measure curiosity, and curiosity is one of the most fascinating, and potentially useful, elements of being human.

We all know that curiosity killed the cat, so perhaps we shouldn’t be too eager to encourage it. Yet it’s possible to see that the discouragement of curiosity as a means of preventing people from asking what if? What if the world was more equitable, who gave the authorities the right to tell me how to worship, what happens if everyone votes?

It’s not simply a matter of old phrases, or demands for engagement in the world around us. There is a growing academic body of work which shows that questioning, and curiosity, actually enhances the ability to learn.  Curious students not only ask questions, but also actively seek out the answers. Chip Bruce’s work on the Inquiry Cycle describes learning in terms of a continuous dynamic of ask, investigate, create, discuss and reflect.

Leo Casey has pointed out the importance of questions saying, “Questions are the root of inquiry; they initiate, sustain and invigorate each aspect of the process. Questions direct investigation, drive creativity, stimulate discussion and are the bedrock of reflection. In order to understand inquiry we need to deal with questions.”

Neuroscience is also beginning to reflect the importance of questions. A neurological study in 2014 showed that curiosity makes our brains more receptive to learning, and that as we learn, we enjoy the sensation of learning. Fancy that, encouraging children to enjoy learning!

The researchers found that the more curious we are about a topic, the easier it is to learn information about that topic. Once the subjects' curiosity had been aroused, they were better at learning and remembering completely unrelated information. Dr. Matthias Gruber, of University of California at Davis said, "Curiosity may put the brain in a state that allows it to learn and retain any kind of information, like a vortex that sucks in what you are motivated to learn, and also everything around it." 

So if a teacher is able to stimulate students' curiosity about something they're interested in learning about, they'll be better able to learn things that they would normally consider boring or difficult. For example, if a student struggles with mathematics, personalising the topic to match a student’s specific interests,  rather than using generic textbook questions, could help them better remember how to address similar problems in the future.  

As cognitive scientist Daniel Willingham notes, it's the question that stimulates curiosity -- being told the answer stops curiosity in its tracks before it can even get going. That is why the Learn2Think Foundation is researching ways to encourage questioning, to build stronger questions, and to ensure that teachers and students find ways of questioning together. Our first pilot launches in Spring 2019 so drop us a line at contact@learn2think.org.uk if you want to learn more.

Remember as Albert Einstein said, ““I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious.”

​That bullying is a problem in schools is clear. What’s less clear is if current policies and practices are helping to solve that problem. Most schools today have strong anti-bullying policies but there are times when nice words are simply that, words. What matters is the action that is taken to address the problem, and the impact it has on those it involves.
 
The challenge is that a policy is one thing but policies don’t always play out on the ground. What to do when a problem is systematic but treated as an isolated incident? What to do when the situation is he said, she said? What if children are too scared to speak up, or their parents don’t want any trouble? How can you know what actions to take? Are frightened children supposed to become detectives, with schools insisting on ‘proof’ or refusing to listen.
 
While it is vital that children should not be unfairly accused of bullying, it’s equally important that those who have experienced bullying are treated as if that experience matters, and that they are being heard. It can also be challenging when an accusation of bullying is turned around and made issue of race, ability, wealth or any other label. Our children need to be taught that it’s not OK to pass the buck, or assign blame to someone else – they need to learn the importance of taking responsibility for actions and their consequences.
 
Bulllying involves action but it also involves inaction. Who stood up and took a stand, who let bad behaviour go because it wasn’t coming at them? We need to teach children that we can work together to solve problems – and the way in which bullying is handled sends messages to all the children it affects.
 
One of the most potentially damaging issues is perhaps that of defining children as bullies or victims. It’s rare that any situation is ever truly that simple. Those that bully usually have other problems, at home, with self-confidence, with how they have been taught to address problems. Those who are bullied are made to feel helpless and disempowered. Most of all it’s a system which points fingers at individuals, rather than addressing the systemic problems behind the behaviour in the first place. Given what we’re seeing in the US and UK right now, where politics seems to be defined by blaming others, is that a lesson that we want to teach our children?
 
There are other ways in which bullying behaviour can be addressed and one of these is to take the idea of restorative justice and support children in solving their problems themselves. As Jenni Newcombe, founder of The MindTrust says, “The restorative justice idea is quite simple: those who have been harmed are able to convey the impact of harm to those responsible; those responsible acknowledge this impact and then take steps to put it right. This sounds simple. In order to used the methods and skills, it is important for those involved to practice (learn) these and to understand the principals for both prevention and for resolution when conflict results in harm.”
 
The purpose of restorative justice is to provide a practical and effective approach for resolving conflict. It can be used by all members of the school community—it’s not just for children. At the same time, learning the skills and principals of restorative practice are essential tools for life. It is effective in not only helping to mend relationships but also in building respect, improve thinking and problem-solving skills, and to foster effective interpersonal skills. These are all the tools that we should be equipping our children with as human beings, and they should certainly lie at the heart of education.
 
 
 

While the teaching of politics has frequently been seen as an esoteric subject, in today’s world it’s increasingly important that children are taught to understand the frameworks that control their lives and how their society implements its choices. 
 
Many of today’s big stories are fundamentally driven by politics, whether it’s the election of Trump, the schism in the UK over BREXIT, the use of Facebook data to influence voters, or trying to uncover whether the poisonings in Salisbury were a Russian attack or a means to control Russian expats in the UK.
 
My teachers always told me to follow the money and the power – one of the questions we all need to ask is whose interests are being served. In a world where our data is exchanged for cash, and that data is used to influence the way in which we think, children need to be armed with the tools to ask the right questions.
 
As Professor David Runciman at Trinity Hall, author of How Democracy Ends says,  ‘today we’re seeing the failures of the democratic process in the rise of racist rhetoric in politics, the spread of conspiracy theories and the growing deep distrust of mainstream institutions.’  
He looks at lessons from history to explore how democracies fail but seems convinced that democracies that fail this century will fail in new ways, driven by the forces of technological progress – such as the rise of intelligent machines - and growing social divisions.
 
Populism is currently right wing but it could just as easily swing left as democracy itself is being pulled apart by digital technology. Democracy delivers two critical things: social benefits (such as prosperity and progress) and human dignity (the right to express oneself and be heard) Digital technology enhances these two things but separates them and thi sis the issue.
 
Given how technology has invaded so much of our lives, we need to introduce our children to new ways of interrogating what they’re told, the information bubbles in which they live and an understanding of how to think for themselves. The internet of things (IoT) is being rolled out everywhere but little thought seems to have gone into its impact on children. It’s not just a question of security and privacy in the devices they use, but also how technology will influence and shape their social, economic and political environment.
 
Everyone has their own biases and blind spots, whether it’s a developer unaware of how a new product or service might be exploited or an individual judging others for the way they think or behave. Runciman argues that while Facebook may be a service that connects people, it is subject to abuse. It appears to be a platform where no-one, inside or outside politics, understands how to manage the social impact or bring it under political control.
​
In the last couple of years the airwaves have been full of concern about the rise of populism, the dumbing down of debate. Perhaps what we should actually be focused on is how our political systems could be transformed to keep up with the dramatic changes that technology is driving within human society. It’s possible that technology itself might help to shore up democracy and find new ways to integrate informed decision making for social benefit – however this can’t, and won’t, happen on its own.

Society itself needs to understand more about political systems, about the history of why countries behave in certain ways under certain pressures. We need to understand more about human geography, cultural psychology and the ways in which we might respond to new technologies. That means that we need to learn more than history or geography, we need to teach politics, at least the frameworks and what they are intended to achieve.  

That education needs to start as soon as possible – why can’t KS1 and KS2 history include modern geopolitics instead of just the Vikings and the Egyptians? If we hope to create citizens that can manage the ever increasing rate of technological change and the impacts that this has on human behaviour, we’re going to have to look at education through a new lens. 

The original version of this article appeared in Education Today.

The education sector is awash with new approaches to teaching, as well as ways to engage children with digital technologies and media.  One thing it doesn’t do very successfully however is map children’s education against the way brains develop and learn. As neuroscience gains more traction, it is becoming clear that our educational system may not be fit for purpose.
 
Sarah-Jane Blakemore, a professor in cognitive neuroscience at University College London, recently pointed out that it’s only in the last few years that we have learned much about adolescent brain development. This is leading a movement in which a new approach to education is being called for. Yet it’s not just adolescents who can benefit from a neuroscientific approach to education, it matters for younger children too.
 
One of the most important things to know from a neuroscientific perspective is that the brain is ‘plastic’ and so there is no such thing as normal or typical. While brain development is influenced by genetics and all brains have structural similarities, every single thought, emotion, behaviour and interaction changes the brain. As Jenni Newcombe, an experienced SENCo, teacher and curriculum designer with a masters in educational neuroscience, says, “Schools decide what’s typical, brains don’t.”
 
In discussion of the benefits and risks of separating children into ability streams, that’s worth remembering. Schools put limits and parameters around what needs to be learned at both extremes, and its usually too much or too little. Children learn at different speeds and in different ways. One of the great myths is that people have different learning styles and if they are taught the right way (such as aurally, visually, mechanically), they will learn better. The reality is that children may have learning preferences but, to a certain extent, it doesn’t really matter how content is delivered, it can be learned.
 
The real question then seems to be why are we teaching children content rather than teaching them how to learn. The Finnish education system, which is considered to be the best in the world, focuses on developing and applying skills across the curriculum rather than on learning content. In a world where much analytical work will soon be delivered by computers, isn’t it more important that we equip the next generation with the skills to learn new things in new ways?
 
Examinations are being introduced at ever earlier ages and while they are supposed to be ‘low stakes’ the amount of stress experienced by many children taking these tests is enormous. While the school may make clear that the tests will not affect the children’s future, that doesn’t prevent children’s concerns about competition, failure, letting down parents and all sorts of negative thinking. According to Newcombe, exams themselves fail because they measure the child’s value (they rate how ‘good’ they are) rather than assessing their skills and knowledge effectively. Instead, testing should only be used, at least until exiting school, to assess for further learning—to identify the gaps, ideally.
 
If the outcome of any test is expected to be a measure of the child, surely that’s a failure in our thinking. How can the factual recollection of content in an examination environment help any child in preparing for the new work and home paradigms of a digital society?
 
If they have the learning skills they can learn the content anywhere. In the brain activation is greater if children have done something they have learned from, not when they know something. As Newcombe says, “There is no benefit in the brain to knowing, the benefit comes from learning and the use of that learning in doing something new.”