There is a growing groundswell of support for a return to the days of direct instruction. The success of the Singapore method, especially in STEM subjects, has raised the question of whether or not children benefit more from a directed process, focused on repetition and structure.

What we need to understand is what we want to achieve with education. Do we want to tick boxes, ensure the next generation has STEM skills, or even ensure that the next generations of employees are fit for employment? The challenge is that the world has changed, and continues to rapidly do so, in many ways.

The challenge is ensuring that the skills and mind-sets of the next generation are fit for purpose. There is no question that strong abilities in STEM subjects is a huge benefit, both to employees and employers, and necessary for future societal and economic development. Today however there is also a growing need for soft skills -  the skills that companies want are the ability to face and manage change, to address complex problems (from programming challenges to strategic evolution) with innovative solutions.

Today’s children are used to being able to find answers to questions immediately. Access to digital data means that factual questions can be answered immediately. Many employers are looking for flexible minds with the ability to identify necessary questions to even understand the challenges faced.  This is the skill of knowing what to ask and being able to look in new places for solutions – not necessarily a mindset that is encouraged by direct instruction. So the question really becomes, what is education for and how do different approaches result in different outcomes.

Ofsted has recently admitted that with the recent academisation of the curriculum, it had become over reliant on performance data, meaning that examination and box ticking could be said to be the ruling framework for education. This is especially problematic at primary level, as performance measures are so narrow.

It may seem that primary aged children are too young to be developing critical thinking skills. Yet critical cognitive skills can be developed hand in hand with growth in emotional and social awareness. By embedding agency through questioning skills into the curriculum we can help support our children into becoming creative, independent and compassionate thinkers.

Is there room, however, for inquiring minds in the direct instruction classroom? The latest neuro-science research shows us that student-generated questioning plays a fascinating and fundamental role in the learning brain, as it forces us to:

• Ensure sensory input is registered – gains our attention
• Link to prior knowledge
• Actively process new information
• Create and reinforce learning pathways in the brain

Fads come and go in teaching, what is certain is that teachers need to be given the flexibility to evolve to meet their cohort’s ever-changing needs. Each teacher ought to have the remit to play to his or her strengths as an educator.

Encouraging great quality questioning skills from an early age is an effective way of ensuring student engagement across both the learning and teaching methodology spectrum.
​
This article first appeared in the June issue of Education Today.

Engagement is vital if children are to learn successfully - that’s a given within the educational system. What’s important is that we find new and different ways to engage our children, in as many relevant and interesting ways as possible.

This column often talks about the importance of questioning, and how the process of learning how to question and improving questioning can have a direct impact on engagement, learning, communication skills, language and respect. There are ways of deepening this engagement that are as simple as paying attention to the stories that are in the news, and taking children outside.
​
The news has recently been filled with stories about Extinction Rebellion and the impact that the voice of the young can have, such as Greta Thunberg and her call for young people to protest inaction on climate change. Children hear about these things and it’s important to integrate some of the big questions of our time into day to day teaching.

The topic of climate change can brought into any subject with one of the most important questions that exists: why? Why should we care, why does it matter to me, my family, my country? Whether you’re looking at language, geography, history, culture, maths there are always questions about climate change and sustainability to be explored. Such a big topic can be brought down into the realm of the immediate by simply bringing children out into the natural world. 

Teaching children outside (weather permitting of course) is an important thing to do for the most surprising of reasons. While obviously children enjoy a change of pace, there may be concerns that it will be distracting and that children will find it hard to settle later. Recent research from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, however, shows not only how lessons  outside increase enjoyment and engagement, but also shows how children’s engagement and focus continues even when their classes resume back inside.

Spending time in nature boosts children’s academic achievement and healthy development, concludes the new analysis which examined hundreds of different studies. Ming Kuo, associate professor in the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences at the University of Illinois and her University of Minnesota co-authors found that nature boosts learning in eight distinct ways.
“We found strong evidence that time in nature has a rejuvenating effect on attention; relieves stress; boosts self-discipline; increases physical activity and fitness; and promotes student self-motivation, enjoyment, and engagement,” Kuo said. “And all of these have been shown to improve learning.”

These effects extend beyond academic achievement, according to the review. Time in nature appears to foster personal skills and qualities important for future success, and may play a critical role in helping children grow up to be environmental stewards.

“Even small exposures to nature are beneficial. If you’re indoors, having a view of your yard as opposed to facing the wall, that makes a difference. At the same time, more is better. That’s one of the things that gives us more confidence that we’re seeing a real cause-and-effect relationship,” Kuo says. “The bigger the dose of nature we give a person, the bigger the effect we see in them.”

This article first appeared in the May edition of Education Today.

By Alex Salem, Tolerance Day Ambassador

Something that adults are always talking about is Brexit.
 
What is it?
Brexit is about the UK leaving the EU. The EU is an organisation of 27 countries within mainland Europe, and it sets the political and economic agenda of its 27 members.
 
Why does the UK want to leave?
There was a referendum giving voters the choice of remaining in the EU or leaving the EU. The leave vote was 52%, the remain vote was 48%, so leave won with a narrow majority of just 4%.
 
The main reasons for people voting to leave:

1. To regain control from Brussels (the seat of government of the EU).
2. To stop EU law superseding UK law.
3. To control our own immigration policy

 
Why should we stay in the EU?
It’s working very well as it is, and we shouldn’t change it.
It’s better to be part of a large group of 27 countries, rather than be a single isolated unit.
We currently have a free trade agreement with the other 26 countries, and people can work and travel easily within the EU.
 
What is a soft Brexit?
A soft Brexit is where the UK makes a deal with the EU so that it can technically leave, whilst retaining some of the benefits of staying as well. The problem is that we are still controlled and ruled by Brussels.
Some people say that this is the worst of all worlds……..we would be half in and half out.
 
What is the backstop?
The backstop is meant to be a last resort to keep an open border on the island of Ireland - whatever happens in the Brexit negotiations. It would mean that
Northern Ireland, but not the rest of the UK, would still follow some EU rules on things such as food products.
 
What happens if the UK leaves without a deal?                                                   
"No deal” is the political default in the event we cannot agree a deal, and means the UK would in effect “crash out” of the EU. It is the route favoured by the ERG (European Research Group) a right wing faction of the Conservative government. Those opposing this say it would cause food prices to rise and that we would have shortages of some essential medicines. If we did crash out with “No Deal”, EU laws would stop applying to the UK immediately, and we would be free to make new trade deals with other countries around the world.

​To conclude: Brexit is very divisive, and at least 50% of the population will be disappointed……….Whatever the outcome.

By Alex Salem, Tolerance Day Ambassador

​School uniform is an outfit that your school has told you to wear. 22% of schools have school uniform but should the number be raised?
 
1: They can break down class barriers between students.
When students don’t wear school uniforms it can be easy to spot the most privileged kids based on what they wear to school. One argument used in favor of school uniforms is that when kids wear uniforms visible class markers between rich kids and poor kids are decreased or eliminated, which may lead to more social mixing.
 
2: They can increase student focus.
Another argument that’s often in favour for uniforms is that they may increase student focus. The evidence for this seems to be thin, but many supporters of uniforms argue that when students don’t have clothing to notice, comment on or respond to, they can spend more  energy on learning, this increases discipline in the classroom.
 
3: They can increase the sense of community in a school.
Uniforms may also build community in a school as students of all ages. children bond over the outfits they all wear on school days. When schools debate about whether they should have uniforms or not previous students have been in favour of keeping uniforms.
 
4: School uniforms can promote safety.
In areas where students may be gang-involved, uniforms can increase safety by preventing students from wearing clothing that inappropriate. Some people in favour of school uniforms argue that uniforms can increase student safety in school and outside of school, as well as increasing students’ ability to blend in and focus on learning without having to worry that their clothing choices.
 
BUT
 
 1: They can be expensive for parents.
Keeping a child in school uniforms may be more expensive for parents and guardians than buying regular clothes would be. Often, uniforms are only available from a limited number of suppliers keeps prices high. Or, a uniform will include pricier items like blazers and dress shoes, which some families might struggle to afford.
 
2: Uniforms limit student self-expression.
Another argument made against uniforms is that they limit students’ self-expression. Teenagers in particular are famous for needing to express their emotions and their tastes in music, fashion and art through clothing, hair and piercings. School can be tough on kids and teens as it is, without taking away one of the few areas where they can exert some control and express themselves, say opponents of school uniforms.
 
3: Uniforms may be sexist.
Some uniforms may strike students and parents as sexist. For example, if a uniform requires girls to wear skirts and trousers are not allowed, some students and parents may object, leading to conflict with the school administration. Not all girls want to wear skirts and some may resent being told to wear traditionally “feminine” garments.
 
4: Uniforms lead to more policing of students.
If a school has a uniform policy, it generally tries to enforce that policy by monitoring students’ clothing and punishing students for violating uniform requirements. Of course, even schools that don’t require uniforms may police student clothing that’s deemed too revealing or offensive, but uniforms may add to the attention focused on student dress. This can make students feel that they’re being judged and punished for their appearance, which could have negative effects on student self-esteem or attitudes toward the school. And if students are sent home for uniform violations, they will miss valuable learning time. Plus, policing student uniforms takes time and effort on the part of teachers.

The classroom has gone digital and whether that’s for in-school or distance learning, it can surely only be a good idea?

Display screens, digital connectivity, interactive lessons, apps, email and more. Yet do we really know the extent to which the use of ICT impacts on education. Certainly young people today are more comfortable with digital forms of interaction, and a survey from Promethean reported that 55% of teachers believe engagement can be increased (and behaviour improved) through the use of images, music and more. The extent to which a quantifiable impact on educational achievement can be assessed however remains elusive.

BESA’s annual survey of edtech in schools continues to report that few schools feel they have sufficient information about solutions available or their efficacy or impact. We need to differentiate between ICT that supports digital education (including management systems, data gathering and monitoring, servers, wi-fi etc) and communication, and that which provides digital education. With countless vendors claiming their solution is best, in an industry valued by Gartner at £900m a year in the UK alone , what is a school to do?

The question needs to be asked, what is its purpose? What is the challenge or problem that it is expected to solve? Which pupils will most benefit from its use, and which may suffer? Will it highlight inequalities? Perhaps most importantly, what is different and special about your school and what are your specific needs and challenges?

On one level children should be educated using the tools that they’ll be using in their future lives. Engaging games which allow children to learn to code, to create and control an environment can be exciting and fun. Technological improvements and changes are so rapid however, that perhaps a better approach would be teaching children to see digital enhancements as tools and provide them with the means to be creative and flexible in their learning approaches.

Ed-tech is about more than technology, it’s about how technology in schools affects the environment, society and culture of a school, and of a children’s learning. As educational technology becomes mainstream, there are other factors that must come into consideration. Concerns about smartphone use and cyber-bullying are causing political backlash, while data concerns are increasingly driven by GDPR, fear about online safety and data scandals including  Facebook and Cambridge Analytica.

In a world where information lies at our fingertips, we need to teach children how yo interrogate the world around them, and understand  that technology is a tool, not a solution in itself. Questioning lies at the heart of such an approach. Put simply, curiosity and its by-product, questioning, is how the brain makes sense and order of the world and if we can develop children’s questioning then we can ensure that the child takes ownership of their learning, rather than simply reacting by rote. 

Surely that means we should pay more attention to questions. Surely improving the questioning skill of pupils is critical given that the quantity and quality of questions is a direct measure of pupils’ level of  engagement, of learning taking place and of critical and creative thinking in action?  If we can ensure that questioning is at the heart of our educational approach, then the tools we use to implement that approach may become of solving technological questions. 

This column first appeared in the April edition of Education Today.