creativity - Doubled Up

A year or so back, I was lucky enough to talk to an incredibly inspiring headteacher, who spoke about wanting school to be so exciting for children that it was like a trip to a theme park. He was deeply saddened by the fact that despite children's amazing capacity to learn, somewhere during their school careers their enthusiasm and natural inquisitiveness gets lost. I have seen enough in my own children to know how having something taught in an inspiring way can give them an enthusiasm for a topic that knows no bounds (involving  weekend trips to the library, googling topics and making models/posters etc to take in to school the following week).

Then, a few weeks ago, a link to a YouTube video about Montessori schools was sent to me. I have heard of it and had a rough idea of what it is about, but the video (featuring Gordon Ramsay's wife, Tana) tells a bit more. I have to say, I really liked the idea of children choosing what they want to do and how they want to learn. And it's not anarchy - it is explained that if all of the activities are of very high quality and have a positive value, then the children will learn whatever they choose.

As I was watching, I thought that a really good Montessori education at a young age (say up to six) could really set children up to love learning for life. It is designed to tap into a child's natural potential and desire to learn and to be stimulating and tactile. It crossed my mind that it could also be part of the answer to Sue Palmer's (author of 'Toxic Childhood') complaint that children don't get to play outside, make mudpies and dens, and be creative any longer.

And it also made me sad that schools are now pushed ever harder to reach academic targets for children of an ever younger age that their focus is so often more on results and league tables than on children's general development and wellbeing.

I want to share an idea before Christmas gets too near. Because we are an eco school, last year the staff agreed not to send each other Christmas cards, but instead to give the money they would have spent on this as a donation to a chosen charity.

Word of this spread and some parents decided that they would do the same. Instead of spending a fortune on cards that would end up in the bin, we sent an email with Christmas greetings and news to friends and family and gave the cash to the same charity.

This year staff have suggested that the children do not give their friends individual Christmas cards, but that each class makes a large card that they all agree on a message for, sign and read out in assembly. Parents are then asked to donate the money they have saved by not buying the cards.

Hopefully, the children will learn that they can spread a lot of Christmas cheer to people who need it, whilst still letting their friends know that they care about them. And as a bonus, there is less rubbish at the end of the Christmas period.

I was horrified to read this weekend that Early Years teachers are being advised to allow boys to play games with toy weapons. Apparently, not doing so leaves boys likely to become uncreative and disconnected with their learning. Whilst I appreciate that children have different learning styles, preferences and needs, I do not think that encouraging them to wield toy weapons is more likely to make them learn.

I understand that the leader of the NUT has voiced his concerns over the idea that boys' learning will be improved by allowing such play, stating that it is really giving in to gender stereotypes.

I am inclined to agree. When we come to that age-old discussion of Nature versus Nurture, I fall on the side of Nurture. I strongly feel that children become the sort of people we expect them to be and tell them they will be.

Take my 3½ year-old son, William, as an example. He has never come across any super hero cartoon character (his television watching is strictly controlled). Nor does he own any axes, guns or swords. I can, hand on heart, say that he hasn't even ever picked up a stick and pretended to shoot with it. But he is still an imaginative boy who tells me all sorts of creative stories and who will sit for hours with his Lego fire station, talking to the firemen and telling them how to put out fires and rescue people. His play is no more loud or aggressive than his older sister's. Of course, they both have their moments when they chase each other around endlessly whilst screaming and shouting, and they adore playing games in which I or their dad throw them about. However, they are both equally content to sit quietly and draw, read or listen to a story.

I really don't feel that William's imaginative, creative or any other development has been hindered by not being allowed to play aggressive games. On the contrary, he seems more confident and ready to learn than his sister was at his age.

My point is that, whilst imaginative play should be respected and encouraged, I do think that allowing aggressive games because "boys will be boys" is simply giving in to outdated stereotypes.