SEAL

Is the pressure of school life too much for young children? Roger Smith investigates

A review from Cambridge University, reported early in October in 2007, suggests that too much pressure on today’s primary school children is leading to stress and anxiety. The independently funded Primary Review is based in the university’s faculty of education and is an interim report which will be followed by a further 31, before the final, full report in 2008. What we have is a small part of the whole, but the words ‘anxiety’ and ‘stress’ should set alarm bells ringing. Is this what primary education is about? Are we really developing an education system where increasingly effective teaching is raising standards only to make children stressed and anxious? If this is the case, can we just carry on regardless, or do we need to think carefully about what we are doing?

What does the review say?

The review suggests that today’s primary school children are suffering from stress and deep anxiety about modern life. National tests, combined with concerns about anti-social behaviour and climate change are forcing children to grow up too soon. Researchers travelled round the country and met children, teachers, parents, governors, community representatives and religious leaders. Those who were consulted expressed concerns about stresses at school as well as what they saw as the perilous nature of and the future prospects for the society they will grow up in. Outside school they were worried about the condition of family life, the decline in mutual respect, the dominance of anti-social behaviour, materialism and the growing crisis of climate change. The Primary Review director, Professor Robin Alexander was quoted as saying that ‘… what we heard confirms that the health of a national education system cannot be fully captured by the term “standards”, critically important though standards are… The evidence from this one strand of the Primary Review’s evidence suggests that standards may have been too readily equated with quality, and that it is time to start exploring the difference between them…’

Standards and even higher standards!

Because I am not a mathematician or statistician I am confused. We all work hard to raise standards but is it possible to raise them for ever and ever or will each school eventually reach a kind of ‘highest possible standards’ peak where no matter what they do, they can go no further? Some schools obviously will have children who can achieve more than others, and realistically the standards at some schools will be higher than at others. This does not mean that we should not aim for the best all the time. In fact we should be maintaining the already high standards as well as aiming to support every single child to reach their full potential. But some of this potential is related to national tests and some isn’t. We have children in our schools who can eat tests, practice tests and revision for breakfast, lunch and dinner and still have time to behave and enjoy themselves as children should. Equally we have children who find the whole process more of a challenge and a waste of their valuable time or often downright boring. This does not necessarily mean that they are stressed but that they are finding their time at primary school rather frustrating and restricted.

The stress-free school

Most schools offer tests and revision that are important parts of a system of practice that will both familiarise children with what the tests look like as well as what a real test situation is like. Good teachers will be able to focus each child’s attention on trying to improve their chances of doing their best and making the most of their chances. In many ways part of each school’s reputation will rest on their national test results and all the interpretations and analysis and comparisons that can be made. Ofsted base much of their initial assumptions about each school on national test data. So, obviously, achieving the highest possible test scores and increasing the value added elements, etc, are very important and there needs to be a smooth process of teaching and development so that each child is able to show how good they are. But this is not the same as pressure to succeed at all costs. Children will be able to distinguish between structured practice routines and the desperation to succeed. Pushing children forever upwards at the cost of the whole curriculum is not acceptable. It is this constant reminder that tests are the be all and end all that will induce stress and anxiety and even the most academic children will start having feelings of inadequacy.

Promoting the whole curriculum

None of us want to induce stress by creating an atmosphere where testing and the results of tests dominate the whole ethos of the school. So, what can we do? Well, many schools make sure that they celebrate all kinds of achievement – not just the academic. For this kind of praise and the rewards that are associated with celebrating achievement it is important to spread the load. For example, if a child has won a sporting trophy, received a certificate for dancing or music, or has entered a painting in a competition the class and their immediate peers need to be able to congratulate them first. But, rather than localise this kind of achievement in a single classroom their also needs to be whole-school praise in weekly assemblies. This emphasises an achievement ethos – but not a single-minded ‘raising academic standards’ kind of achievement. It will tell those children who find tests and everything associated with them ‘uninteresting’ that they can achieve and that what they are good at is valued and celebrated. The review also suggested that there was anxiety about anti-social behaviour and climate change – together with broader issues such as the cult of the celebrity and the condition of family life. I think that most of us would react by immediately recognising that these are issues that affect the whole of society and not just schools. There is a whole industry of magazines, newspapers and television programmes whose sole reason for existing is to reinforce the shallowness of ‘celebrity’. Similarly, there are all kinds of gloom and doom reports in print and again on television that prophecy the disintegration of families and communities. We can’t win if all we try to say to children is ignore all this – it is just scaremongering – the world is just not like this. For many of our children, it is exactly what their world is like and for them it is easy to see where their anxiety and concerns come from. We need – to use the cliché – to gain their hearts and minds. The more information you have about an issue the better your choices. We need to help relieve their anxiety by giving children information. We need to get a grip on the curriculum and find time for long projects on such issues as global warming, the local environment, family life and families across the world. We need to operate on a much more optimistic level. Behaviour in most of our schools is excellent. Behaviour in the streets is not as bad as the media suggests. If children are given more information and are allowed to talk about wider social issues, they will be able to make better judgements and, ‘the more knowledge, the less anxiety’. We need to be willing to tackle children’s fears and pessimism instead of bombarding them with sometimes needless and often oppressive accountability measures such as tests, targets and tables.

Is it just a school issue?

Many of the issues suggested by the Primary Review have a much wider social base. It is troubling to realise that many children are not getting the best out of what should be a much more innocent and carefree childhood. Each of our schools is part of its own wider community and each school needs to work within this community. Why not use the police to talk to children about how safe the streets really are? There are all kinds of support groups to help educate children and parents in the positive role of families. Environmental groups will be keen to tell children about recycling and energy conservation and what they can do to help prevent global warming. After all, understanding the problem is one thing but knowing what we can do to help is even better. In fact the school could be a focus for all kinds of groups who see a much more positive future. But, parents as well as children need to be involved. They all have a role to play in preventing stress and anxiety in their children. We need to tell parents about the testing system, how it works and how to support their children and help them achieve their best instead of pressurising them to achieve something that is unattainable. We need to make it clear to them that tests are a small part of what schools are doing and that there is a full and wide curriculum that they can help their children with. It is important to try to prevent parents from making comparisons and saying their child is cleverer than or less clever than someone else. Each child should certainly not be valued any less just because they are not living up to some entirely inappropriate expectations. If parents do make unfair comparisons they will initiate a process where their child will not feel good enough unless they are better than the children they are being compared to.

Helping parents reduce stress

Self-esteem can be fragile and stressed and anxious children may feel unworthy and will not value themselves. They need to maintain their natural self-confidence. If you are concerned about some of your children it might be a good idea to offer the following advice to parents:

• Believe in your child’s unique talents and show it.
• Give lots of praise and positive feedback for all kinds of achievements.
• Reassure your child that it’s OK to make mistakes.
• Encourage your child to listen and read to understand problems.
• Help them to express their feelings.
• Respect your child’s interests – even if they seem boring to you.
• Take a genuine interest in your child’s friends and what is happening at school.
• Accept and talk about any genuine insecurities your child may have.
• Encourage appropriate independence.
• Focus on your child’s successes – never on their failures.

As professionals we all know that emotional wellbeing is important for learning but it is also one of the keys in determining future life chances and social mobility. We need to work alongside the rest of the community to improve these life chances. If children have high self-esteem, they will place greater value on themselves and will believe that they are worthwhile. This will mean that they are more likely to be creative and successful, and in social terms will be able to make and sustain good and lasting relationships. In fact there is lots of evidence that links stress to low self-esteem and shows a positive correlation between high self-esteem and achievement. So what are we waiting for? If we want higher standards a good starting point is to make sure that we have children with low stress levels.

Roger Smith is a former primary headteacher

I have had the pleasure and honour of visiting a few schools where creativity in all forms flourishes. These schools are run by Heads who have a very strong vision of what educating children is all about, who are rebels and who do what they profoundly believe is right for children, despite the system.

The knowledge we have gained from recent discoveries about the ways people learn has become an integral part of their daily practice. I congratulate all those people who have proved to the world that it is possible to run a ‘perfect’ school.

So is creativity possible in schools?
The first right answer is YES; the second right answer is NO.

It is theoretically possible, and it is even possible in practice, but only under certain conditions. In the present climate, in the system within which teachers operate, and with the kind of education teachers receive, it is most unlikely that true creativity will be seen at schools except as a concept referred to in government documents gathering dust on shelves and in (often meaningless) mission statements.

Why do we need to incorporate creativity into our educational system?
Creativity is one of the three key requirements in today’s world, which is changing at an unprecedented speed. The amount of information we can pass on to pupils in the time they are at school is very limited. On the other hand, access to all kinds of information has become incredibly easy. So it’s not what we teach that matters so much as making sure pupils know how to learn. Businesses all over the world have repeatedly expressed what they expect from their work force. The new ‘survival requirements’ are:

• confidence that we know how to learn;
• being able to deal positively with change (practically and emotionally);
• flexibility and creativity in the ways we think.

What is creativity and what kind of creativity are we talking about?
There are more than 120 different definitions of creativity, but in the school context are we talking about creativity in arts, a creative response to everyday situations, or creativity in coming up with new ideas?

And what about the definition of ‘new’ ideas? Does ‘new’ mean different ways of looking at things, putting together what is known in different ways, or coming up with truly novel ideas?

Since both thinking and arts are included in the curriculum, the focus in this article is on creative thinking and creativity in arts. We are looking at inspiring different ways of seeing things and breaking the established patterns of thinking, at encouraging freedom in self-expression and change of attitudes.

Why is developing creativity so often an empty phrase in the present system?
Schooling in its essence is anti-creative. In fact schooling and creativity are contradictions in terms. A quick comparison of the values that pre-vail at school and the essential values and prerequisites of creativity, highlight their contradictory characteristics.

At present the situation in most schools is that lip service is paid to the idea that mistakes are OK, that individuality is valued and that new ideas are always welcome. In fact mistakes are punished, conformity is rewarded and what we really expect is regurgitation of information. Almost unknown within the system are lateral thinking, safety to take risks and make mistakes, playing with ideas, appreciating the value of the ‘slow mind’ (associated with creativity and wisdom) and breaking the established patterns of thinking.

How exactly can you do it?
The purpose of this article is to stir up your thinking and emotions on the subject of creativity in schools.

When you have given these questions time to brew, when you’ve talked about them with friends interested in developing learners’ creativity, please go to www.inspiredlearning.info where you will find some practical suggestions.

Six pre-requisites of developing creativity at school

1. Create an environment in which pupils feel safe to take risks and get things wrong.
2. Develop a habit of always looking for the second right answer, and the third…
3. Encourage pupils to regularly re-visit and re-examine all the rules, and change them if appropriate.
4. Find the right balance between teaching skills and inspiring creative expression.
5. Learn to suspend judgement.
6. Allow the ‘slow thinking, dreamy, playful mind’ the time it needs to come up with new ideas.

 This article first appeared in Teaching Expertise, April 2005.

Research into the achievements and outcomes of special provision for G&T children has produced surprising results, Joan Freeman explains

The outstanding finding from many years of international research on the development of gifts and talents is that the evidence and the mythology do not match (see Freeman 1998; Freeman 2002). The dominant stereotype is still of an undersized boy peering sadly through his thick spectacles at pages of mathematical equations. But virtually all the scientific research shows the gifted to be healthy children of both genders, emotionally stable and a pleasure to teach. This is not to say that gifted children don’t sometimes have emotional challenges. They are, after all, exceptional. They can suffer particularly from other people’s expectations; perhaps the worst is being expected to be perfect all the time.  Constantly high expectations mean that failure is inevitable from time to time. This brings children fears of disappointing teachers and parents. Such fears directed some of the gifted children I have interviewed to aim for unchallenging goals throughout life. Teachers can help by allowing the gifted to feel free to experiment – and fail – and still feel good about themselves.

Measuring ability

Teachers around the world vary a great deal in identifying gifted children. In America it varies from 5% to 10%. German teachers are less generous, estimating only about 3.5%, though Indonesian teachers came up with 17.4% (Dahme, 1996). Teachers are sometimes given check lists which can be misleading, but in fact, all measures are limited. IQ tests, for example, cannot tell you about how children learn and think, nor can they predict high-level creativity. What’s more, they are not even a sensitive measure of a gifted intellect because the upper limits are not able to distinguish between the top few per cent. Social or business talents are rarely considered in any form of assessment. Children’s own enthusiasms have been found to be excellent indicators of adult attainment. But nobody could predict future world-statures from the school records of geniuses such as Sigmund Freud, Marie Curie or Bill Gates. Studies which look back at the childhoods of outstanding adults have shown that many who became outstanding in later life were not at all outstanding, even by adolescence.

Research reliability

Research methodology is not always as rigorous as it could be in this field. Some researchers, for example, draw wide conclusions from studying just a small number of children. Studies on gender achievements highlight other issues: American research is unquestionably dominant in the field and it is often quoted all over the world as though it is pertinent to every population. But it is not. For example, successful girls in Louis Terman’s Californian long-term study of gifted children had to give up marriage and children to reach the top of their careers (Holahan and Sears, 1995). In the USA, within the top 10% of high achievers, boys outnumber girls by 2:1 in mathematics and 5:1 in science, (Hedges and Nowell, 1995). But now in Britain, girls are doing better than boys at all school subjects, including mathematics and science at all ages (Freeman, 2003). Similar trends are found in most other developed counties such as Australia, Holland and Spain, though less so in Germany. American figures and conclusions, (notably about different kinds of brains) do not tie up with results in Europe and Australia.

The Freeman research

In 1974 I began a comparison study in Britain (Freeman, 2001). I was concerned to find out why some children were labelled as gifted, while others – of identical measured ability and achievement – were not. My investigation has involved more than three decades of testing and in-depth interviews with the individuals, their parents and their teachers, in their school and home environments.  My target group was 70 children aged between five and 14, described as gifted by their parents, all of whom had joined the National Association for Gifted Children (UK). Each of these children was matched with two comparison children, the first measured as identically gifted – though not labelled as such – and the second taken at random (N=210).  Each of these 70 triads, also matched for age and gender, was in the same school-class, providing a common experience both educationally and from the same social population. IQs ranged from the 46 children with less than 120 IQ to 18 children with above 160 IQ; 13 knocked the test’s ceiling of 170 IQ. Family finances ranged from very poor to very rich. The essential difference between the target and identically gifted children was whether or not they bore the label of ‘gifted’. The uniqueness of this investigation lies not only in the long deep interviews over so many years but in the methodology, notably the carefully matched comparisons. World-wide, I still do not know of any other longitudinal study which has done this.  My research has shown that pressure to conform to expectations, whether positive or negative, affected individuals’ life paths for decades. The unlabelled gifted had many fewer emotional problems and a broader span of learning and activities. In fact, strong pressure sometimes had the opposite effect from what was intended, the worst affected being the accelerated boys specialising in science. They could miss out on the healthy development of social skills and relationships and their self-images were poor. All work and no play not only make Jack a dull boy, but a sad and lonely one too. Today, in their forties, many regret the way their childhood was spent in heavy study. In terms of conventional success in life, such as high examination marks, climbing the corporate ladder or making money, the primary building blocks were always keenness and hard work, allied with sufficient ability, educational opportunity and an emotionally supportive home. Some gifts were more encouraged in schools than others, particularly science and mathematics, possibly because outstanding results could be more easily achieved and measured in those subjects. Poor educational guidance caused too many to waste time and energy in following wrong channels. High-level creativity though, as seen in adult careers, demanded a particular type of personality which enabled the individual to act independently of others’ opinions. Whether individuals were modest, conventional and rule-abiding or constantly straining to change the world, they usually carried their personal style through to adulthood.

What works
In whatever manner the gifted are selected for special provision, the outcome is likely to be positive. It is not surprising to anyone that bright, keen children will learn something on a specially designed course. But holiday courses of a week or two a year, are less likely to be effective than the everyday challenge of good teaching.

The decision whether to accelerate the gifted in school is difficult and depends on the flexibility of the system, how many others in a school are accelerated, the child’s level of maturation and the emotional support received. Where the school standard is high (as in Scandinavia) there seems to be no need for jumping children up a class or two, and there are many other ways of helping the gifted without removing them from their age group.  Accelerated children can have big gaps in their learning, and resulting emotional problems can appear long after the school years. General enrichment, though, is not adequate as a blanket measure. The children who had an enriched education at the Hunter School for the gifted in New York had not achieved any differently from their social and intellectual peers at other schools – 40 years later (Subotnik et al, 1993). A clear focus in enrichment is essential. This could be, for example, a journalism course for sharp writers or photography for the visually talented. It is helpful to observe children in rich and varied educational settings; perhaps dancers in a serious dance class or future programmers with access to good-quality computers. Teacher encouragement of play is extremely important for creativity in all fields. The great scientists, such as Albert Einstein and Peter Medawar said that they would not have gained their Nobel prizes without play. Playful attitudes to work begin from the first days of school and heavy memorising severely inhibits this.

Freeman’s sports approach
Selection of the gifted followed by special provision works quite well for children who are already highly achieving. But they are just the tip of the iceberg. I believe that we should change to a dynamic approach, flinging our nets more widely to pick up many more youngsters who have hidden talents.  Given the opportunity and, with some adult guidance, children should be able to select themselves to work in any area at a more advanced or deeper level – assuming that the provision is there for them.

For talented sporting children there’s often extra tuition, equipment and transport for matches. But talented chemists or linguists often get much less support. In the same way that those who are talented and motivated can select themselves for extra tuition and practice in sport, I suggest they could select themselves for extra help in the subject area of their choice. This would mean, of course, that the extra facilities must be open to all, rather than only to those selected by IQ tests, adult experts or the money to pay for extras. If we were to take this approach for all children, I am sure that in a few years we could have a far higher proportion of those we now see as gifted.

No single style of teaching can cater for the needs of all gifted pupils. Gifts can take many different forms and they may turn up in quite unexpected situations at different points during a life-time.  Above all, to develop excellence in any area, potentially gifted children require the means to learn, which includes generous learning materials, focussed challenging teaching, encouragement and absolute acceptance for who they are.