Not pitchers, but still not human

I have just come across two illustrations of the way children are generally ignored in discussions of education.
The first was in the draft of a book, in which the phrase "democratic education" was used to mean education in which the teachers had an equal voice with the head teachers and the government and all the layers in between. And what about the children?
The second was in an article by Neal Lawson in the Guardian on Feb 24. It was promisingly headed "Our children need more than just higher grades," and included the paragraph, "Education is more than churning out more efficient workers. It's not just what job we want but what kind of world we want to create. Children need the skills not just to play the game but the knowledge to change the rules."
So far so good. But then, "We should be debating how we can improve our schools through the participation of parents and the wider community." And what about the children?
Perhaps children are no longer seen as pitchers to be filled, but it seems as if they are still seen as animals to be trained. "Democratic education" means education in which children have an equal voice with adults. We should be debating how we can improve our schools through the participation of children.

Worlds Apart: a new book

My new book, Worlds Apart, is hot off the press. The worlds in question are the world of traditional education and the world of Summerhill and Sands School, where the children share responsibility for the running of the school on equal terms with the adults.
The problem I faced in trying to compare them was that both types of school use very much the same words to describe what they do. "This is a school," says Uppingham, for instance, "which, for a century and a half has striven unequivocally to focus on the development of the 'whole person.'" South Hunsley Comprehensive School gives as one of its aims, "To ensure that the child/student is the central concern of the school and to recognise and respond to the differences between individuals, whilst at all times according each equal worth, value, respect, care and consideration." How was I to show that Sands and Summerhill interpreted these excellent aims in a quite different way?
My solution was firstly to match official statements like the ones above with statements from the opposite camp on the facing page. Diss High School's statement that "No changes occur either in the content or style of teaching unless they can be justified on strictly educational grounds," is contrasted with Summerhill's "A new timetable is created every term to satisfy the choices of the children." Opposite a creditable list of School Council achievements at Notley High School, you find the statement that the School Meeting at Sands "makes all the decisions that affect the school and takes on those responsibilities which are normally held by the head teacher." Ashcombe School proudly proclaims its exam successes, and on the facing page Summerhill says, "Despite continuous pressure from Government Inspectors we are proud not to be a factory for producing exam results."
In the next part of the book pupils from the different types of school have their say, with the comments similarly paired. They often discuss topics that are omitted from the official sources. At one nameless public school, "You are not allowed to hold hands in the street or kiss in public. This means that there are lot of couples sneaking around and hiding." At Summerhill, on the other hand, "Sometimes pairs write themselves up on the board opposite the kitchen, and you see them walking around holding hands and kissing in the lunch queue. There aren't usually many serious pairs, though – there's only one at the moment." At one comprehensive school, we hear, "The staff room and the sixth-form common room are the only places in the school where there are armchairs and newspapers, and people can make themselves tea or coffee and help themselves to biscuits whenever they are free," whereas at Sands School, "There isn't a staff room so in break times the teachers hang around with everyone else, and have just as much difficulty in getting to the kettle as the rest of us do."
I have omitted the more sensational stories I heard, because they were probably not typical. I wanted the facts to speak for themselves, so there are sixteen pages of photographs which also illustrate contrasts, though some of the lessons at Sands and Summerhill may look disappointingly normal.
Most teachers from conventional schools who choose to read only the left-hand pages of the book, which describe the kind of school they are used to, will find nothing surprising. It is only by reading across to the right-hand pages that they may feel a tremor of surprise or disapproval. Most children will feel the surprise too, but they will probably approve.

Worlds Apart, by David Gribble, is published by Libertarian Education, price £8.95. It is distributed by Central Books, but if you have trouble finding it you can order it directly from www.libed.org.uk and pay online.

Increased authority a remedy?

I read in the Guardian that the schools minister, Jacqui Smith, has announced legislation to provide teachers and support staff in lawful control of pupils with a legal right to discipline. It will also take discipline beyond the school gate, allowing schools to punish pupils for unacceptable behaviour on the way to and from school. Steve Sinnott, the General Secretary of the NUT, apparently said, "The legislation must focus on enhancing the authority of the teacher."
The issue should not be the control of unacceptable behaviour, but the removal of the need for it. If schools were places where children were welcomed, treated with respect and allowed to make their own rules most of the problems would just go away. E. F. O'Neill demonstrated this at Prestolee Elementary School from 1918 - 1951. David Wills demonstrated it at the Barns Hostel with supposedly unmanageable evacuees during World War II. Countesthorpe College demonstrated it in the early 1970s. Lorna Farrington demonstrated it at Highfield Junior School in Plymouth ten years ago or so. The Bedfordshire Schools Improvement Partnership is demonstrating it now.
Arbitrary authority fails to achieve its own objectives, but all the politicians can think of doing is extending it. How can we persuade them to consider the alternatives?