Medway Messenger column, 5th July 2002: Education And Self-Esteem

[NB: KIAD is the Kent Institute of Art and Design in Rochester]

Tuesday’s Medway Today made me feel old. It was the pictures of graduation day at Kent Institute of Art and Design that did it. There were the proud students and their even prouder parents, just like many other thousands around the country at this time. And as befits an establishment like KIAD, they had a natty line in hoods and gowns. 

I think it was blue and yellow the first time I graduated. I’d have to check a photo to be sure. My main memory was of the invited speaker for the day, who clearly thought that all the friends and relatives would enjoy an obscure lecture about the early Christian creeds. No thank you, they seemed to say, and settled down for as comfy a snooze as they could manage until lunchtime arrived. 

I haven’t the foggiest what I wore in Manchester when I was awarded my Master’s degree. I do remember the Pro-Vice Chancellor, dressed up in some green gear that looked more like the plastic cover in which a dry-cleaned suit comes back from Sketchley’s. And his speech? Nothing academic, just patronising: “This university is wonderful, you students are wonderful, and the Government should give us more money.” 

I wonder whether you are a proud parent or graduate? Or did you never have a chance to excel academically? That same issue of Medway Today reported a study commissioned by Kent Labour MP Dr Steve Ladyman that roundly condemned the performance of grammar schools in Medway and Kent. 

I’m not qualified to comment on the research, but my cynical mind thought it any other conclusion to research commissioned by a Labour member unlikely. I’m equally sure that if a Tory MP had set up such research, the grammar schools would miraculously have shone. 

Either way, the admission from Medway Council that previous research has shown that selection was neutral in terms of pupil performance seems tantamount to admitting that whatever system we deploy for our children, whether selective or comprehensive, it’s probably all just playing political football with them. 

I grew up in London, where everything was comprehensive. As a goody-two-shoes bright boy, I felt the comprehensive system never stretched me to fulfil my abilities. 

But I equally understand the concerns of teacher friends who think some children are thrown on the scrapheap the moment they fail the 11+, whatever opportunities there are to change school later. 

Of course that shouldn’t happen in a ‘comp’, should it? Yet the Government feels compelled to offer financial inducements to teenagers from middle and lower income families to stay on at school after their GCSEs. It’s all a mess, isn’t it? 

So what might make a difference to a child, whatever his or her intellectual abilities? Often the interest and support of parents is cited as critical. I’m not surprised: when parents do that, it makes a youngster feel valued and worthwhile. 

Ultimately it’s that feeling of being valued that makes the difference. You feel special, you feel you are someone. 

But on a human level it will fail at some point. The parents may fail at some point, or the child will think, “Well what I’m good at doesn’t matter in society, so why should I bother?” If their gifts are practical rather than intellectual, the existence of Government league tables will tell them what society really thinks matters. 

The psychologists talk about ‘unconditional love’ and no-one gives unconditional love like God. According to the Bible, God loved us before we loved him, and he loved us even when we were making a mess of life. To know that and accept that in our hearts brings about a revolution that no educational system can possibly achieve.

[ Home ] [ Up ] [ About Me ] [ Articles ] [ Kulcha ] [ Links ] [ Musings ] [ Sermons'R'Us ] [ Search ]

Copyright © David D Faulkner, 2006 except where other sources are attributed or noted as inspiration.