It’s a good time to rethink the language of learning

I’m sure it was well-meaning, but after years of trying, I’m still not ‘yet ready’ to represent Ireland at rugby – but that’s for another day.

Of course, I’m being churlish, but it does highlight some of the problems facing schools: that of telling pupils what they are most likely capable of, and what is, quite simply, a pipe dream.

That’s an erstwhile ambition to tell them, of course, based on their current level of work and aptitude – an important caveat that’s often omitted in the then former student’s analyses of a schools’ worth, some ten years later around the dinner table.

Bringing this into today’s context, schools are soon to be presented with some very big problems similar to this: that of integrating all pupils and students back into the classroom without using the next taboo words on the street: “catch up”.

It’ll be hard not to, as some will be up-to-speed with all their required online learning, some less so, and society being as it is, some will have slipped into being ‘the Netflix generation’.

The language and slogans we use are important, and do stick. We only have to look at our immediate cultural attachments to see that terms such as ‘every little helps’ (Tesco), ‘just do it’ (Nike), and ‘it does what it says on the tin’ (Ronseal), to know that such terms are emblazoned in the DNA of those companies and their everyday use. In real terms, they’re being quoted all the way to the bank.

Likewise, when a quotation is misquoted, it changes entirely how we view the person’s place, or the said event in history.

Marie Antoinette probably never said ‘Let them eat cake’ – it was most likely ‘quoted’ and de-contextualised to raise opposition to the monarchy.

The saying from the Bible that ‘money is the root of all evil’ is actually ‘[for] the love of money is the root of all evil’. Not quite the same thing.

Schools have routinely adopted language – well, perhaps not school principals but, rather, sometimes over-sensitive policy makers stuck on the 10th floor of an office block.

Some will recall the old 1990s directive where teachers were told that instead of using a then-perceived, weakness-related term, to use the suffix ‘challenged’, following a vague descriptor.

In this respect, small became ‘vertically challenged’, academically weak became ‘intellectually challenged’, and I became ‘circumferencly challenged’ – well, that was my take on it!

At the other extreme, use of the terms‘Jamican Stew’, ‘Tunisian Rice’ and even the word ‘dreadlocks’, are now being shunned in politically correct education circles because it allegedly invokes micro-aggressions against some cultures.

On balance, though, society is probably better off for us re-thinking our everyday language. It’s unthinkable nowadays to use racial derogatory language and words that degrades anybody whose lifestyle is different from a perceived, often Victorian, norm.

A moral maze

With this in mind, as we eagerly await some kind of normality, schools are now going to have to face up to a moral maze of what words to choose to describe the current examination classes, otherwise, we could label our next generation with being those who were never quite as good as their peers on either side of the pandemic.

On a cultural myopia scale, were one to exist, that would say more about us than them.

Against that, we also need to be careful that we don’t adopt the ‘you can do whatever you want to do’ culture that seems to have flown in on the excess luggage of flights from California.

For teachers in particular, this means treading the tightrope of inspiring pupils to be their best, closing down some gaps in their education, but also not leading them down the garden path.

In fairness, most of this is a well-oiled machine for schools; it’s often the rest of society that sadly rolls its eyes at young people.

Routinely, schools deal with pupils or students who miss a year or part of a year with broken legs, arms, and home relationships.

It’s no big deal to them – they get on with it. This is the same, just on a bigger scale.

To start the inevitable debate, the Department of Education in England has pre-empted this and has issued guidance to schools to remind them not to use the narrative of ‘catch-up’, and that children, especially young children, will need time to ‘reconnect socially, build positive relationships, and engage enthusiastically with learning’.

To be honest, telling that to teachers is a bit like telling your proverbial grandmother how to suck eggs – they know this, and can spot under-achievement and a lack of involvement from 50 paces.

The guidance, not yet issued to Northern Irish schools, goes on to remind schools in the most patronisingly way possible how to prepare for the eventual return of all pupils.

I suspect in Northern Ireland all this may follow once our politicians have finally got bored arguing and contextualising ‘the green/orange split’ about school returns; nothing new there.

However, all this isn’t window dressing. Young people are not failures or under-achievers.

Those who watched Netflix all day did so because they or perhaps family members were at their wits’ end trying to find the motivation or skills to complete the tasks, or to understand the many aspects of a modern curriculum.

There may not even have been the resources for a computer or laptop for each child in the home, or the reserve income to afford the extra bandwidth needed to keep their family online all day.

Society can’t judge, and simply label them all as ‘no-hopers’ – there’s always another side to the argument.

There are also a few well-documented sources of evidence for this. Not being assessed in a formal environment, and not having attended lessons sitting in serried ranks, doesn’t mean young people haven’t taken in information.

On the other hand, it doesn’t mean schools don’t need to redress attainment, they just have to do it sensitively and carefully.

Perhaps the loudest voice in the noise of closing attainment gaps lost by interrupted schooling comes from the Education Endowment Foundation, that came up with three key findings.

Namely, that school closures reverse progress, effective remote learning mitigates this reversal, and that sustained support is needed to help disadvantaged pupils catch up.

Laudable

These are all laudable – and arguably very obvious claims – but there’s a possible reason for this. They’re a Government-backed grant-awarding body that doles out £125 million of private equity to education.

For a more balanced view, there isn’t much to go on in terms of previous research.

Some work done in The American University in Maryland, USA concluded that 0.57% in attainment was lost for day a school was closed, but this study was only done for junior pupils, and accounts for ‘snow days’, when pupils were approaching the Christmas holiday season or had just returned after it.

More importantly, it doesn’t take account of online learning – a mitigating factor in the lost education saga.

On the other hand, a more interesting analogy was drawn from research carried out following the September 2010 earthquake in Canterbury, New Zealand, when society faced something vaguely similar to the Covid pandemic.

Society broke down; most venues closed, and schooling stopped. Now, 11 years later, academics have come to the conclusion that ultimately, there was little or no difference in attainment.

There’s no doubt that in the future, universities will have shelf-loads of studies on the impact of Covid-19 on this area but in the meantime all society can do is sit back and go with what’s on offer.

Underpinning this is that one can never lose sight of the fact that young people are resilient – they learn well and consume vast quantities of detail.

External exams such as GCSE and A-Level don’t test all the curriculum, they examine some of it and, at best, qualifications are just a snapshot of this. In this respect, there’s not much difference this time around, just the way it’s being presented.

Accordingly, examinations and teaching will fit into this model like giant memory-foam mattresses, taking on board what children know already, what needs to be taught, and thanks to just published CCEA’s 47-page document, what will be assessed.

Society is changing very fast and while digital and virtual education is never a substitute for the real thing, it’s giving its best shot.

As a society, we must remain positive, at the very least for our children’s sake. They are bright, intelligent individuals and will catch up with the more practical and hands-on areas when the time is right, of that you can be sure.

Never forget there is nothing ‘handy’ about the way children are being taught at the minute.

Some are engaged more than others, but hasn’t that always been the case? Give the students a chance, and let the teachers, teach ...

‘Simples’ – there’s another slogan for you!