Mary Seacole’s out (till the next change of government)

There are two opinions, predictably poles apart, in recent articles in the Independent and the Mail, on a proposal to remove Mary Seacole from her prominent place in school History.

People of a certain age could be forgiven for not even knowing who Mary Seacole is. She was a nurse (though the term is used loosely here and she didn’t use it) who went to the Crimea to assist soldiers on the battlefield at the same time that Florence Nightingale was achieving fame for her work in the hospital at Scutari. She was notable for her determination: having been refused the support of the War Office for the journey (perhaps because of her age; she was approaching fifty) she raised funds herself for the voyage and established a ‘British Hotel’ where casualties were treated.

Mary Seacole's memoirs

She wrote a book about her experiences and achieved some celebrity at the time.

Mary Seacole was an amazing character to be admired for her courageous career. But her importance in terms of lives she impacted on was comparatively minor, and one would expect her to be almost forgotten – and certainly not mentioned in primary schools. However, she made it into schemes of work related to the National Curriculum from about 1992 because she was considered a black role-model, having been born in Jamaica and being one-quarter black.

Certain educationalists of a non-critical bent then posed the question, why was she not as famous as Florence Nightingale? Simple to say: the contemporary white establishment must have been racist. Schoolchildren are now solemnly taught by many teachers that the reason she’s not as famous as Florence Nightingale is because she was black.

Obviously there are particular reasons for Florence Nightingale’s enduring fame in comparison with Mary Seacole. Nightingale questioned and challenged relentlessly, and tirelessly engaged with politicians and royalty to ensure that not only military hospitals, but all hospitals followed the hygienic practices necessary for them to be houses of healing rather than slaughter. She is without question the parent of modern nursing, and deserves to be famed then, now, and indeed as long as humans need healthcare.

Nightingale's Notes on Nursing - the
first book of its kind

Consequently, as a minor character, Mary Seacole does not need to be discussed at primary level, and the Government are right to be questioning her status. However, you would be hard pressed to gain historical perspective from the Independent’s report, which quotes the black campaigner Darcus Howe as saying that the proposal to reduce her position in the curriculum “is a punishment for the uprisings of summer 2011” (the expression “uprisings” being what everyone else calls “looting and riots”).

Howe’s foolishness speaks for itself. But it is of more concern when the Independent tells us with its own voice that Mary Seacole “was as famous as Florence Nightingale during her lifetime”. This is utterly absurd, as this Google ngram shows (which computes all mentions in published books from 1850 until the year of Seacole’s death).

(The blue line, if you can't spot it, is flatlining at the bottom.) 

This controversy is not just about falsification of history, but about a wilful ignorance that the contribution of one human being to the world can be different in value from that of another. The Labour MP Diane Abbott’s words say it all: “Students in this country already learn about traditional figures such as Winston Churchill, Oliver Cromwell and Florence Nightingale. Mary Seacole is simply another such important individual. Not of less significance and certainly not expendable.”

One day Diane Abbott could be a member of a Labour government. I wonder who she will want booted out of the curriculum – Churchill, probably. (Ironically Cromwell, another of the names she mentions as being of no more significance than Seacole, currently has no place in the primary history curriculum and schoolchildren already know more of Seacole than of him).

The best service primary History teachers can do is to teach children to be questioning of motives – we already teach them that historical sources vary in value, but we must also show them that modern politicians and modern newspapers are ready to spin and twist facts in order to make the past fit into their own view of the present.  

Follow @7000hours

Tweet

Is children's behaviour worse when it's windy?

It’s windy today, with gusts up to gale force predicted. This is the sort of weather when primary teachers will solemnly say in the staff room, ‘the children are going to be awful today’. I remember that when I was training to be a teacher, one of the trainees said in a behaviour management seminar that behaviour was worse when windy, and other trainees nodded in agreement as if it were a well-known, established fact that the more the anemometer spins the faster children leap from table to table. The tutor raised his eyebrows, and prevented the discussion going further by suggesting that it was probably the teachers’ expectations that led to children misbehaving.

It’s not just a British theory. This is from a Montessori school blog in the USA:

Beth commented to me about how chaotic the classroom seemed one morning.  With one look outside I turned to her and said, “Windy day outside”.  I explained to her I can tell the type of day we’ll have at school based on the wind.  She was impressed and agreed with me, she never made that connection.

At the first couple of schools where I worked, the view that windy weather causes misbehaviour was often expressed. However, I then worked at a school where no one mentioned it at all, so there were no expectations communicated to the children. One very windy day I decided to make an informal investigation, based unscientifically on my own observations. I was on duty at playtime, and there were no more negative incidents than normal. I went past other people’s classrooms, and there was no more noise than normal. My own class seemed no different even though the view from the window showed horses and sheep trembling while vegetation sped past.

While there is some scientific evidence (such as this 1999 study) that all humans (not just children) can be slightly affected by changes in the weather (not just wind), it is broadly an old wives’ tale. Teachers who think that the children are going to play up may unconsciously cause this by their own expectations which they communicate to the children (“just because it’s windy outside I don’t want anyone to use this as an excuse for being naughty”), or perhaps they are more alert to misbehaviour because of their assumptions. Or they have had a rotten journey to school in the bad weather and are more touchy than usual.

The only element of truth I can discern is this: where there is an increase in the noise of pupils talking in a classroom, there are certain children who cannot stop themselves from either humming, singing or rhythmically tapping. Perhaps when the white noise increases outside, there is an increase in classroom noise generally. But that is the limit of it.

What is the origin of this notion? Perhaps it has its roots in the nineteenth-century origin of universal primary education, at a time when people were more familiar with the daily sight of animals. Anyone who has a cat will know how agitated they become when there is windy weather, and dogs respond to drops in the barometer. The same with farm animals. Maybe this is because the wind confuses their senses: local smells vanish, the white noise of rushing wind dominates the sound. Teachers often humorously compare children to animals: does the theory of poor children’s behaviour contain the vestige of a nineteenth century teachers’ joke? The horses are neighing, the cats are bristling, the dog is running wildly down the street and the children are going to be a nightmare today.

Follow @7000hours

Tweet

What should you do if your primary pupils are on Facebook?

Perhaps the most flagrantly breached rule on the Internet is the age limit for using social media. The age is usually 13 (simply because that is the age in the USA above which websites can legally ask for personal data).

The risks of Facebook (FB) include children sending bullying messages, posting labelled photographs of themselves and their friends, and of course strangers making contact with them.

So as a teacher what should you do if your pupils are using it?

First of all, be careful. How do you know they are using it? Have you searched for your pupils online? If so, who authorised you to do that? Obviously, the point I am making is that what for you is an act of concern, is for another person an act of interference in what should be a matter between child and parent (and maybe for another person what you did was just short of stalking).

Secondly, if your aim is to get these illicit users off FB, you won’t win. If children are using FB they will not stop because their teacher said so, and telling them to close their accounts will result in less respect for you. Bear in mind that although the children will have lied about their age to FB, this of itself is not in breach of any UK law, and they may have done it with the support of their parents.

Deletion of accounts is not likely to be an option. Anyone finding a Facebook page belonging to a child under 13 is encouraged by FB to report it, and FB will then remove the account. However a teacher is on uncertain ground in making such a report, and in any case a child can set up another account immediately.

I'd suggest the following three-pronged approach.

1) Inform parents that the school advises that children not be allowed to have FB accounts. The school will be unable to support in the event that a child who has such an account, in contravention of FB and school regulations, is bullied using this medium. Words to this effect could be part of your school cyber-bullying policy.

2) But far better than talking to parents, deal with FB membership through educating the children. Repeatedly explain to the children (from Y5 upwards) about the potential for hurting people. Warn them that, although hurtful and bullying comments don’t leave scars and bruises, anything they write on FB leaves a permanent record. Harrassment, slander and verbal abuse are illegal acts, and children of 10 upwards are considered responsible for their own actions. Warn the more savvy ones that even if they have maximum privacy settings, a court can order FB to hand over any posts.

3) While making it clear that the school does not condone FB accounts, educate children in the risks of having accounts completely open. Address the issue directly by making up an imaginary child’s unprotected FB page and showing it on the board or handing out as hard copy. Ask the children what they know about the owner of this account, what the child likes, what they dislike, what their habits are, where they ‘hang out’. Through role play show how easy it would be for them to be fooled into a meeting with a stranger. Hopefully this will shock them into adjusting their privacy settings, but follow it up with a letter home anyway.

Follow @7000hours

Tweet