Numbers, especially FIVE. And some music, which is the same thing when it comes down to it, isn't it?

FIVE (five)
Days to go to school
Then you have the weekend
And that’s the rule

... says rap 5 on CBeebies. (Why oh why do I let my children watch such state-sponsored brainwashing rubbish?? Sometimes I think autonomy's not all it's cracked up to be. Catchy tune, though.)

The government also requires us to ingest five portions of fruit and vegetables a day. Look! There's even a 5 a day community! Let nobody say that community spirit is dead and buried and now being ghoulishly parodied by the instruments of its demise.

Meanwhile, on another tentacle of the octopus,

The Government's aim is for every child, whatever their background or their circumstances, to have the support they need to:

• Be healthy
• Stay safe
• Enjoy and achieve
• Make a positive contribution
• Achieve economic well-being

The 'support' they speak of, by the way, is not optional. It's the kind of support traditionally offered to little old ladies who will be helped to cross the road, whether they wanted to or not. And:

The five outcomes are universal ambitions for every child and young person, whatever their background or circumstances. Improving outcomes for all children and young people underpins all of the development and work within children's trusts.

though my dictionary contains the following two definitions:

universal adj. of, belonging to, or done etc. by all persons or things in the world or in the class concerned; applicable to all cases.

ambition n. the determination to achieve success or distinction, usu. in a chosen field.

So the government has decided that every child and young person, is determined to achieve success in those five outcomes. But I doubt it. Some children like to take risks: safe is boring, no? And how can we push our limits or try new things, without feeling even a little bit unsafe? Children arguably even need to take risks in order to learn and develop. "The obsessive 'safety-first' culture in schools will rob Britain of the next generation of entrepreneurs just when the country needs them most," as Simon Woodroffe, founder of Yo! Sushi and a judge on the BBC show Dragons' Den said to The Times.

And I can personally relate to the one about economic wellbeing. Does this mean affluence? Because I prefer poverty (of the relative sort, not absolute). I think if my family was being grilled by the FIVE police, we'd have to try to argue that economic wellbeing surely means to stay solvent and to pay one's bills and we do manage that. (But what happens to the people who don't?! Presumably they will be 'supported'..)

The outcomes are mutually reinforcing. For example, children and young people learn and thrive when they are healthy, safe and engaged; and the evidence shows clearly that educational achievement is the most effective route out of poverty.

Hmmm. Reinforcing. I think we're getting the gist, don't you?

Don't get me wrong: if people want to be healthy, safe, engaged, achieving and rich then good luck to them. I might want to be (or already be) some or all of them myself and so might my children. But the point I'm trying to make is that our instincts and urges in this respect - our ambitions - are private, internal, individual and personal affairs. For government to try to jemmy its way into our psyches in this way and to dictate our ambitions for us is (yet another) step too far.

And how have they ascertained that these actually are

the five outcomes that are most important to children and young people

?

Perhaps they went around the schools holding mass 'consultations'. Altogether now:

"What do we want?"

"To be healthy, stay safe, enjoy and achieve, make a positive contribution and to achieve economic wellbeing!"

"When do we want it?"

"Now!"

But at least the issue of schooling finally seems to be being questioned in a sensible way. In an article titled What is the future for schools?", the BBC's Mike Baker reports on the Horizontal project: "It stands for 'horizon scanning: technology and learning' - a futurology project funded by the Department for Children Schools and Families and organised by Professor Stephen Heppell."

Though I found Mr Baker's essay more interesting than the website blurb about the project itself because it poses the specific question:

But do we still need a national curriculum? And why are schools still based on a 19th century model when we are now several years into the 21st century?

Why indeed. I do hope they work out the answer. And publish it. He continues:

Why, for that matter, are schoolrooms still much the same in terms of size, shape and focus as they were 150 years ago when mass education began in Britain and learning methods were so different? One answer to emerge from the event was that, unlike many industries, education is still firmly in the grip of governments. The consensus was that governments are generally not very good at innovation or risk-taking. Nor do they tend to take the long view (the sponsoring of this event by the DCSF being a notable exception) as they work to four or five year cycles.

Where new technologies have been used they tend to reinforce existing teaching and learning methods rather than taking us off in new directions. The model for schooling still very often involves gathering large numbers of children together into a single building, dividing them into groups by age, and placing an adult with some textbooks in front of them. Yet the evidence around us shows that young people, and increasingly adults too, learn from their peers. If they want to find something out they go on the web, searching for a user group or search engine, rather than asking a nearby figure of authority.

They do. As this excellent video demonstrates, children certainly can and do teach themselves, far more efficiently than a school or other authority can teach them.

People do know this. And yet, we continue with the old system. "The consensus was that governments are generally not very good at innovation or risk-taking," is perhaps a very polite and charitable explanation. Not to say ironic, don't you think?

Mike Baker in his article also champions the 'Not School' initiative, which I think is a more sensible system of education than the classroom-based one, but I'd still like to know more about the extent of the compulsion involved.

Here in our home education this week, our FIVE (nearly six!) year-old has been working with some numbers (including FIVE) on a whiteboard.


















We had to practice the number '3' again and she's just learned to hold the pen properly (which, I add depressingly, is probably another box to tick on some required outcomes sheet somewhere..)

And no, I didn't decide on her behalf that her ambition was to develop her skills in numeracy that day. She'd just got a number jigsaw down from a shelf in the living room, completed it, then opted for herself to start doing the whiteboard sums again. I didn't even suggest it: in fact, it's rare I suggest anything - partly because I don't need to and partly because they prefer to do their own thing.

Zara has recently decided she wants to learn how to read music and play the piano. Amongst our sheet music, she found the book I'd learned from when I was sent to piano lessons at a very early age, and started to dilligently work through it, despite its orientation towards very young children. It is an excellent book, though. She asked for my help to verify a few things to her, but apart from that she progressed on her own and after about twenty minutes' work can now read enough music to pick out a simple tune.















The piano and the book have both been available to her all her life, but its only now she's 16 that she actually wants to learn them so her progress is incredibly fast.

I wish I could attend one of the Horizontal project sessions and explain this to anyone who will listen: that children learn best when we let them be in charge of their own ambitions.