School Return and Balancing Acts

 

Today a phased return to school begins for some children.   While most weary parents, passionate teachers and isolated pupils agree that a full return is needed for all pupils, there are concerns about timing and the practicalities that schools and parents will now face.

Much of the media discussion has surrounded whether or not children are ‘super-spreaders’. A PHA presentation to education officials suggested that Schools are not a ‘major source’ of transmission. It is vital, however, that this discussion is counterbalanced by consideration of the negative impact of long-term school closures and the subsequent isolation of our children and young people. The negative impact of lockdown on their mental health and wellbeing is becoming clear in research from previous school closures, in practice, in our own experiences and in our conversations with family and friends. This impact is exacerbated by the closure of their other face-to-face social networks outside of school- such as sports clubs, youth clubs and societies.

As a trustee of Links Counselling Service I (John) am acutely of the mental health impact of lockdown throughout society. With many community resources unavailable, we are overwhelmed with self-referrals, GP referrals and signposting from other services. Our waiting list, including children aged 4-18, has more than doubled from a year ago despite a larger workforce that ever before. COVID-19 has not only exacerbated pre-existing mental ill health among individuals, families and communities, it has greatly challenged the systems in place to care for them.

Another balancing act

Balance is also needed is within the public (and media) discourse about children’s mental health. While there is clearly cause for concern, we need to avoid fatalism when it comes to our children. This is not the ‘COVID generation’ forever damaged by a ‘tsumani’ of mental health problems, as some of the more dramatic headlines would have you believe. Recent research from the University of Oxford, reported an increase in emotional, attentional and behavioural issues during the first lockdown period. Reassuringly, these issues decreased when lockdown was lifted, but with increased restrictions these issues have re-emerged. This places an emphasis on decision makers to ensure that lockdown restrictions that impact on children and young people are kept as short-term as possible.

However, a deterministic and fatalistic discourse can be counter-productive, cultivating a self-fulfilling prophecy that paralyses systems and prevents them from fully committing to the support that is needed to recover. Our children are so much more than the pandemic they have lived through. They have demonstrated creativity, kindness and resilience. It’s important to remain hopeful and to help our young people to find hope when they are worried about the future. It is the balancing act of our time to hold both of these realities together; that many people are struggling, and that things can get better.

Resilience Resides in Relationships

We often hear it said that ‘children are resilient’, but the truth is a little more nuanced. Psychologists define resilience as the process of adapting well in the face of adversity or significant sources of stress. Resilience means ‘bouncing back’ from difficult experiences, but it also means being empowered to grow and even improve your life along the way. Research has moved away from seeing resilience as a trait that people do or don’t have. There are various individual psychosocial factors that impact resilience levels, but there is also emerging evidence of a bidirectional relationship between healthy communities and more resilient individuals. This is important. It means resilience can be promoted and developed, and schools can play a role in this.

The majority of kids won’t need counselling post-lockdown. They will benefit from getting back to the structured, stable and secure environment of school. The predictable routine, clear expectations and consistent rules help children to feel safe. Then, most importantly, they will need space to play and to reconnect with others. Research also emphasises the important link between children engaging in sport and physical activity and their wellbeing. We need to see a return to these activities too.

Psychiatrist Bruce Perry states that, because humans are inescapably social beings, the worst catastrophes that we can experience are those that involve relational loss. Therefore, recovery must involve re-establishing human connections.Perry states that the most important healing experiences often occur outside therapy and inside homes, schools and communities. Before ‘catching up’ on missed learning we need to let the kids catch up with each other, and with staff. Resilience resides in relationships.

Through relationships we can reassure children that they are experiencing normal reactions to abnormal events. We can help them, as the Dr Marie Hill has outlined, to emotionally regulate before we educate. Prof Barry Carpenter and colleagues have developed practical resources for a Recovery Curriculum that encourages a systematic, relationships-based approach to teaching and learning post-lockdown. This is an example of the creative and systemic approach required to support our children and young people.

That said, every child and young person will come through this differently and there will be a range of responses needed. While all might need something extra, some will need more ‘extra’ than others. Lockdown has exacerbated disadvantage and pre-existing vulnerability. Some young people will need additional systemic and therapeutic support to prevent more severe mental ill health down the line. It’s vital that long-term planning includes improving availability and accessibility of this support.

Ultimately, we need to trust our teachers and school leaders to know how to best support our children post-lockdown. We need to embrace their professional capacity, support the system where we can, and lobby to ensure that they are properly resourced. It is essential that we prioritise children and young people as we emerge from this pandemic. They have been asked to make huge sacrifices and it is now time that we uphold their rights for equitable access to education, play and social development.

Dr John McMullen is an Educational and Child Psychologist, and a Senior Lecturer at Stranmillis University College and Queen’s University Belfast.

Dr Victoria Simms is the Director of Research in the School of Psychology, Ulster University, and is an expert in child development.

Back to School: Learning Together after Lockdown

The sentiment of the popular inspirational acronym ‘Together Everyone Achieves More’ seems so simple that it could easily be dismissed as a platitude. Yet our current circumstances have brought the value of human togetherness into sharp focus. Our language reflects this too:  the English word ‘teams’ has taken on a new dimension, now often referring to images of solitary figures in rooms contained in little boxes on a screen. Until the onset of Covid-19, sharing actual physical spaces with people outside our own homes was an accepted part of daily life. Our places of learning – nurseries, schools, colleges and universities – were particularly social in this respect. Almost without thinking about it, we shared classrooms and lecture theatres, assembly halls and staffrooms. The arrival of the pandemic disrupted this, and possibilities to spend time in common social spaces with family, friends, colleagues and students remain very limited. It has been said that it is not until we lose something that we realise how good it was. So what exactly have we been missing?

Body matters

Rowan Williams in his book Being Human: Bodies, minds, persons, argues that ‘Persons are more than ‘individuals’; they are both spiritual and material, and their uniqueness is fulfilled in community not in isolation and total independence’ (p. viii). Our bodies matter, as well as our minds: we are sensory. In a recent interview for the Irish Times, Irish philosopher Richard Kearney described the Covid-19 pandemic as an ‘attack on the senses’. This is of course true in a very real way for those who have experienced the loss of taste and smell as a symptom of the Covid-19 virus. But it is also true that the pandemic has accelerated the shift from being together physically with other people to communicating virtually. This change had already been ushered in by the digital revolution. There are multiple examples of technology enhancing many aspects of our lives in recent years, not least in education. Schools in Northern Ireland have harnessed the benefits of digital innovation in a particularly admirable way. Interestingly though, Kearney argues that over the past year the speed of the shift has prioritised, and perhaps overloaded, our sense of sight, while at the same time inhibiting our sense of touch. This imbalance is a matter of concern. As Kearney puts it ‘It is no accident that skin is our largest organ … We need computers but we also need carnality.’

Hands on learning

In Kearney’s view, tangibility, or being close enough physically to touch another person or thing renders us vulnerable as human beings, but it also makes us more receptive to other people and our wider environment. This is particularly important in the learning of young children in play as Glenda Walsh and John McMullen have highlighted. We know all too well that touch can cause injury and harm, but over centuries, touch has also been a source of healing. It is by reaching out and engaging with other people and our surroundings at close quarters that we learn, that we learn to communicate, and that we develop empathy. By being close to people we can begin to read them, rather like a book. This is an important aspect of our being, and it is needed for us to flourish.

Mind matters too

Human beings, according to Rowan Williams, are both spiritual and material. Similarly, health is not simply either mental or physical, but embraces the whole person. There are real and valid concerns around physical contamination by a potentially dangerous virus, and these require a concerted response. But they need to be balanced by concerns for health more broadly, and particularly by an awareness of mental health. In a recent blog Noel Purdy highlighted the need to promote emotional health and wellbeing among young people especially. As lockdowns continue across the globe, concern for mental health generally is growing. For example, according to a recent study reported in the Lancet, ‘the increase in probable mental health problems reported in adults also affected 5–16 year olds in England, with the incidence rising from 10·8% in 2017 to 16·0% in July 2020 across age, gender, and ethnic groups’.

The focus of governments has turned in recent weeks to children and young people going back to school. There has been talk of lost months and years of education, identifying learning gaps, catch-up plans and reducing school holidays. In the middle of all this we shouldn’t lose sight of what it is to be human. For according to Rowan Williams, ‘Unless we have a coherent model of what sort of humanity we want to nurture in our society, we shall continue to be at sea over how we teach’ (p. x).

 

On being human … together

Absence might make the heart grow fonder, but spending time with each other in a shared physical space is a vital part of healthy human development and relationships. Not being together has made lockdown periods very difficult for many people,  and young people in particular have found that being apart makes friendships very difficult. Research has also shown that face to face social interaction results in better learning. For example, in language acquisition, Patricia Kuhl’s 2003 early childhood study found that ‘infants show phonetic learning from live, but not pre-recorded, exposure to a foreign language’. Teachers need to spend time face to face with their students. To create learning opportunities that are really valuable we need to get to know peoples’ needs and preferences. And we need to spend time together, talking and listening.

From Zoom to room

There is something of a sense of déjà vu (see last year’s blog) as yet again, we face the prospect of going back to school. The challenges involved in moving from Zoom to room are real. But so are the potential rewards: physical, mental and spiritual. People of all ages are trying to make sense of our world’s complexities and of strangeness of the days and nights that we have known. For this reason, many believe that as far as education is concerned, a playful, nurturing approach will be vital for children and young people, with language and communication, one of its 6 core principles, at its heart. In Northern Ireland it is encouraging to see signs of a commitment by government to this, with funding allocated to a new Nurture Programme.

Experiences of pandemic lockdown have gifted us with a greater awareness of the benefits of technology to keep us connected digitally. But we have also come to understand, perhaps more fully than at any point in history, that isolation from each other physically is unhealthy. Perhaps what we need most is getting back to exactly what we have been missing: being together.

Dr Sharon Jones is a Stranmillis University College Lecturer and member of the Centre for Research in Educational Underachievement

 

Why holding a postponed, single transfer test is likely to widen educational inequalities between wealthy and poor within the current P7 cohort

This short piece presents an argument that the recent decision by AQE to cancel the three transfer tests in January and schedule a single test on 27 February is likely to widen educational inequalities between wealthy and poor within the current P7 cohort. It is not intended to re-examine the rights and wrongs of the system of academic selection at 10/11 currently in place across most of Northern Ireland’s schools.

Research over more than twenty years on the problem of educational inequality in Northern Ireland has established that the single strongest predictor of a pupil’s academic achievement is whether they gain entrance to a grammar school for post-primary education. Put simply, statistically pupils at selective schools achieve higher grades at GCSE and A-level than pupils at non-selective schools in Northern Ireland, regardless of other factors such as wealth, gender, or religion. The question of how to make Northern Ireland’s education system as equitable, accessible and inclusive as possible, and thereby tackle the persistent problem of educational underachievement, is therefore closely related to the impacts of the selective system. Due to the closure of schools owing to the Covid-19 pandemic, and the cancellation of GCSE and A-level exams, the wisdom of conducting the transfer tests for the 2021 post-primary intake has been widely questioned. Preliminary studies from across the UK indicate that a ‘lockdown learning gap’ has appeared between the wealthy and the poor, as children are experiencing widely different educational outcomes due to access to technology, parental availability and competence, access to quiet space, and school resources. Furthermore, it is likely that a focus on test preparation in the already pressured context of remote learning, transitioning back to on-site schooling, and constant disruption due to COVID-19 transmission within schools has further impacted P7 pupils.

Transfer tests postponed, cancelled, and re-scheduled

The tests were originally postponed until January 2021 following a judicial review in September in order to allow P7 children a period of preparation time in schools, a decision that the Education Minister argued would benefit children from disadvantaged backgrounds. However, due to the rampant spread of the coronavirus since mid-December, schools have now been closed until at least the February half-term break. The transfer tests due to take place in January have been cancelled, and whilst the PPTC have no plans to implement any new transfer test, at the time of writing the AQE have replaced their cancelled tests with a ‘single paper’ planned for 27th February.

Whilst this move has been clearly rationalised by a defence of the principle of academic selection, it is now more likely than ever to widen educational inequalities between wealthy and poor for the current P7 cohort, with long-lasting effects. We know that distance learning has been least effective in low-income homes and the homes of key workers. We know that wealthy families are able to best prepare their children for the transfer tests either because of their own high levels of education or by paying for private tutoring. We know that any single test could give an inaccurate reflection of a child’s ability, either due to how they perform on the day, or how their paper is marked. For this reason, candidates are usually able to sit three tests and attain the average of the best two scores. Finally, we know that the mental health of children, and their families more widely, has been seriously negatively affected by the pandemic, and all the more so in already disadvantaged households.Because of all of this, both postponing and resorting to a single test is now likely to widen educational inequalities for the current P7 cohort, with the children of parents most able to insulate them from the negative effects of the pandemic handed a significant advantage.

Is there a workable alternative?

The existing fall-back option, to offer selective school places based on “other more random criteria, such [as] family ties, geographical proximity to a school or some form of lottery for places” to quote AQE’s latest statement, based on the criteria set out by DE is admittedly far from a perfect solution. Other ideas, building on the proposal from Robbie Butler MLA to use existing attainment data held by primary schools and practice test results to assess pupils, need to be developed into a workable form with great urgency if they are to be worthwhile. Of course, any alternative criteria may also result in widened educational inequalities based on wealth. However, if alternative criteria truly are ‘more random’ than the administration of a single test which, as we have argued above, places already deprived pupils at an even more significant disadvantage as a result of this pandemic year, there is a strong chance they will not widen educational inequalities based on wealth to the same degree. What cancelling the transfer test outright could do is save P7 children, their teachers and their families the continued stress of preparing for the test, give them the chance to enjoy a broader curriculum in their final months of primary school, and nullify the risk to public health that conducting the transfer test represents. However, to go ahead with a single test postponed to the (hopeful) end of an extended period of lockdown home-schooling, is certain to widen educational inequalities based on wealth for this P7 cohort in comparison with other years.

Dr Jonathan Harris, CREU Research Fellow

Dr Noel Purdy, CREU Director

Dr Glenda Walsh, CREU Assistant Director

Left to their own devices…again! The enduring inequality of lockdown home-schooling

Less than a month into the first national lockdown, I wrote a CREU blog highlighting the dangers of the digital divide. The blog concluded that “unless action is taken in the days to come, the current lockdown and the differentiated experiences of home-schooling have the potential to further disempower and disenfranchise, thus exacerbating the social injustice of an already deeply divided education system.” A subsequent research report based on a large parental survey carried out by our CREU team at Stranmillis confirmed my fears that pupils’ experiences of lockdown home-schooling in Northern Ireland were mediated by their parents’ backgrounds, especially their level of education. We found that better educated parents were more likely to be able to work from home, spent longer on home-schooling, were more directly involved in teaching their children and felt more confident throughout the process, despite the challenges. In contrast parents without university degrees were more likely to be essential/key workers, and often felt under enormous pressure to juggle their work and family commitments, to access online resources, and to motivate their children to engage with learning.

As I write this in January 2021 at the start of the second lengthy period of national lockdown and a return to enforced home-schooling for the vast majority of children, much has changed. Unlike the sun-kissed spring days of last April and May the weather is now cold, dark and (let’s be honest) dreary. The novelty of home-schooling has well and truly worn off to be replaced by lockdown fatigue and a sense of ‘here we go again’, while stretched family budgets must deal with the additional challenge of heating their homes during frosty weather when their children are off school.

However, I think some lessons have definitely been learned.

Teachers are better prepared for online teaching

We must all commend the dedication and commitment of our teachers who have worked incredibly hard to develop a range of digital learning skills since last March, often through the generous sharing of expertise and resources within their own communities of practice (such as @BlendEd_NI). As a home-schooling parent as well as a teacher educator, I can already see how during this second lockdown the confidence and competence of teachers is much greater than before as they embrace a wider range of interactive pedagogies including, this time, more of the recorded/live video sessions which were largely missing from the first lockdown. This time around it is clear that, for teachers, technology is much less of a barrier to be surmounted or even circumvented, and much more of a pedagogical springboard to engagement – that is definitely progress, and is something to celebrate.

Some households are no better prepared for online learning

We must also commend the work of the voluntary and community sector as well as the Education Authority over the past few months in providing digital hardware to those most in need. However, I fear that significant challenges remain in terms of access to laptops, tablets, and printers for home learning in too many households. Broadband access also remains patchy in many rural areas and will take years to improve. How can children be expected to learn remotely when they still don’t have a suitable device to access their resources, when they don’t have a printer to print their work, or when there is no broadband availability in their rural community? There is a world of difference between, on the one hand, waiting for your exhausted key worker parent to return from work in the evening to access your schoolwork on their mobile phone, and, on the other hand, sitting at your own desk with your own laptop and printer and degree-educated parent all available to support the learning process.

And in our preoccupation with tests, examinations and curricular content, let us not forget our commitments expressed following the first lockdown to promote the emotional health and wellbeing of our children, including our youngest learners. As fully expressed in another CREU blog by colleagues Glenda Walsh and Stephanie Gillespie, the September ‘restart’ was to focus on understanding, reassurance, connection and opportunities to play, relax and have fun, not least as a protection against social isolation and an uncertain future. Those principles remain centrally important in the return to remote learning.

SEN pupils spared lockdown home-schooling

Finally, we should be encouraged that in this second extended period of lockdown (unlike in March 2020), it has been decided that special schools should remain open to all pupils. This is not to underestimate the challenges facing special school principals in maintaining their high staffing ratios at a time when so many teachers and classroom assistants are off work, but it does represent a welcome acknowledgement that every effort must be made to provide access to education and on-site health therapies for some of our most vulnerable children and young people.

However, although we have learned much and our spirits have been buoyed by the roll-out of vaccines, my fear remains that this second lockdown is likely to reproduce and exacerbate many of the inequalities of the first. It could lead to a perpetuation of the ‘Matthew effect’ of accumulated advantage we saw then, as the rich get even further ahead and the poor get left even further behind. As we enter this second extended period of home-schooling, we need to work together to learn the lessons of the first lockdown, to honour the commitments we made then, and to ensure that all our children, whether rich or poor, urban or rural, are given equal opportunities not just to learn but to thrive.

Dr Noel Purdy is Director of the Centre for Research in Educational Underachievement