2.3.7 Pillar Four - Academia/Education

Some time ago I was listening to a thoughtful debate on social justice on the radio and an academic who was an expert on the matter of inequality and/or injustice, said, after a long, critical discussion on the state of the country; “we need to start having a conversation about social justice”.

My first reaction was to think that we might need to have a conversation about the arts, business, transport, politics etc.

However, in respect of injustice and inequality, actions are what people who suffer from their effects need, not conversations.

The typical conversation that I usually hear involves a mixture of 1): relating events and/or describing situations in a well-meaning way but that are a good bit off the mark in respect of what very vulnerable and hurt people in the Focus Group experience; and 2): thinking that talking about something solves the problem.

I suppose my reaction was generated by my experience at having been at countless seminars with people from academia heavily represented with either no, or else very tokenistic representation from people whose lives are being discussed.

Because that’s what we have been doing for as long as I remember – having conversations! 

For me, the above example (and I could give many more) sums up the norms/values/patterns/beliefs of the Pillars in general but in particular the Pillar of Academia which I will describe in this Sub-Chapter.

This website concerns protection of children in families affected by imprisonment who are mostly ignored until they cause us trouble.  Because of my commitment to the systemic way of looking at the world – I believe that child protection should be placed within the context of how the State assists children to grow in general.

This is because the State’s methods of educating children (what I will call mainstream education) with, perhaps small amount of tweaking here and there, generally apply to children in the Focus Group too.

And academia is a powerful force in mainstream education as I will expand on below.

The purpose of education in all countries (that I know of anyway) is to prepare children for the world of work, so that they can go out and make a living, support themselves and/or their children and become taxpayers so that the country will prosper, have functioning hospitals, schools, libraries, police and different necessary public services, and then pay the pensions of those workers who are lucky enough to have their health beyond retirement age.

And there’s nothing wrong with that!

I am sure that over 10,000 years ago, when we were hunting and gathering, adults instructed their children on how to hunt prey, which was easy, which was hard, and how to gather fruits and berries, which were nutritious, which were poisonous etc.

It is right and proper, and perfectly sensible and rational, that a national education system funded by the taxpayer prepares children to enter the world of employment.

How this is done, and the impact of that ‘how’ on the Focus Group, is what this short critique on the world of academia is about.

Academia is a powerful Pillar that has been influential for thousands of years and for hundreds of years has supported the structures of society as we know it today.

The other three Pillars look to academia for expertise, ratification of education and learning in society, justification of their economic, scientific, social and even political decisions, and affirmation of their methods of doing their business.

Anyone who has attended a graduation in a University will experience the formality (robes, processions, regalia, language) honouring the tradition of academia and which also perpetuates academia’s sense of its own importance.

Academia is the repository of knowledge in society and has a very important role to play in research, innovation, promoting intellectual endeavour, and, of course, education.

In this, academics throughout history have taken (and still take) things that are everyday phenomena amongst ordinary people.  They then study them, research them, experiment with them, publish the results of the research and studies, and then produce publications about them.

Now – and this is important – very often the published results of the studies are inaccessible to ordinary people unless they have studied the subjects in some depth.

But the products generated from the results (such as this laptop, a camera , an anesthetic) often bring improvements to all our lives!  In the world of science, engineering etc. this is usually a very good thing to do and it has led to the modern world that we all live in today.

In the area of helping people in distress, while it is a very good thing that something is studied and lessons are learned from it – it is a very bad thing (in my opinion anyway) that what is then written about cannot be understood by ordinary people!

The reason for this is that it is very useful for ordinary people to know about matters to do with helping themselves, and commodifying, repackaging and writing in language that is full of jargon can render valuable information inaccessible.

And unlike science and engineering, (I believe anyway) often in the academising of ways that people help themselves, the originality and energy is lost.

Because the ideas are filtered through the lens of academia the result is that what is delivered at the end might not be that attractive to the Focus Group – who may be among the people who have supplied much of the information in the first place.

While the Department of Education is nominally in charge of all state-sponsored/controlled education in Ireland, academia in general and the Universities in particular – being at the top of the education pyramid – are very influential in setting out the norms and structures of education.

Now, in life in general, it is often the case that people with very important jobs have low pay. Sanitation and cleaning staff, for example, are vital for our health and wellbeing but yet have low pay – and status.

But as a general rule, in most factories, businesses, enterprises or even public services, the practitioners who have the most important jobs have the highest pay.

Not so, however, in education!

While it is true that people learn throughout the life course, all child development theories stress how necessary it is to attend to developmental and educational needs in early years, and the importance of early years’ education in determining the trajectory of the growing child. It is as important in the child’s growth to adulthood as the foundations are to a house or the roots are to a tree.

Now in my opinion, primary teachers have far more influence on a child’s educational prospects, and therefore a nation’s prosperity, than third level lecturers.

So, it’s amazing how those in education who have the most difficult, demanding and vital jobs – that is, teaching young children – are paid the least.

While academics have very demanding roles in doing research, writing papers, speaking at conferences etc. they have a relatively straightforward teaching role.  In fact, it is so unimportant that they are allowed take a year’s break from teaching on full pay (a sabbatical) every seven years or so to do research into a subject that is of interest to them. (This, as far as I am aware, is not offered to teachers in primary or secondary schools).

Also – the World University Rankings are based on volume and quality of research, number of citations, how knowledge is transferred to industry, and how international a university is. Teaching itself constitutes a mere 20% of criteria.

And in respect of the considerable challenges inherent in teaching, the students who attend third level colleges should be motivated, autonomous, and should not require the complex, multifaceted, delicate caring and nurturing skills so important in primary – and often in secondary teaching also.

The fact that there is such a big difference in pay is more down to the power structures of academia than the difference in the level of difficulty or the importance of the job to be done.

If it was your money, to whom would you pay a higher salary?

Well I know that if it was my money, and I wanted results for my investment, that is, confident, happy, independent, critical thinking and entrepreneurial young twenty-somethings, I’d equalise the pay for all educators, primary, secondary and third level – or, perhaps, pay primary teachers a little more.

And while I’m on about it – what about crèches? The old Irish proverb states tosú maith leath na h-oibre, (which means a good start is half the work). Surely those who work in crèches, and are tasked with giving children a good start – particularly in areas that suffer disadvantage – have, arguably, an even more important role than teachers, and certainly a far more important job than university lectures. Yet they have the lowest pay – and, I suppose, status and job security too – of all educators.

So that’s my first myth that surrounds education – power masquerading as importance.

Now I will critique a construct that was (to the best of my knowledge) set up by the Third Level Sector – not the Primary or Secondary Sectors, to ensure that the entry to Third Level was fair in Ireland. That is, the points system.

The points system has been described as brutal and unfair, but I remember its apologists calling it brutal but fair many years ago – as if that made it okay.

Whether it is fair or unfair, I am sure that if a parent treated their children like the national education system treats them they’d be accused of emotional abuse.

This is because the points system, as the ultimate manifestation of the twin tyrannies of competition and comparison in education in Ireland, prioritises the populating of university courses with high academic achievers over the healthy development, growth, and indeed the healthy, general education of all children.

I don’t think that it is too much of an exaggeration to say that, from the child’s point of view, the physical pain of the bata [1] has been replaced by the psychological pain of the points system.

If emotional abuse is a child protection concern – like physical abuse – is the points system not just as bad as the bata?

The points system is designed by people with high academic ability so that children of the same ilk will prosper with no thought given to the effects it has on children who are high achievers in other areas of skill, for example, children who are very caring and who’d make very good teachers, carers, doctors, nurses or vets, or children who have spatial or mechanical intuition, children who are sporting, children who are musical but not in a formal academic sense, children who may struggle with academic learning but who have a natural intuitive, business acumen or, (most damaging of all) children who, for one reason or another, do not learn as quickly as others from ages 4-5 up to ages 17-19.

No, when all things are considered, from a very young age, (because the harmful effects of the points system reach back into primary education) the brutal but fair points system:

1. Induces anxiety, fear and the very harmful emotion, shame, among many children and, often, their parents.

2. Risks encouraging competition and (possibly) induces anxiety among teachers.

3. Discourages playfulness and creativity in the teaching profession in general, thereby inhibiting innovation in problem solving.

4. Affirms the belief that anxiety and fear should accompany how one is assessed – and that that is the norm in the world.

5. Risks the inculcation of low self-esteem and low self-confidence among a substantial number of children.

6. Perpetuates winner takes all and smarter is better type beliefs.

7. Encourages selfish individualism, as distinct from healthy individuality.

8. Concretises the belief that competitiveness is more exciting than cooperation, and is good for us.

9. Tempts children to be dishonest in order to be successful instead of encouraging them to honestly self-assess, or self-appraise their innate gifts.

10. Invites cheating (fooling others but really fooling oneself) as a possible option to succeed when under pressure. (And, linked to 1, people cheat, almost always, to avoid shame).

11. Prevents children who may have suitable traits needed for particular careers from getting them.

12. Encourages children who are brilliant academically to compete for careers for which they are not really suitable, because they get the points.

13. (Linked to 12). Causes high early drop out in 3^rd Level Colleges.

14. Is probably a causative factor in perpetuation of unfairness and injustice in society in general – if we think about it!

15. And, above all, promotes the notion that to be successful, one needs to endure tension, anxiety, and fear in a continual striving towards high achievement – rather than trust in oneself, cooperation, collaboration, have a sense of community, and believe in one’s innate value and potential.

The characteristics listed above are harmful to all children, but are particularly harmful to children, many of whom fall through the cracks, as we have said already, and are in the families of the Focus Group,

Anti-bullying programmes are put in place to encourage children to be nice to each other in school – indeed, to promote cooperation, friendship, camaraderie and a sense of togetherness and community – and such programmes are very positive developments over the past few decades. However, such programmes would make a lot more sense to students if they were not continually undermined by the existence of the points system.

It’s a bit like huge multi-national drinks (or gambling) companies spending millions on ads to promote alcohol (or betting) and then having a little message in small print on their products advising us to drink sensibly or gamble sensibly.

And while I’m on matters of addiction and external mood alteration, the competitive nature of many of the above are particularly harmful to children who are born into families where there is addiction. 

Addicts love the buzz of competing, the winning, the next conquest, the instant hit, getting away with it, even losing has a buzz!  Some wise leaders in the world of sports are addressing this now – recognising that sports people, who are naturally competitive, have vulnerability in this respect.

This is where the points system can be just as damaging, in a different way, to some of the high achievers as it is to those children who do badly in academic exams.

Knowing what we nowadays know about child development it cannot be argued that the points system nurtures all children, of all abilities and talents so that they develop to their full potential – cherishes all the children of the nation equally – as our 1916 Proclamation of Independence optimistically promised.

Indeed it is the ultimate example of the regimentation of schooling that begins with wearing uniforms.  In this regimentation, there’s a kind of unspoken filtering system from kindergarten on to ensure that the path that compliant children choose is smoother than the path chosen by non-compliant (or even individualistic) children.

I believe that grading and separating children according to their ability to regurgitate a host of facts and figures accurately in a heavily biased cognitive environment, while they are still developing and maturing, benefits industry and, perhaps, the egos of academics and teachers far more than it does children.

Now I need to say here that many teachers, being mindful of the stress caused by constant competition and comparison do their best to ameliorate the harm done to children in their classes. But at the end of the day, the power of the system works against their individual actions. [2].

I suppose most of you would think that it would be a bit over-the-top to describe the points system as criminal – though intentional emotional abuse of children is indeed a crime.  (Like a lot of examples I give in the website, it is a measure of the extent of our conditioning that we don’t consider the points system to be emotional abuse).

But criminal or not, it is nothing short of tragic, and indeed self-defeating, because if children’s individual strengths and talents were honoured in an inclusive and trusting system it would result in children being a lot happier in themselves, pursuing what they are good at, having higher self-esteem, and ultimately growing into adults that are entrepreneurial and innovative, thereby contributing to the wealth of the country and reducing hugely the cost of time lost due to illness, stress, absence by unhappy workers in the workforce etc. 

This is not unrealistic Utopian thought; it is very doable and would cost little, financially.

Now I have no expectation that corporate or political interests, both of whom need a regimented, docile, fearful half-happy workforce that won’t be assertive enough to challenge the dominance of their world view and interests, will campaign on behalf of children.

Education interests however should!  Education interests should vigorously oppose any paradigm that has not the well-being of children, and in particular vulnerable children, at its heart.

Importantly, a holistic education system would protect children from their parents’ fears.  This would happen because it would encourage parents to affirm their children’s talents rather than urging them to drive on to higher achievements because of fear that they will not make it in adult life, fear that they won’t get a good job, fear that they won’t be able to buy a house etc.

To summarise, a change in focus in our education system would, I believe, be of enormous benefit to enterprise, creativity, the arts, industry itself and the country in general – but would probably be very bad for indoctrinating the fear that is necessary to perpetuate the inequality, injustice, poverty, and unfairness that is part of the global corporate world.

And I have another important point to make while I’m on a roll!

In the brain, love, trust, hope etc. reduce levels of aggression whereas fear, anxiety and frustration/anger have the opposite effect. This has implications not only for learning itself (i.e. whether it is through trust based pedagogy or fear based pedagogy) – but for the levels of aggression and anti-social behaviour in classrooms – making teachers’ lives easier.

But, doable or not, I do not underestimate the challenge of getting the Pillars on board in this venture.

To end this long post – thanks for sticking with it – (and I really thought hard about this) I could not think of any circumstance where the benefits to children of the points system trumped the benefits of an holistic educational model.  If any of you have I’d be glad to hear them.

[1]. This is a kind of short-hand, colloquial expression of the stick that was used to beat us in school.  We also called it the leather – (an leathair) a kind of flexible stick.

[2]. Once again, our language reveals reality. The slang word for an intensive tutoring session outside school hours is called a grind. The word grind (to me anyway) conjures up images of crushing, or pressure, or harshness, perhaps using force and sharp-edged metal to make something smooth, or even anxiety (grinding our teeth).

George Orwell wrote that in a democracy the press is owned by wealthy people who have an interest in promoting certain values; and our education system, over time, socialises us into promoting these values and reducing the importance or significance of others.

And I believe him!

Because of the esteem that university education is held in education in general, this may be more harmful than it looks on the surface.

Here are a few examples of the growing power of academia:

1. In social or community type programmes, even if everybody knows that something would help society the need almost always has to be researched by academics before anything is initiated and funded by central Government.  I will discuss this again in the Chapter on Research and Evaluation and specifically here. This is not always the case but it is common enough to be worthy of note.

2. I notice (in the past 20 years or so in Ireland) that Universities are swallowing up different, smaller educational institutions.  The reason for this, is, (I think) to allow the smaller institutions to award degrees.  I personally find it very hard to see any real merit in the swallowing up – centralisation of power seems to be the only reason!  (I doubt very much that it saves money).  In fact, I fear that it will cause diminution of creativity and suppression of healthy individuality and diversity with no corresponding advantage in standards of teaching. Admittedly, it may have some positive impact on research.

3. Over the past few years I see Universities advertising on radio, TV, and billboards to get students to come to their college.  I have no recollection of such advertising when I was young.  The purpose of this is, of course, to increase the number of students attending and thereby have more status and thus be more financially viable.  I’m not sure if this is good or bad, it’s just that I feel a bit uncomfortable about the level of marketing in education these days.

4. There is huge pressure nowadays on school leavers to go to 3^rd Level immediately after leaving school.  I believe that this is fine for those who are that way inclined, but I believe it is very harmful for those who are not, who take longer to mature, and who would benefit greatly from a few years in the workforce before they decide whether or not they want to go to 3^rd Level at all.

5. The International League Tables for Universities says it all! This is a clear example of of corporate values influencing education. And does such inane comparison really enhance education of children and young adults?   This plague has now spread to Secondary Schools (in Ireland anyway) and I believe that it is very harmful to education, children and society in general. (Interestingly, it is the so-called quality newspapers – which, I argued in the Chapter on Media, can be just as tawdry as what we call tabloids – that give prominence to such league tables).

6. I am probably in a minority here – but as a psychotherapist I feel a need to mention it.  I believe that psychotherapy in Ireland is gaining very little by our training and accreditation bodies insisting on third level education imprimatur – always accompanied by the norms beloved of academia – i.e. grading A – B – C – 1^st, 2^nd class hons etc.  I’m not saying that academia should not be involved – I actually believe that it has an enormous amount to contribute.  It’s just that I believe that the recognition of non-academic qualities should be afforded just as high status as the academic, and that the tyranny of comparison will ultimately harm the creative side of psychotherapy training.

7. And I cannot finish without mentioning STEM. This is an initiative by our Department of Education and Skills, supported financially by the corporate and private sector, and strongly encouraged by the academic community. Its purpose is to encourage secondary school students to study courses in science, technology, engineering and mathematics so that Ireland can be more attractive to high-tech companies in future decades. The study, in 2016, that sparked the initiative noted that the gender balance of those studying STEM subjects was heavily weighted towards boys so one of the aims of the initiative was to encourage involvement of girls.

Now I have no problem with STEM and I am very supportive of any initiative that will enable us to attract high-tech jobs to Ireland.

But is it not interesting that no-one in the Department feels any concern about the low numbers of boys/young men choosing courses in social work, nursing, social care – or even, nowadays, teaching. Emotionally intelligent young men are vital role models for children and teenagers – male and female. But despite the undoubted benefits of having men involved in caring for vulnerable people it is highly unlikely that there will an equivalent initiative to encourage young people (and particularly boys) to become involved in such work in future decades that (I believe anyway) is so necessary for our nation to thrive.

And is it not also interesting that there is talk of affording lesser status to history and geography, two subjects that contribute so much to a sense of identity (which I will describe later as a root foundation), in favour of more technological subjects.

In the next Chapter I will argue that the influence of the corporate world is very pervasive – and has high-impact – low-noticability. The existence of STEM is, undoubtedly, an example of penetration of the corporate world into the Department of Education and Skills.

——————————————–

And as a final word, the rise in the power of schools and colleges has resulted in all of us believing that their method of education, rubber-stamped and then accredited by the national bodies that are influenced by them, is superior to all others – whereas I don’t believe it is.

Let us now, after those critiques of the points system and 3^rd Level Institutions, have a look at the Mission Statement of the Department of Education.

(The sentences below summarise the main points in various statements that change from time to time).

An education and training system that provides learners with knowledge and skills they need to participate fully in society and the economy.

Delivery of a high quality education and training experience for everyone.

Improve accountability for educational outcomes across the system that welcomes and meaningfully includes learners with disabilities and special educational needs, learners from disadvantaged backgrounds and communities, and those with language, cultural, and social differences.

In my experience, even though the Department of Education talks about learners from disadvantaged backgrounds and communities, the system structures itself to exclude them.

For example, there has been no real attempt to include the educational methods of the Travelling Community (children’s active participation rather than explicit teaching/learning that is so dominant in the settled community) into the education of their children.

As for a bit of two-way knowledge flow and learning something from the traditional methods of the Travelling Community – that would be very rare!

Mainstream education focuses almost exclusively on preparation for a child to grow into an adult who will be useful to a corporate-dominated capitalist economy.  While, (as I say in a previous post), it is important to prepare children for the real world of work, the inclination towards the corporate world is far too powerful to be helpful to a child, particularly a child who is struggling.

Also, rather than accept that all human living is interconnected, (just like all of nature), the Pillars try and compartmentalise education into separate, certain entities.

Alternatively, the holistic approach would be that children would be trusted to be who they are, and reach their full potential in areas that they are passionate about, all the time encouraging self-assessment with critical support in an active, meaningful, creative learning environment.

As I previously stated the Pillars generally favour reductionist rather than holistic thinking, and they try to keep subjective experience at a distance.

Self-assessment, which I will mention later, (and which focuses on subjective experience) is a lot more meaningful in the context of overall education if we are interested in what we are doing, have a stake in being better at it and have a sense of belonging in the entity that is delivering the education.

Self-assessment also allows us to shed the values of the corporate world and the game-playing of the Pillars.

The influence of corporate values in the realm of education is so strong that despite the educational theories posited by Kolb, Dewey and many more researchers, not to mention the child development research done by Piaget, Bowlby and a host of others, the harsh, competitive points system still prevails.

Unfortunately, if educational methods are strongly influenced by capitalistic needs for a docile workforce, self-assessment, and its companion, honesty will never be popular.

Academics have an image of being intelligent, thoughtful, forward-looking, left-of-centre and free-thinking.  There are, of course many individuals working within academia who score high in all the above and they play a very important role in society in promoting such values. However, there is a comparison/competition ethos in academia too that cannot be denied.

The corporate world would like to assimilate all of us, but particularly those who us who are different, into the mainstream, funneling us into a kind of standardised norm and squeezing our individuality out of us, rather than truly embracing diversity and taking the risk that it will bring a richer, more creative, and exciting society rather than the anarchic one that is obviously feared.

There are strong (and growing) links between academia and the corporate world. Is the neoliberal ethos so prominent nowadays – with the widening gap between the haves and have-nots – seeping into higher education due to these links?

The corporate ethos causes academia (in my experience anyway) to generally inhibit the development of a fair, equal, democratic society.  Much of it is based on unhealthy competition and comparison that mirrors industry and business – not true education.

Of course this is not new. Some of the world’s most prestigious Universities foster and perpetuate class difference through their elite Colleges, and one, (Oxford) continues to offer a scholarship which is funded by the legacy of the estate of one of the world’s most unabashed and blatant racists – Cecil Rhodes – an unapologetic white supremacist who trampled over the human rights of black people in southern Africa to achieve his expansionist imperialist ends. And, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Universities in democratic countries that considered themselves to be in the front rank of modernity and civilisation were to the fore in promoting theories of eugenics.

One of my rudest awakenings (and, indeed, life’s education) was when the massive sixties student protest movements faded in the 1970’s and 80’s when they would have been coming to the age where they might have been of influence in society.  Where did they all go?  How were they not a counterbalance to the people who voted in politicians like Thatcher and Reagan?  And where were they in the various financial crashes down through the decades, when they were at the age when they would have been leaders?

I remember reading an article by a journalist (whose name, I regret to say, I have forgotten) bemoaning the placidity of the campuses in the 80’s and 90’s as the English speaking world swung to the right.  This might sound a little harsh and judgmental, but at that time I wondered if student protests were more teenage rebellion than desire for real change, and I suppose I began to regard rebellious students as capitalists in waiting. The cynical remark ‘if you’re not a socialist at 20, you’ve no heart, and if you’re still a socialist at 40, you’ve no brain’ comes to mind.

In harshly judging the apathy of the sixties grown-ups, I was, of course, discounting, and unaware of, the power of the corporate world which moved quickly after the sixties to snuff out radicalism, creativity and the vision of an alternative world. I learned about this later in life and I will explore it more fully in the Chapter on Power and Control in Society.

The folk singer Dick Gaughan has a lovely song on his album Lucky For Some (2006) which describes this fall-off in enthusiasm for looking for an alternative to the mainstream over the generations. The song is entitled Whatever Happened.

University education can certainly be mind-expanding and freedom-inducing, encouraging critical thought and rigorous argument of issues.  For example, I have read some brilliant books about social change, exclusion etc. written by academics advocating for more equality and many of them have informed my work and indeed this website.  And I feel privileged that I have been exposed to such thinking and ideas. 

However university education can also fill us with a sense of superiority (we know more) and inflated entitlement (because we worked so hard and made so many sacrifices we are more entitled than others).

In the Chapter that I just referred to, Power and Control in Society, I briefly discuss colonisation.  It is interesting that over the past 500 years the major colonial powers that inflicted terror – and in particular organised and systematic terror – on others to subdue them were countries that had some of the most prestigious universities in the world – i.e. European countries, thought to be places of culture, open-mindedness and liberal thought.

From that evidence I came to believe that the sense of superiority in the upper echelons of society, inculcated by University education, far outweighs the liberal, freedom-loving side, and academia is actually a conduit through which the values of the establishment of the day are passed on to students – and passed on in a very subtle and pervasive manner (high impact – low noticeability).

Students (some of whom may start out with radical views) ultimately go on to be part of the system that perpetuates inequality and unfairness and are not even aware of the change themselves.

So subtle and unnoticed is the change that sometimes people who are highly intelligent and educated are so immersed in their own way of thinking that they cannot see the wider implications.

For example, reflective, thoughtful, third-level-educated Catholic clergy who are committed to the life and work of Jesus are okay with public funds being spent on private boarding secondary schools for very wealthy boys and girls (that undoubtedly serve to perpetuate an unjust status quo in society) while other schools educating less advantaged students have rain seeping through damp pre-fab walls.

It’s amazing how I spent 17 years in formal education and I wasn’t particularly interested in a lot of what I was doing a lot of the time.  But still I stuck it out.

Why?

Long term formal education exposes us to topics that don’t necessarily excite us immediately in the knowledge that learning about them will be somehow beneficial or worthwhile in the long term.  This is because educators feel that it is important to give students a broad education.

For example, there are courses in law on social care and social work courses, and business on engineering and computer courses.  These extra courses or modules are mostly boring to the students because they are not their principal areas of interest.

So, in a way, students who stick it out find some meaning in boredom, in patience, and doing things for the sake of long term gain rather than doing them because they will bring an immediate reward.

What effect has this on the Focus Group?

Whereas children with special intellectual needs get a lot of time to learn; children who have special needs in the emotional sphere often do not get the time they need.  Such children, who may tend to seek instant gratification, don’t do boredom or patience that well!  From their point of view everything moves too fast.  Because of this they are, as we often say, left behind.

Imagine if I gave a talk and I used language and concepts that no one in the room understood.  At best listeners would all be bored – but if they were told that their entire future hung on understanding what was in my talk then most would probably be getting angry as I droned on.

Now it is a well-established fact that anxiety and stress are blocks to normal development in the cognitive sphere.  Children who are often on high alert, anxious, or fearful in school, (who I mentioned in the Sub-Chapter on the Focus Group when I compared emotional pain and physical pain), have the same experience as the bored listeners.

With other children obviously paying attention (and finding at least enough meaning in the learning to continue paying attention) the child who is losing out will obviously be feeling angry – but may not be aware of the reason for the anger!

Home may be a place that is not safe (and may be a causative factor in his anxiety and fear in the first place) and school becomes an unsafe place also – unsafe here meaning emotionally unsafe.

Now, imagine coupling that feeling of being left behind, never feeling good enough, with hoping against hope that things will be calm and normal when he gets in home, then that’s a fair old recipe for anger, disaffection, despair, eventual school drop-out [1], and drifting toward places and people where he will feel accepted and wanted. 

‘Keeping a young man from a troubled family in school’ is only the bit of the iceberg that we can see.  The large part underneath that we don’t notice that much contains all the other factors, societal, emotional, prejudicial, and, of course, educational.

[1]. It is surely proof of how we hold formal education in such high esteem that those who do not choose to remain in it are labelled as dropouts.

In the world of the Focus Group, academia’s current role is teaching about helping in general, researching the roots of disadvantage, and researching/evaluating programmes that might make a difference to very distressed and marginalised people. Generally (in my experience anyway) that is done really well in most educational institutions that I know.

But while teaching is necessary (and of great value) it can also be distant and removed from the problem.

When we learn about something without truly journeying with it we will be insulated from change to self that might come through the experience of the journey. 

It’s a bit like an addict reading about addiction.  Having head knowledge about it is, of course, helpful, but it’s only by doing something about it that he will garner the full benefits of the knowledge gained.

There is a Chapter on Research and Evaluation in Section Five where I do a critique of research in the social spheres, so I will not deal with it at length here.  However, what I do want to say is that it is often used as a springboard for academics to promote programmes developed in their University that are supposed to assist very distressed people and families.

Now I believe that it is very good that programmes are being developed and sold.  Many of them are very helpful to families who are grounded enough to participate fully and derive benefit from them. 

However, in my experience, they often fail to reach the Focus Group, whose needs might have sparked the research in the first place.

I have been privileged to have been taught by excellent teachers and lectured by lecturers that inspired.  And that is academics’ forte!

I believe that, however, designing courses to assist very vulnerable people is something that academics need a lot of assistance with from community people and particularly from people in the Focus Group.  Just, I suppose, like I’d need a lot of assistance from people who worked on farms if I wanted to be a farmer, or from people who worked in garages if I decided to be a mechanic.  (If either would have me).

There is a plethora of publications and programmes designed in academia by people who have a deep knowledge of the theories but don’t have to pick up the pieces when what they design and/or publish is not engaged with by the people that they are supposed to reach.

Community workers (often assisted by the wise and strong people in the Focus Group do that) – but usually they haven’t been involved in the design in a real, felt sense.