(in)flexible

You can't escape the flexible working advocacy that pulses through the education airwaves at the moment. Apparently presenteeism went out with the 90s and it would be 'nonsense!' to suggest that headteachers have to be on site all the time. 'Co-headships considered' is increasingly seen in job adverts and woe betide any school that doesn't allow their staff to take PPA at home. I've seen feelings run very high around this. 

'We ALL know that hours in the building are not what counts.'

I've become increasingly irritated by this rhapsody to flex. Not because I don't think that we should all be working less - it's high time we re-examined the straightjacket of the 9-5 day, which is more like 7.30am-6pm in education. What grates on me is the quiet asymmetry when it comes to our approach with children. It's everywhere and it is driving me mad. 

In fact, I've developed a little game. If someone tweets about flexible working, I ask whether they mean for all the humans in the school. I'm yet to get a response. Literally no one will engage. 

If my timeline were littered with as many opinions on a flexible approach for children then I’d get my equilibrium back. Sadly it is quite the opposite. The frameworks and tables and flow charts and template letters and policies and attendance officer job descriptions that clatter at me about how 100% attendance is the holy grail - it is deafening. Louder even than the advocacy for adult flex. Because that is what it is. Flex is only for adults apparently.

One person asked on Twitter recently whether they should let a child go home to eat lunch with a parent who had requested it. What a lovely thing. The question received concerned comments around whether there was a good reason for it, disquiet about how the child would lose valuable socialising time, and how it should only be agreed if they were punctual on return. 

Just imagine if we took the same approach with a member of staff. We would be thrown without ceremony into the wellbeing sin-bin, without hesitation or deviation.

Honestly. Children bump about with 25 to 30 children most of the school day. Imagine if we adults had to do that all the time. Children sit in a room, are told what to do, have limited opportunity to choose, to walk about (sit on your bottom!), are policed on talking and prompted to remain on task if attention wanders. If that was what I had to do, and then I wasn’t able to eat in relative solitude at lunchtime, I think I’d go round the twist. It’s funny that headteachers, who often have a room of their own, might not see that a bit of down time, a bit of stillness, is just the ticket.

I should add, going home for lunch isn’t even flexi-schooling. Any child can go home for lunch.

When did we become so suspicious of parents? The only thing that is required is that parents (not schools) have to ‘cause’ their child to receive a full-time education. It is they who make choices around how it’s done - which school, whether education is done at school or partly at school, or at home. 

We school people do not get to decide how to parent, nor should our default position be wariness around a parent’s intentions. Is it because we have been funnelled into thinking there is only one way of doing things? The Gove machine of universality has truly got its claws in deep. (Apart from how we manage our staff - that is different. We must be flexible here of course.)

 

I write this on the day that the book Square Pegs is released. I’m not going to wax lyrical about it. That is not my way. I am also not going to do the reading for you. You can order it, and then you can read it, and place it in the hands of colleagues, and put it in your library, use it in staff meetings and include it on reading lists. 

But my goodness, it is a salutary collection that, if it does nothing else, reminds us that we are not flexible with our children. There are a couple of sections that I particularly like. The ever-sharp Naomi Fisher writes off damaging reward systems with a flick of the pen. For an introduction into choices and motivation, I can’t think of a better place to start. There is a too short section on flexi-schooling. The chapter on play by Helen Dodd and Bo Stjerne Thomsen is sad and joyous at the same time. It ends on that theme of the importance of choice-making. 

I’m not sure about what was presumably an editorial decision to ask all the writers to use the expression square peg in each of their sections. If this is a phrase that you are not completely happy with, it will start to get on your nerves. However, as you know, I’m easily irritated. And this book is not really for me. 

If when you refer to flexible working you only think of adults - then this book is for you. If you immediately panic at the idea of homeschooling, or play, then this is the book for you. If you find it hard to comprehend that not every child will like circle time, please read this book.