Changing London. David Robinson
Читать онлайн книгу.
museums already do this once a year, through an annual countrywide Takeover Day organised by charity Kids in Museums, which puts young people in charge of major cultural venues for twenty-four hours.38 Employers in the public and private sectors could participate too, giving children the chance to try being a fire fighter, a city trader, a nurse, a plumber, a lawyer, a builder – or even at being a mayor. Opening doors and opening minds. Some opportunities would necessarily have to be restricted to only a few children but all should be advertised openly and for some activities there would be no limit on numbers.
A small central resource would provide a coherent brand and collate the opportunities in a programme and on a website, but individual organisations would be responsible for managing their own involvement.
A Have-a-Go Festival would not just open up new opportunities for millions of children but would send a message: London – its art and culture and sport, its community organisations, its best employers and its government – is here for the benefit of all its citizens, not just the tourists, the privileged few or those in the know.
A Cultural Guarantee for London’s Children
London Sundays and a Have-a-Go Festival would see children accessing the art and culture for which London is famous, but we could strengthen our duty further. Sally Goldsworthy argued in her contribution that the mayor should institute a cultural guarantee to all London’s children, of things they will have had the opportunity to achieve by the time they leave school: ‘For example, see a play, visit an art gallery, write with an author and be mentored by a professional artist. This wouldn’t be a restrictive Ofsted tick box of fifty things to preserve but a dynamic list created by children, parents, teachers and artists that captures London’s quality and innovation.’
Holly Donagh wrote: ‘London schools currently have access to £450 million a year in funding through the Pupil Premium, and whilst this must support a range of needs for lower income pupils it could also fund cultural activity when it is clear that it helps in the development of those young people. All schools in the city allocating 10 per cent of Pupil Premium for cultural provision would help break the link between family income and cultural engagement and be one way of funding the delivery of a citywide guarantee.’
Alternatively, the scheme could be funded by the kind of Visitor Tax that is applied in Paris and New York. A one or two per cent levy on hotel bills would hardly be noticed by the tourist but it would be hugely beneficial to the children of London if spent in this way.
A scheme of the sort Sally and Holly describe – embedded across London’s schools – would perfectly embody the agenda we describe. The mayor should lead its development and be the public face of its implementation. London Sundays would be a part of it but the educational infrastructure would help ensure no child missed out.
Expand the London Curriculum
Credit where credit’s due: the current mayor’s education enquiry proposed creating a London Curriculum that weaves the history, culture and stories of London into English, art, music, geography and history lessons. It was launched last year, to great success. Holly Donagh suggests it should be expanded across the Key Stages, particularly to Key Stage 2.
She wrote about Kuopio in Finland, where each year of school is based around a different ‘cultural path’ – drama one year, film the next, dance the year after, and so on.39 Dallas’s Big Thought Arts Partners coordinates cultural education across the city, providing a portal where schools can view and book cultural experiences for their young people.40 Mocca in Amsterdam run a city wide programme of training, online offers and discounts for schools on cultural experiences as well as advice and guidance for teachers.40 And, closer to home, the World Heritage Organisations in Greenwich (The National Maritime Museum, the Royal Observatory and the Old Royal Naval College) have created a curriculum for Greenwich schools based on their local area.41
(3) For Every Child: The Extra Help, Whatever It Takes
Sylvie Bray mentored a seven-year-old boy who had never been out of Peckham. When they took a Thames Clipper down the river he thought they were leaving the country. Sylvie could empathise more than most – parental domestic violence and alcohol abuse meant she was in care as a child. This is why we should listen particularly hard when, writing on Changing London, she said: ‘Every child deserves the same chance to live, and to thrive. It’s not acceptable that we just keep a whole group of children treading water … it would be terrible to give up on these kids.’
For some children, growing up in London is a dangerous, bewildering and painful experience. Some have parents who are unable or unwilling to look after them. Others might experience terrible difficulties at school, with mental health problems or with bullying. Research among children at the charity Kids Company found that one in five had been shot at and/or stabbed, and half had witnessed shootings or stabbings in the last year.42 For many more the deprivation might not be as extreme but it is almost as debilitating for their future success: leaving school unable to read or write well enough to get a job, caring for parents or siblings instead of learning or playing. If our ‘every child’ ambition is to mean anything, it must extend most actively to the most vulnerable children: every child, from whatever beginning, with whatever it takes.
A London Children’s Challenge
By the early 2000s it was widely acknowledged that children were being badly let down by the poor quality of London’s schools. In response, in 2003 the government introduced a new minister to take responsibility, some new money and a crack team of officials in the Department of Education to lead a programme called the London Challenge. Ten years later, with London’s schools amongst the best performing in the country, the London Challenge is still hailed as a model of successful intervention.43
It focused on improving leadership and teacher quality but in doing so recognised that schools thrive when the staff and leaders feel trusted, supported and encouraged. It built partnerships between schools, often pairing better- and worse-performing schools, which actually improved the performance of both. It built on the belief shared by teachers and local authorities that no child in London should be let down by their school.
In short, a fantastic programme that transformed education for a generation of Londoners. Its only limitation? Children spend most of their time out of school. A great education can help overcome the effects of poverty or neglect at home but is no replacement for preventing them in the first place, and for some children it will never be enough.
Nowhere has recognised this more famously than New York’s Harlem Children’s Zone. Fed up with the duplication, gaps and inconsistencies in the myriad of public and philanthropic services trying to cater for children in the 100-block area of Harlem, its founder set out to weave them together into a coherent ‘pipeline’ from cradle to career. Schools were vital but so were charities, local care services, and parents and families themselves. Several organisations have attempted to bring the approach to the UK, including Only Connect, via their West London Children’s Zone, and Save the Children. The model cannot be imported wholesale – services and jurisdictions are different – but the principle of joining up services in a ‘doubly holistic’ way, across all ages from 0 to 18 and across all domains, can be replicated here. Save the Children have laid out in detail how to transfer the model to a UK context, emphasising the involvement of local leaders, particularly local authorities and schools, and a robust governance structure.44
Perhaps we could learn from the best of the London Challenge and the Harlem approach. A London Children’s Challenge would extend the challenge model beyond schools to the coordination of wider services for children, particularly those in the most disadvantaged areas. It would combine expert advice with peer support and some resources to bring together different services, similar to that which Save the Children has provided for some areas under their Children’s Communities programme. Led from City Hall and adopting the same positive, supportive tone (in contrast to much of the rhetoric around child protection, which operates in a climate of media intimidation and political fear) it would champion not just schooling but the wider protection and support of London’s children.
Other cities have shown how heavy investment in the lives of struggling children can pay off. Boston’s Thrive in Five initiative aims to ensure every