Head's Blog

EXAM REFORM: THERE’LL BE ANOTHER ONE ALONG IN A MINUTE

One of the risks of blogging about current

issues and events is that if you express an
opinion about something then you may be
undone if what you state, advise or
recommend turns out to be wrong. On June
20th 2012 news was ‘leaked’ to the Daily Mail
that Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for
Education, was considering reforming GCSEs
and bringing back an O Level type of exam
for 16 year olds. He was forced to answer
an urgent question in the House of Commons
the following day. In that exchange he
identified four reasons why there was a
need to reform GCSEs although he did
not admit at that time he was considering
the re-introduction of a two-tier exam system
like the old CSE/ O Level divide.
(Hansard, Secondary Education, June 21^st 2012)

In an analysis of these reasons I concluded in

a blog posting on June 28th that,

‘If Mr Gove’s aims are to see every student in this
country able to take world-class qualifications,
then re-introducing O-levels may not be the best
strategy. Certainly the evidence produced so far
is not convincing’.
(OH LEVELS)

On June 26th he gave a speech at a Conference
in London organised by the Spectator. In this
speech he identified another five reasons why
there was a need to reform GCSEs
(Gove at the Spectator). In the June 28th blog
I also analysed these reasons put forward
by Michael Gove and concluded that,

‘The further five reasons advanced by Mr Gove
provide better evidence for a review of GCSE
standards but not for a wholesale change to
the nature of the qualification’.
(OH LEVELS)

In the analysis discussing the issue of students
being encouraged to opt for ’soft’ subjects in
order to boost a school’s league table positions I
recommended the following,

‘If the points tariff for what are considered more
difficult subjects such as Physics, Chemistry and
Modern Foreign Languages was increased relative
to other subjects then schools would be incentivised
to enter more students for these subjects. This
would be re-enforced if the threshold performance
indicator of 5+ A*-C grades including English and
Mathematics was abandoned in favour of average
points per student and average points per entry as
at A level’.
(OH LEVELS)

In a Statement to the House of Commons on February 7th 2013 Michael Gove said,

‘Last September, we outlined plans for changes to GCSE qualifications that were designed to address the grade inflation, dumbing down and loss of rigour in those examinations. We have consulted on those proposals and there is a consensus that the system needs to change. However, one of the proposals that I put forward was a bridge too far. My idea that we end the competition between exam boards to offer GCSEs in core academic qualifications and have just one wholly new exam in each subject was one reform too many at this time. I have therefore decided not to make the best the enemy of the good, and I will not proceed with plans to have a single exam board offering a new exam in each academic subject. Instead, we will concentrate on reforming existing GCSEs, broadly along the lines put forward in September’.
(Curriculum and Exam Reform)

He went on to say,

‘However, reforming qualifications alone is not enough to ensure higher standards for every child, and we must also reform how schools are graded to encourage higher expectations for every student. Existing league tables have focused almost exclusively on how many children achieve a C pass in five GCSEs, including English and maths, but that deceptively simple measure contains three perverse incentives. It encourages schools to choose exams based on how easy they are to pass, rather than how valuable they are to the student; it causes a narrow concentration on just five subjects, instead of a broad curriculum; and it focuses teachers’ time and energy too closely on those pupils on the C/D borderline, at the expense of their higher or lower-achieving peers. Today I am proposing a more balanced and meaningful accountability system, with two new measures—the percentage of pupils in each school reaching an attainment threshold in the vital core subjects of English and maths; and an average point score showing how much progress every student makes between key stage 2 and key stage 4. The average point score measure will reflect pupils’ achievement across a wide range of eight subjects. As well as English and maths, it will measure how well pupils perform in at least three subjects from the English baccalaureate—sciences, history, geography, languages—as well as computer science, and also in three additional subjects, whether arts subjects, academic subjects or high-quality vocational qualifications’.

There is no evidence to suggest that Michael Gove read my Blog and decided to abandon his plans! In fact had he read my Blog he could have saved some time and resources as he persisted with his ideas for a further seven months. On August 23rd the Daily Mail reported that he had dropped the idea of a return to a two-tier exam system and wanted an ‘O Level’ type exam for all students. (All Children to take O Level). On September 17th 2012 Michael Gove made a statement to the House of Commons on reform of examinations. He said,

“The examination that the overwhelming majority of young people sit at 16—the GCSE—was designed with the best of intentions. It sought to broaden the numbers engaging in academic study and to prepare for an expansion of further and higher education. . . However, the GCSE was conceived and designed for a different age and a different world—a time before majority participation in higher education and a world where information technology was in its infancy. When the GCSE was first taught, the school leaving age was still 16, state-planned economies dominated half the globe and the internet was a work of science fiction. Now that we are raising the education participation age to 18, now that nations that were slow developers 20 years ago are outstripping us economically, and now that ways of learning have been so dramatically transformed in all our lifetimes, it is right that we reform our examination system. We know that the old model—the ’80s model—is no longer right for now. We know that record increases in performance at GCSE have not been matched by the same level of improvements in learning. While pass rates have soared, we have fallen down international league tables.

We know that employers and academics have become less confident in the worth of GCSE passes because they fear that students lack the skills for the modern workplace and the knowledge for advanced study. We know that children’s achievements are not properly recognised, with even the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), an Education Minister in the last Labour Government, admitting that there was grade inflation under that Government. We know, most recently and most tellingly, that changes made to GCSEs under the last Government—specifically, the introduction of modules and the expansion of coursework, or controlled assessment, in schools—further undermined the credibility of exams, leaving young people without the rigorous education that they deserved. Only last week, the OECD reported that in the years up until 2010, our education system had still not been reformed fast enough to keep pace with the best in the world.

Critical to reform is ending an examination system that has narrowed the curriculum, forced idealistic professionals to teach to the test and encouraged heads to offer children the softest possible options. We believe it is time for the race to the bottom to end. We believe it is time to tackle grade inflation and dumbing down, and we believe that it is time to raise aspirations and restore rigour to our examinations.

We plan to call the new qualifications in core academic subjects English baccalaureate certificates, recognising that they are the academic foundation that is the secure basis on which further study, vocational learning or a satisfying apprenticeship can be built. Success in English, mathematics, the sciences, a humanities subject and a language will mean that the student has the full English baccalaureate”.
(Exam Reform)

On December 10th OFQUAL wrote to the Secretary of State identifying concerns about the timetable for reform, the proposed changes to the market mechanisms for delivering the new exams and the lack of clarity around curriculum and educational outcomes for the proposed EBCs (Letter to Michael Gove).

On January 29th the House of Commons Education Committee published a report which also identified a range of concerns about the proposed reforms to GCSEs including:

trying to do too much, too fast.

unfortunate that the Government has announced the proposed changes to GCSEs before publishing the revised secondary National Curriculum and before it has set out its proposed changes to the accountability system, which drives the way that qualifications are used in schools. This makes it almost impossible to make a full and proper assessment of the likely impact of the proposed changes.
the Government needs to show that GCSEs are so discredited that a new qualification is required.
concerns about the potential impact of the English Baccalaureate Certificates (EBCs) on subjects outside the English Baccalaureate, which will be left with “discredited” GCSEs for some time to come.
We question the extent to which it is possible to “upgrade” some subjects, without implicitly “downgrading” others.

(From GCSEs to EBCs)

Given that the advice from OFQUAL and the Education Select Committee was against the introduction of an entirely new exam at 16 Michael Gove backed down and made a statement to the House of Commons which is reported above. In considering further reforms I would suggest he reads the report by Ben Levin for the International Academy of Education published last year. Founded in 1986, the Academy is dedicated to strengthening the contributions of research, solving critical educational problems throughout the world, and providing better communication among policy-makers, researchers and practitioners. The Report, System Wide Improvement in Education, states,

‘This much is certain: achieving real and lasting improvement in student outcomes takes a sustained effort to change teaching and learning practices in thousands and thousands of classrooms, and this in turn requires focused and sustained effort by all parts of the education system and its partners. Key aspects of this collaborative effort include careful attention to goal-setting, positive engagement, capacity building, effective communication, learning from research and innovation, maintaining focus in the midst of multiple pressures, and use of resources. Effective large-scale change requires careful attention to implementation as well as policy, and to the building of an implementation system that is up to the task of bringing about the necessary changes in daily practice.

Creating change in education is easy. Many governments have done it by changing funding or policies or governance structures. But change is not the same as improvement, and our interest is change strategies that create lasting improvement in terms of a broad range of student outcomes. The challenge for education systems around the world, regardless of their current situations, can be expressed this way: Bringing more students than ever before to higherlevels of achievement than ever before, on a broader range of skills and attributes than ever before, with less inequity in outcomes than ever before.

An effective, system-wide change strategy requires the following elements:
1. a small number of ambitious yet achievable and well-grounded goals, publicly stated;
2. a positive stance on improving all schools and success for all students;
3. an emphasis on capacity building and a focus on results;
4. multi-level engagement with strong leadership and a ‘guiding coalition’;
5. continuous learning through innovation and effective use of research and data;
6. a focus on key strategies while also managing other interests and issues;
7. effective use of resources;
8. a strong implementation effort to support the change process.(System Wide Improvement in Education)

Happy reading Mr Gove! We have witnessed a lot of change in the education system over the last three years which is what politicians do - bring about change. If Mr Gove wants some very cost-effective advice about improving the system, then I know someone who might help who will be available from August 31st 2013 at a very reasonable rate!

A CRITICAL ELEMENT OF THE CURRICULUM

If you were putting together a manifesto

to place before an electorate then one in
which there is an assertion that
homosexuality tears at the fabric of society
and also that you do not support the UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child is
unlikely to attract the support of young
people or arguably anyone. That is unless
you live in Texas. These were included
in the 2012 Republican Party of Texas
‘Platform’ which it expects its elected
leaders to uphold. This was also included,

‘We oppose the teaching of Higher Order
Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification),
critical thinking skills and similar programs
that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based
Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which
focus on behavior modification and have the
purpose of challenging the student’s fixed
beliefs and undermining parental authority’.
(RPT, Platform, 2012)

This particular ‘plank’ attracted a lot of
criticism in that it seemed to suggest that
the Republican Party of Texas (RPT) was
against students being taught critical thinking
skills. In fact the inclusion of critical thinking
skills in this ‘plank’ was a mistake. The
Chairman of the RPT said,

"We have gotten, dozens of emails. A lot of
them were from around the country from
articles that were written from people that
said, 'The state Republican Party of Texas
doesn't want kids to think,' and nothing
could be further from the truth. The
platform plank is against a specific type
of teaching called 'outcome-based education.
The reason why critical thinking is mentioned
is some places try to disguise the program
of outcome-based education and just re-label
it as 'critical thinking.’ The fear is that if you
choose an outcome, which is a set of values
or goals, and that the correct answer always
has to be these, that what that could foster
is an educational system that's basically
redefining values for children different than
maybe what their parents or their community
teaches them. A better way to do things is to
say, 'Here are the facts on different issues, you
make your own conclusions.'"

The Chairman admitted that it was a poor choice
of words and that, “maybe we should do a little
better job of communicating." If there was a
need to demonstrate the importance of critical
thinking then ironically it is the RPT proposing
erroneously that students do not need critical
thinking skills. The issue of poor communication
is one that the RPT will continue to grapple
with if the Chairman’s explanation is evidence
of effective communication.

Critical thinking also figured in an interestingly
digressive speech in November 2012 to the
Independent Academies Association, by the
Secretary of State for Education, who stated,

‘But it is also important to emphasise that
education is a good in itself - beyond - indeed
above - any economic, social or political use
to which it might be put.

Because education properly understood - a
liberal education which includes the disciplines
of language, literature and mathematics,
science, geography and history, music,
art and design - introduces children to the
habits of thought and bodies of knowledge
which are the highest expressions of human
thought and creativity.

Education - properly understood - allows
children to become citizens - capable of
sifting good arguments from bad, the
bogus from the truthful, the contingent
from the universal.

These intellectual capacities are vital if we are to keep democracy healthy, social relations civilised, economic behaviour honest and cultural life enriching. But these abilities can only come from the initial submission of the student's mind to the body of knowledge contained within specific subjects. And these traditional subjects are the best route to encouraging the techniques of thinking which mark out the educated mind’. (Secretary of State Speech)

The speech was concerned mainly with the issue of examinations (which Gove strangely believes is the best way to promote and advance liberal education) but in the opening section, from which the above extract is taken, Michael Gove argued, convincingly, for a liberal education. He asserts that informed citizens, capable of sifting good arguments from bad, the bogus from the truthful, the contingent from the universal are best developed through a subject based curriculum. He asserts that learning traditional subjects is the best route to encourage those techniques of thinking which eventually transform you into a citizen with an educated mind. However in this he has committed an error in thinking which had he undertaken a course in Critical Thinking he would not have made. It is true that having four sides is necessary for being a square. It is also true that being a square is sufficient for having four sides. It follows that having four sides is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being a square (since a rectangle has four sides but it is not a square). I would argue that experiencing a subject-based curriculum is a necessary but not sufficient condition to develop the thinking techniques that will enable you to develop into an informed citizen with an educated mind. (Necessary and Sufficient Conditions)

I agree with Michael Gove that the subject curriculum should form the structure for children’s education in secondary schools. I do not agree that experiencing the subject curriculum will, in itself, allow students to acquire and develop all the thinking techniques they need to function as informed, well-educated citizens (ie those identified by Gove such as sifting good arguments from bad etc). The crux of this issue is whether the basket of skills and dispositions which we identify as critical thinking skills are domain specific or not. This is important because it affects the way that young people are best instructed in critical thinking skills. If critical thinking skills are domain specific it requires all subject areas to integrate the acquisition of those skills into their programmes of study. However if critical thinking skills are general it is possible to instruct students through a discrete course in critical thinking which will then enable them to apply the skills acquired in different contexts. This dilemma could be easily resolved if we conducted a longitudinal randomised control trial (RCT) in which one group of students were not taught critical thinking skills discretely and another did experience such a course and the two groups of students, standardized for sex, ability etc, were tested before and after on their competence in critical thinking skills. The Behavioural Insights Team at the Cabinet Office published a paper on the use of RCTs recently (Test, Learn, Adapt). Pedagogy would benefit from greater use of such trials but there are too many ethical and practical issues to overcome that inhibit their use. Thus there has been an ongoing debate over the last 30 years or more about the best way to instruct young people in critical thinking skills.

In a book on Critical Thinking published in 1981, McPeck wrote, against a discrete course in critical thinking,

... it is a matter of conceptual truth that thinking is always thinking about X, and that X can never be 'everything in general' but must always be something in particular. Thus the claim 'I teach my students to think' is at worst false and at best misleading.

Thinking, then, is logically connected to an X. Since this fundamental point is reasonably easy to grasp, it is surprising that critical thinking should have become reified into a curriculum subject and the teaching of it an area of expertise of its own ...

... In isolation it neither refers to nor denotes any particular skill. It follows from this that it makes no sense to talk about critical thinking as a distinct subject and that it therefore cannot profitably be taught as such. To the extent that critical thinking is not about a specific subject X, it is both conceptually and practically empty. The statement 'I teach critical thinking', simpliciter, is vacuous because there is no generalized skill properly called critical thinking.'

Peck argues that there are no common generalised critical thinking skills other than common sense, which cannot be taught, and ‘where common sense cannot solve a problem, one quickly finds the need for subject-specific information; hence, the traditional justification for subject-oriented courses’.
(Critical Thinking and Education by John E. McPeck. Martin Robinson, Oxford, 1981).

The views articulated by McPeck were robustly challenged in an article by Richard Paul, in 1985, who wrote,

'Students, teachers, and persons in general, need to maintain their critical autonomy even in, especially in, the face of specialists and even with respect to claims made within specialised areas. If democracy is a viable form of government and way of life then judgments not only of policy but of world view are the common task of all, not the prerogative of privileged groups of specialists. We need to pay special attention to those general skills of critical-cross-examination, for they are what enable us to maintain our autonomous judgment in the midst of experts. These pay-off skills, of civic literacy and personal autonomy, can be articulated best not in "procedures" that read like a technical manual but in "principles" that will often sound platitudinous or have the ring of "general" advice. Platitudes however can become insights and insights definitive of general skills when systematic case-by- case practice is supported by careful argument for and against. It is a platitude to say, for example, that the press and the media of a nation tend to cover the news so as to foster or presuppose the correctness of the "world view" of that nation or its government. But this bit of "common knowledge" is a far cry from the very important general skill of reading a newspaper so as to note how, where, and when it is insinuating nationalistic biases. Or again, it is one thing to recognize that all "news" is news from a point of view. It is another thing to be able to read or hear it with the critical sensitivity that enables one to see one point of view presupposed and others ruled out’. (McPeck's Mistakes)

In a review of the research on critical thinking in 1985 Stephen Norris, sided with McPeck, and concluded that critical thinking is best taught within traditional subject areas rather than as a separate subject because , he argued, the successful application of critical thinking principles requires knowledge of the subject matter, experience in the area in question and good judgement. (Synthesis of Research)

In 1988, Perkins and Salomon argued for a mixed approach,

‘Instead of worrying about which is more important – local knowledge or the more transferable aspects of knowledge – we should recognise the synergy of local and more general knowledge. To be sure, students who do not know much about history are unlikely to enrich their thinking about the causes of the American Revolution by the general strategy of trying to reflect on both sides of the case, American and British. But students who do not have the habit of reflecting on both sides of a case will not get much depth of understanding out of the history they do know. Similarly, students who lack an understanding of key mathematical concepts will not gain much from the general strategy of trying to define and represent a problem well before they start. But students who lack the habit of trying to define and represent a problem well will often misuse the mathematical concepts they know when the problem is not routine.

So general and local knowledge are not rivals. Rather, they are members of the same team that play different positions. Proper attention to transfer will make the make the best of both for the sake of deeper and broader knowledge, skill and understanding’ (Teaching for Transfer)

Ennis, in an article in 1989, discussed the relative merits of infusion whereby the general principles of critical thinking dispositions and skills are made explicit and are deeply embedded in the instruction of the subject matter and immersion where students are engaged deeply in the subject matter but where critical thinking is not made explicit. He also identified a mixed approach,

‘Under it there is a separate thread or course aimed at teaching general principles of critical thinking, but students are also involved in subject-specific critical thinking instruction. There are many possibilities for such combinations, but presumably the general thread would facilitate articulation among the various efforts and would help fill gaps left as a result of practical exigencies that develop’. (CT & Subject Specificity)

In a collection of essays published in 1990 McPeck renewed his criticism of teaching critical thinking as a separate subject or discipline. In this book he includes the criticism of Richard Paul and also that of Stephen Norris and Harvey Siegel. McPeck asserts, that critical thinking skills are best developed through the disciplines included in a general education: history, mathematics, the sciences, philosophy, literature and the arts, since each of these involves a distinct way of thinking. His critics maintain that there is such a thing as a general strategy for problem solving and critical thinking, that it can be taught, and that it is useful in everyday life. Issues such as crime and alcoholism do not fall readily within the confines of any one discipline, and that they therefore require a general strategy. McPeck's reply is that general strategies require familiarity with many ways of knowing, and that these are best grasped through a general education.
(Teaching Critical Thinking, Peck, Norris, Paul & Siegel, 1990)

This second book by McPeck was challenged, in a lengthy and detailed rebuttal, by Adler in 1991 (Critical thinking; A Deflated Defense). In an article in 1997 Ennis analyses the issue between organizing a separate course or embedding critical thinking in the existing subject curriculum and poses lots of salient questions but does not conclude one way or the other. (Incorporating Critical Thinking into the Curriculum)

In 2002 the controversy was still ongoing. Smith put the issue thus,

'The sometimes-forgotten pedagogical bottom-line for this debate is simple: by what means should educators teach people how to think? More pointedly, is there a substantial body of important material (concepts, principles, skills, and so forth) that is general (broadly applicable to practical affairs and various disciplinary domains) which could be taught, for instance, in general education courses in such a way that students would be able to transfer and apply their knowledge in other relevant contexts? (Thinking Skills)

Smith argues persuasively that the problem with general thinking skills is that they are not sufficiently specific or operational, ‘Thinking skills become more powerful as a result of being made more specific and operational’ and he demonstrated how the evaluation of sources, the use of analogies and identifying assumptions can be made more powerful generalised critical thinking skills. He also questioned the ease with which domains can be specified and be considered discrete. In practice there is much overlap and commonality between domains and the issue of ‘lumpers and splitters’ generates an unresolved debate about the level at which a particular subject domain is discrete and separate thus requiring a particular set of critical thinking skills which are domain specific. Smith also raised the issue of the kind of knowledge and thinking that people apply in everyday life in what Smith calls the domain of practical affairs. McPeck claimed that the whole point of school-subject knowledge was to enlighten people about the everyday world which informed their everyday life. Smith concedes, along with Michael Gove, that

‘knowledge acquired from a liberal education provides a wealth of understanding that helps students navigate their ways through the domain of practical affairs’ but ‘the key thinking tasks that are encountered in practical affairs, diagnosis, design, planning, negotiation, prediction, evaluation, and so forth are not often explicitly addressed by the disciplines, nor are related skills explicitly taught’.

Smith concludes that the answer to his question is ‘yes’, there is a substantial body of material that is general which could be taught in general education courses.

'There is ample knowledge of concepts, heuristics, skills, and dispositions that is both general and useful, to justify a dedicated course in both high school and college curricula. GTSs instruction should be reinforced by instruction in the disciplines, but the latter is no substitute for the former. Everything known about transfer indicates that knowledge of thinking will only transfer if it is taught explicitly and with transfer firmly in mind’. (Thinking Skills)

But the advocates of embedding critical thinking continued to press the case with practical suggestions. In 2000 Nosich published a book, which is now in its fourth edition, which provided a model for integrating critical thinking skills and dispositions into subjects and disciplines (Learning to Think Things Through). In 2003 Broadbear suggested ways in which practitioners could integrate critical thinking skills into lessons (Critical Thinking in Lesson Design).

However for this approach to be successful it depends on people being able to transfer their learning. Learning transfer is defined as the ability to extend what has been learned in one context to new contexts. The issue of learning transfer is very contentious. Teachers make assumptions about the potential for students to transfer their learning which are rarely realised in practice. For effective transfer there has to be initial mastery, abstraction, understanding, sufficient practice, effective feedback, close monitoring and appropriate levels of motivation. Transferring learning from school life to everyday life is difficult because there is an emphasis on the individual in school compared to teams in real life; an over-reliance on mental activity compared to the practical use of tools in everyday settings and more abstract thinking and reasoning compared to context specific thinking in everyday life ( How People Learn). A review of the literature published in 2002 found mixed evidence for the effectiveness of transfer of critical thinking skills and little research on dispositions (Critical Thinking and Transferability). A book published in 2010 identified seven principles which underpins effective learning and learning transfer (How Learning Works). The authors are based at
the Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence and the seven principles
can be accessed from their website (Principles of Learning). If the
pedagogy within subjects does not explicitly promote critical thinking skills and if the schemes of work are not designed for transfer then students will not develop a mastery of these critical skills.

In an extensive review of the literature on critical thinking published in 2011 Lai referenced the work of Abrami and others who had looked at 117 empirical studies on the effects of instructional interventions on students’ critical thinking skills and dispositions and found that although there was a considerable variation in the effect size the mixed approach had the biggest impact.

‘This finding suggests that educators should approach critical thinking instruction both by integrating critical thinking into regular academic content and by teaching general critical thinking skills as a stand-alone component. This finding reinforces the importance of providing explicit instruction in critical thinking rather than simply viewing critical thinking as an implicit goal of a course. The authors also found that interventions in which educators received special training in teaching critical thinking had the largest effect-sizes, compared to studies in which course curricula were simply aligned to critical thinking standards or critical thinking was simply included as an instructional objective. Thus, successful interventions may require professional development for teachers specifically focused on teaching critical thinking’. (Critical Thinking; A literature Review)

Virtually all of this debate about Critical Thinking has taken place in the USA. The UK was very late in recognising the importance of critical thinking skills and of developing appropriate courses. OCR was the first exam board to provide a nationally assessed course in critical thinking for AS level in 2000 and A level in 2001. The examination which is now also offered by AQA has experienced a variable level of entries. The decline in the last five years is probably attributable to the lack of resources made available for the subject and the lack of recognition by universities.

Until 2007 there was rapid growth in numbers and it became OCR’s largest AS level entry but since then there has been a contraction. Research by Beth Black on introducing Critical Thinking into English schools identified the following barriers:

students perceive it to be more difficult than other subjects
students do not perceive it to have the same ‘value’ as other subjects
lack of universal endorsement by universities
lack of support by senior leadership in schools
there is insufficient time allocated to it
low prioritisation by students and staff
teachers charged with teaching the subject are not trained or experienced in teaching the subject
lack of appropriate leaning materials and resources

The main benefits identified by teachers were:

the importance of the skills
collateral benefits to teachers in terms of enriching their teaching and understanding of how students think
different style of lessons (more student-centred, and greater flexibility in designing lessons) was often perceived as energising
transferability of skills to enhance performance in other subjects.(Critical Thinking Research)

In an analysis of over 2,000 students researchers found a measurable difference between students who had studied critical thinking and their performance in their other subjects and those who had not.

There was also a measurable impact across a range of subjects:

(Critical Thinking Research)

Critical Thinking A/AS Level is not universally accepted by UK universities. For courses in law and medicine many universities use the results of the LNAT and BMAT to assess the critical thinking abilities of their applicants but of course candidates aspiring to study law or medicine would benefit from studying critical thinking.

Critical Thinking AS level was introduced for all students in the Sixth Form at NHGS in 2011. It is intended to support students in their other A-Level subjects and in their preparation for study at university. The research over many years indicates that the most effective way to develop critical thinking skills in students is by adopting a dual approach which promotes those skills within subjects but also provides a discrete course to enable transferability and the application to everyday contexts not covered by conventional subject domains.

At a Seminar organised by Cambridge Assessment in 2010 to highlight how an explicit focus on Critical Thinking can enhance the attainment of pupils of all backgrounds and abilities, Richard Wainer, Head of Education and Skills at CBI, said,

“The ability to think, reason and make sound decisions is a vital skill for the workplace – and crucial for employees who want to do well and advance…yet many firms have expressed concerns about the lack of problem-solving skills they are seeing in school leavers.”

In a book published last year in America, Education for Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century, it stated,

‘Education is even more critical today, in the face of economic, environmental, and social challenges. Today’s children can meet future challenges if their schooling and informal learning activities prepare them for adult roles as citizens, employees, managers, parents, volunteers, and entrepreneurs. To achieve their full potential as adults, young people need to develop a range of skills and knowledge that facilitate mastery and application of English,mathematics, and other school subjects. At the same time, business and political leaders are increasingly asking schools to develop skills such as problem solving, critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and self management— often referred to as “21st century skills’.(Education for Life and Work)

The most effective way of ensuring that we prepare our students for the 21st century then is developing critical thinking skills within the traditional subject curriculum supplemented by discrete specialist provision. Michael Gove should be attentive to this as he determines the curriculum for schools over the coming months. Critical Thinking is a critical element of the curriculum and should be acknowledged and included within the 11-16 and the post-16 curriculum experienced by students.

TEXTING; Is TXTng Gd 4 or the NME of Gd En?”

‘It is the relentless onward march of the texters, the SMS (Short Message Service) vandals who are doing to our language what Genghis Khan did to his neighbours eight hundred years ago. They are destroying it: pillaging our punctuation; savaging our sentences; raping our vocabulary. And they must be stopped’.
(I-h8-txt-msgs)

‘These data showed that textism use at the beginning of the year could predict spelling ability at the end of the year after controlling for verbal IQ and phonological awareness, but literacy skills could not predict textism use: the relationship was unidirectional, and suggested that textism use was contributing to spelling development’.

(Text Messaging and Literacy Development: The Evidence)

The first extract is from a polemical article written in 2008 by the veteran broadcaster and author John Humphrys who is a self-
appointed guardian of the English language. The second is an extract from a review of the research evidence on the impact of texting on young people’s literacy development which was published in 2011 by Clare Wood, a well respected academic who is a leading authority in this field. These two protagonists represent opposing sides in a contentious debate that has rumbled on since texting was introduced
twenty years ago.

The world's first SMS text was sent from an office in Newbury, Berkshire. It was a simple message "Merry Christmas" -– not "Merry Xmas" or ": -) Xmas". The message was sent on December 3rd, 1992, by 22-year- old engineer Neil Papworth who was working for SEMA, a technology company. He sent the message to a colleague at Vodafone UK who was enjoying a staff Christmas party. He was part of the team developing a SMS Service Center for Vodafone UK. Papworth who now lives in Montreal, Canada, working as a software architect said,

"I was chosen to go to Vodafone's Newbury offices to install, integrate and test the software and get it all working. Initially the idea was for them to use it essentially as a paging service. I feel good that I was there and did what I did. I didn't know what would happen with text messaging after that though”.

In 1992 mobile phones did not have keyboards, so he typed the message out on a PC, while the recipient, Vodafone's director Richard Jarvis, received the message using a bulky Orbitel 901, the world's first GSM phone. Text messaging did not catch on straight away. In 1995, GSM customers sent only 0.4 messages on average each per month; by the end of 2000 it was still only 35. Texting took off when it became feasible across all networks and with the introduction of pay-as-you-go mobile phones. The total number of SMS sent globally tripled between 2007 and 2010, from about 1.8 trillion to a 6.1 trillion. In 2011 it had increased further to 8 trillion, over 15 million every minute. In the UK people send, on average 50 texts per week
which is modest compared to the 150 sent by Philippinos.

Text messages are transmitted over networks designed for telephone calls rather than data transfer, so the messages must be limited in size, usually to 140 bytes, which can contain about 160 characters. This limitation has encouraged a different way of writing texts – so-called textese. This ignores conventional grammar and punctuation and replaces properly spelled words with abbreviations, initials and ‘emoticon’ smiley symbols. In 2011 the word ‘sexting’ (sending explicit images of yourself with a text) entered the Oxford English Dictionary. If texting was undertaken by adults who had undergone a conventional education about their language the potential impact of texting on children’s literacy development would not be contentious. However as OFCOM’s 2012 Communications Market report published in July texting is disproportionately a young person’s activity.

The use of texting has generally increased. In 2011, more than 150 billion text messages were sent in the UK, which was almost triple the 51 billion sent in 2006. However texting is now most prolific among 12-15 year olds, who say they are sending an average of 193 texts every week, almost four times as much as the UK average. This has more than doubled in 12 months, when just 91 were sent. Older girls (12-15 year olds) are texting significantly more than boys, sending an average of 221 messages a week – 35% more than boys of the same age, who send 164 a week. The average 8-11 year old sends 41 texts each week, almost double the number (23) sent in 2011. For younger people, text-based services dominate communication with friends and family on a daily basis. Around nine in ten 16-24 year olds send texts, and three-quarters (73%) use social networks. Face-to-face communication is less popular (63%) as are mobile phone calls (67%) and landline calls (15%).

(OFCOM, Communications Market Report, 2012)

Texting has developed its own set of rules and its own language; a mishmash of English, abbreviations, symbols and visual cues. Because text messaging bypasses traditional writing with proper noun and verb usage and rarely includes full sentences, it is argued that it compromises or erodes the conventional writing and grammar skills that young people need. Anecdotally teachers have reported that papers are being written using poor punctuation, bad grammar and inappropriate abbreviations (Texting and Grammar). Abbreviations used in text speak have become common in other areas such as "u" for "you“. A few years ago we were on holiday in Spain and met an American woman who littered her conversation with ‘TMI’ (Too Much Information) which, if used sparingly, can act as a humorous interjection but if overused becomes annoying. It is claimed that text speak reduces users' ability to write correct English sentences. Employing SMS speak discourages complex vocabulary and prevents the creation of longer, more sophisticated phrases. As well as its real and potential impact on young people’s development of literacy texting can have other adverse effects.

In 2007, using a handheld mobile phone behind the wheel became an endorsable offence in the UK. This means that anyone caught chatting, texting or checking their email while driving could get penalty points and a £60 fine. The dangers of texting whilst driving were graphically demonstrated by the 2009 film ‘Cow’ which was developed by Gwent Police (Texting while Driving). This was reinforced recently in a Which investigation (Driven to Distraction). Clearly this is important for older students but younger ones are also at risk if they text whilst walking. Young people strolling around texting with their head down is a common sight in city centres and suburban streets. Reports of injuries to distracted walkers treated at hospitals have increased but it is difficult trying to collate accurate statistics. In Philadelphia in the USA transportation and public utilities’ officials as an April Fool's Day joke with a serious message taped off an "e-lane" for distracted pedestrians on a pavement outside office buildings in the city centre. Some people didn't get that it was a joke. Rina Cutler, the Deputy Mayor said,

"The sad part is we had people who, once they realised we were going to take the e-lane away, got mad because they thought it was really helpful to not have people get in their way while they were walking and texting."

In one study, carried out in Australia mobile phone users were asked if they had noticed a brightly coloured clown riding around on a unicycle while they were walking along, a remarkable 75% said they hadn't. The dangers that attend people who walk and text were very evident in Los Angeles in April this year when a pedestrian texting was met with a very unexpected encounter (Texting Man and Bear). Physical injury is also a risk with repeated text messaging which could cause temporary or permanent damage to the user's thumb.

There is also a substantive difference between having a conversation by texting and talking face to face with someone else. When you have a conversation face to face you can;

• laugh together (not the same as LOL)

• detect a tone of voice - conveying feelings by the manner in which you speak - happiness, anger, boredom, surprise (pleasant or unwelcome), irony and [withering] parental sarcasm (not the same as emoticons)

• Interact - one person says something and then the other one replies. Sometimes they reply while the first person is still speaking and although that can be rude it’s usually fine because in actual conversation you don’ have to wait for your message to get through and then twiddle your thumbs while the other person thinks of an answer. You just talk naturally.

If young people substitute texting for live conversations then they will not fully develop all the skills needed in conversing (The Power of Talk).

Texting can also be used inappropriately. It is all too easy to convey harsh feelings via text messaging without stopping to consider potential consequences. Without seeing the reaction of the person in front of you it is easier to use offensive language and unkind comments. Cyber-bullying by text is regrettably too common among young people. About a third of teens have either sent or received sexually explicit material via their mobile phone or using the Internet. Sexting has become more common. Technology makes it easier for young people to work up the nerve to do something they normally wouldn't, especially when they don't see or know the person receiving the message. Students at NHGS were shown a video, ‘Exposed’, earlier this year which highlighted the dangers of sexting. This involved a 15 year old girl sexting an image of herself to her boyfriend who distributed it to all his mates with embarrassing consequences for the girl (Exposed). Young people are encouraged to understand:

the reasons why young people are taking and forwarding these images
the issue of trust in relationships
how photos can end up out of the hands of the intended recipient and be circulated much more widely
the speed at which images can be spread on the internet
the online and offline bullying which may occur as a result
the idea of digital footprint and online reputation
the legal implications of self-generated indent images
the process of removing content online, and where to seek further help and advice
why they should not take and send these images.

Of course there is always the problem of misspellings in the text message.

The impact of texting on children’s literacy development became increasingly a subject of serious academic interest. In 2008, the Emeritus Professor of Linguistics at Bangor University and one of the leading world authorities on the English language, David Crystal, published a book on the subject, Txtng: The Gr8 Db8.

“It was a dawning realisation about how universal the myth was about texting. Virtually everywhere I went, people would come up and talk to me about it. One of the recurring questions was what my opinion was about this new disaster that was affecting all our children. People were saying how kids were unable to spell and their literacy was going down. And it's all the fault of these mobile phones, these cell phones! So this was building up and building up, and eventually I thought I've just got to do something. So I sat down and started to research it. And as a result, the aim was to try and get through the urban myths about this and present some reality.”

“People believe that a text message is “full” of abbreviations, as in the classic c u l8r. In fact, when you collect a corpus of messages and analyse them, the average number of words per message that are abbreviated is around 10 per cent. That means that most words are in standard spelling.”

"A further myth is that texting is harming children’s literacy. What is interesting is the recent research which is showing that the more kids text, the better their literacy scores. Reading and writing improve with practice. Texting provides that practice.”

"As part of the research I did I asked teachers if work in the classroom was riddled with abbreviations, and it wasn't. If you ask kids if they use the same style in their work they look at you as if you are mad. This is just a story going around, a huge urban myth,"

These insights by David Crystal have been supported by the academic research which has been undertaken into this issue over the last five years or so. The evidence is summarised in the overview cited at the beginning of this posting. David Crystal’s perspective is that the English language is constantly evolving. It is estimated that there are something like 20,000 neoligisms introduced into the language every year (Texting). There are also some particular advantages to texting;

text messaging allows you to communicate with others in situations where a face-to-face or phone conversation is not possible or appropriate.
an SMS exchange that is saved on your phone is an excellent way to remind yourself at a later time about the contents of a conversation that you had.
face-to-face interaction is hard for some people, so texting is a great alternative. It provides an opportunity to say what you want without being influenced by the receiver’s reaction. You don't see the person's upper lip tremble. You don't hear their voice quiver. You don't get those external, non-textual cues which for some types of communication is very helpful.
sending a text is usually cheaper than making a voice call.

Crystal also points out that texting is providing a new medium for creative artists like Norman Silver whose poem TXT Commandments is printed below;

1. u shall luv ur mobil fone with all ur hart

2. u & ur fone shall neva b apart

3. u shall nt lust aftr ur neibrs fone nor thiev

4. u shall b prepard @ all times 2 tXt & 2 recv

5. u shall use LOL & othr acronyms in conversatns

6. u shall be zappy with ur ast*r*sks & exc!matns!!

7. u shall abbrevi8 & rite words like theyr sed

8. u shall nt speak 2 sum 1 face2face if u cn msg em insted

9. u shall nt shout with capitls XEPT IN DIRE EMERGNCY

10. u shall nt consult a ninglish dictnry

The doom-mongers who announced the demise of the English language as we know it are probably not going to be proved right. Texting is here to stay in one form or another. Young people find it a quick and cheap way to communicate with friends and family when they are physically apart. There is as yet no substantive evidence that texting is having a negative impact on the development of their literacy skills. Textese has leaked into the language and has been ephemerally adopted in certain contexts and by certain groups. In terms of the evolution of language textese is in its infancy and its permanent impact on language will not be properly assessed for many years. In a lecture more than one hundred years ago the American philosopher and educational reformer John Dewey, said,

From the standpoint of the child, the great waste in school comes from his inability to utilise the experience he gets outside…while on the other hand, he is unable to apply in daily life what he is learning in school. That is the isolation of the school—its isolation from life. (School and Society)

Texting may provide an interface between school and outside in which literacy and communication skills acquired in school can be practised, modified, manipulated and played with outside school for the mutual benefit of all.

VOLUNTEERING

Volunteering is any activity that involves spending time, unpaid, doing something that aims to benefit the environment or someone (individuals or groups) other than, or in addition to, close relatives. I have volunteered in different ways all my life. My secondary school, which I attended during the sixties, did not promote much voluntary work amongst students. I undertook most of my voluntary work as a teenager through the village youth club (YC). We entered a carnival float in the local town carnival parade every year which raised money for local charities. The YC also staged a Christmas show which was performed in front of the villagers but also at the local pensioners’ Christmas lunch. We also completed some sponsored walks for charity. The current generation of young people are used to camera-phones and digital cameras and capture most of their lives on film. There may be hundreds of images of them taken through childhood and adolescence. In my youth using cameras to photograph everyday events and activities was much less common. I have only a dozen or so photographs of me between birth and eighteen. One of these was taken for the local newspaper of a group of teenagers from the village, including me, who completed a 20 mile walk for charity. This was taken when I was about fourteen.

At university I was involved in the usual charity fund-raising that goes on but was too impoverished to undertake much voluntary work. I took up volunteering again when I started my teaching career. The school that I secured my first teaching post was not that different to the secondary grammar school I attended in that charity work and volunteering by students was under-developed. For the first ten years of my teaching career at this school I took on the promotion and co-ordination of charity work. I introduced an annual rock concert for charity (ahead of LiveAid), organised fund-raising to purchase disco equipment for a local special school which sixth formers then ran and involved the school in national campaigns such as Comic relief. Indeed for the first Red Nose Day, in 1988, we organised for the whole school to stand in an empty swimming pool and in the following one we invited the students to get tied to eachother in a long line and attempt to walk across a playground.

When our children became old enough to join organisations my wife and I became leaders for the Woodcraft Folk (WF). Founded by Leslie Paul in 1925 the WF is a national organisation open to boys and girls which is founded on the principles of peace and cooperation. As leaders we helped plan and run weekly meetings and several camps each year including international camps. Activities involved learning about the environment and promoting international understanding and friendship. For example we raised money to help a WF group from Poland to travel to England to participate in an international camp in Suffolk. Below is a photograph of me at an International Camp about 25 years ago.

Developing a habit of volunteering is important and if you start when you are young it just becomes a part of your life. As headteacher my role is more one of facilitating and encouraging volunteering as is evident below.

The National Young Volunteers Service asked IPSOS MORI to undertake some research in 2010. They surveyed 2,753 students in 118 schools. The survey found that more than 90% of 11-16 year olds would like to volunteer. This high response rate is not matched by participation rates which vary between a third and a half of 16 – 34 year olds. The most popular types of volunteering that teenagers would like to undertake are for sporting/exercise, working with children and developing hobbies/arts. Young people reported that the following would encourage them to volunteer:

· volunteer with friends

· try volunteering once to see if they liked it

· volunteer close to where they live

The teenagers reported that the best things about volunteering were helping others, having fun and making a difference to something that mattered to them.

In August 2011 there were several nights of rioting and looting in several cities in England. One of the places hit was central Croydon. A well-known shop, Reeves Furniture Store, was targeted. The firm had been established in 1867 and had operated continuously for 144 years until it was looted and torched on August 8^th 2008. The co-owner 81 year old Maurice Reeves was devastated.

In 2012 the youth charity VInspired sponsored research which revealed that two-thirds of adults blamed young people for the riots even though those arrested spanned all ages. The man found guilty of setting light to the Reeves store, for example, was 33 years old. Some 72% of people over 25 admitted they would feel uneasy if a group of 14 – 25 year olds headed towards them at night and almost one in five admitted they would cross to the other side of the road to avoid them. Over two thirds of Brits felt that characteristics of the youths themselves were to blame for their involvement in the riots, with a lack of good morals (72%) cited as the main reason – whilst boredom (62%), the demise of the family unit (60%) and social media (51%) were cited as other key contributing factors. To counter these negative perceptions VInspired encouraged young people to take pictures of themselves holding positive slogans about good things they were doing and post them online. A year on from the riots they posted over 4,000 pictures on the partly restored Reeves store.

The negative perception of young people is not evident amongst the students at NHGS. The students who leave in Year 13 each year complete UCAS personal statements that are peppered with examples of volunteering outside school such as in children’s special schools or working in residential care homes for the elderly. There are also many opportunities for older students in school such as prefects, senior prefects, sports coaches, referees, First Bow producers and subject mentors. Younger students can volunteer to act as guides on Open Evening or work in departments, they can serve on the LS Charity Committee, work as a volunteer in the LRC, participate in the Eco Club or support the Amnesty International Group.

The principal barriers to volunteering that were identified by teenagers are:

· lack of time
· cost (travel)
· negative peer pressure (not cool/low status)
· lack of confidence
· problems with finding out information

Young people can derive many benefits from volunteering that include:

· satisfaction at making a contribution
· improving communication and social skills
· being actively involved in a pastime
· developing employability skills
· meeting new people
· working in a team
· gaining respect
· doing good
· helping others
· acquiring experience
· enjoyment

Volunteering is beneficial to the individual and society. It is estimated that about two out of five adults volunteer formally through a group or organisation and about three out of five volunteer informally. Volunteering is estimated to contribute over £20 billion to the economy annually. Developing a habit of volunteering is best started when you are young and over time it just becomes a part of your life. Below is a list of contacts so that students if they are not already volunteering can make some enquiries.

British Youth Council

The British Youth Council (BYC) is the National Youth Council of the UK. BYC promotes the active citizenship of young people and works with them to develop their skills and abilities to participate in decision-making and controlling resources, encouraging them to work together and to take collective action.

Telephone: 0845 458 1489
Address: 1st Floor, Downstream Building, 1 London Bridge, London, SE1 9BG.
Fax: 0845 458 1847
Email: mail@byc.org.uk
Website: http://www.byc.org.uk

Citizenship Foundation

The Citizenship Foundation promotes citizenship education through a wide range of programmes, particularly in the fields of law and the legal system, human rights, education for democracy and moral and critical thinking. Also offers advice and resources for young people interested in taking action in their communities and training for running your own community project.

Telephone: 0207 566 4141
Address: 63 Gee Street, London, EC1V 3RS.
Email: info@citizenshipfoundation.org.uk
Website: http://www.citizenshipfoundation.org.uk/

CSV (Community Service Volunteers)

CSV places young people aged 16 and over in voluntary placements away from home (in the UK or abroad) for between four months and a year. CSV’s Global Exchange Programme is a six-month programme which gives young people from different countries a unique opportunity to work together and make a practical contribution to local communities.

Telephone: 020 7278 6601
Address: 237 Pentonville Road, London, N1 9NJ.
Email: information@csv.org.uk
Website: http://www.csv.org.uk/

Do it!

A national database for young people's volunteering which allows you to browse the range opportunities available in your area and apply on-line.

Telephone: 020 7250 5700
Address: First Floor, 50 Featherstone Street, London, EC1Y 8RT.
Fax: 020 7250 3695
Email: info@do-it.org.uk
Website: http://www.do-it.org.uk/

TheSite

TheSite is designed to connect, principally young people in the UK to the best information, help and advice available. It tries to enable people to make informed decisions for themselves and strive to be the best they can. See also the Volunteering area of TheSite which provides advice and information on how to take action and make positive changes through national or global campaigns and a database of ‘virtual volunteering opportunities’ (online).

TheSIte has made its Local Advice Finder (LAF) database accessible on mobiles. Young people can now go to TheSite on their mobiles to find information and support safely and confidentially, putting all the information they need into their hands.

Telephone: 020 7250 5700
Address: 100 Victoria Embankment, London, EC4Y 0DH
Fax: 020 7925 2830
Email: info@thesite.org
Website: http://www.thesite.org/

TimeBank

The Young Timebank 'Energise' website is aimed at young people aged 11-19. It provides details of local organisations matching your area of interest.

Telephone: 020 7785 6374
Address: 2nd Floor, Downstream Building, London Bridge, London, SE1 9BG.
Website: http://energise.timebank.org.uk

Independent charity championing youth volunteering in England. Young people’s site, vinspired is aimed at 16 to 25-year-olds in England and features a volunteering opportunities search facility (based on postcode), blogs, images, Q & A forums and case studies.

Helpline: Hotline - 0800 089 9000 or txt 'v' to 80010 and someone will call you back
Telephone: 0207 960 7000
Address: 5th floor, Dean Bradley House, 52 Horseferry Road, London SW1P 2AF.
Email: info@vinspired.com
Website: http://www.vinspired.com/

Volunteer England

The national volunteer development organisation for England. Offers advice and support to those interested in becoming a volunteer and a range of contacts and resources aimed specifically at young volunteers. This website also includes an area dedicated to Student Volunteering.

Telephone: 0845 305 6979
Address: Regents Wharf, 8 All Saints Street, London, N1 9RL.
Fax: 020 7520 8910
Email: volunteering@volunteeringengland.org
Website: http://www.volunteering.org.uk/

Youth Action Network

You may want to develop your own community projects, or to volunteer with other young people. If so, there may be a local organisation which specialises in supporting young people's involvement in their communities. Visit the website for a simple guide on how to set up your own project, including sources of funding, and access to a database of local projects that support young people to take action in their communities.

Telephone: 0121 455 9732
Address: Crest House, 7 Highfield Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 3ED.
Fax: 0121 455 9697
Email: info@youth-action.org.uk
Website: http://www.youth-action.org.uk/

THE UNKNOWN SOLDIER

The warm glow of pride and achievement that we experienced as a nation during the London summer Olympics and Paralympics is beginning to eke away with the onset of autumnal chilly nights and the realities of living in recession Britain. However the experience of hosting the

Olympics and Paralympics meant that for a couple of months in the summer of 2012 we appropriated the Olympic symbol as our own. The globally recognised five rings were famously suspended from Tower Bridge, one of London’s most famous landmarks.

The symbol of the Olympic Games is composed of five interlocking rings, colored blue, yellow, black, green, and red on a white field. This was originally designed in 1912 by Baron Pierre de Coubertin, the founder of the modern Olympic Games. In the August, 1912

edition of Revue Olympique he wrote:

‘The emblem chosen to illustrate and represent the world Congress of 1914…: five intertwined rings in different colors – blue, yellow, black,

green, and red – are placed on the white field of the paper. These five rings represent the five parts of the world which now are won over

to Olympism and willing to accept healthy competition’.

The five rings represent the five continents of the world: America, Europe, Asia, Africa and Oceania (includes Australia).

This symbol is elegantly simple and was first used on an Olympic flag in the Antwerp Games of 1920. The Games had originally been awarded to Budapest in Hungary but as the Austro-Hungarian Empire was an ally of Germany in the First World War Hungary was banned from competing in the Games as was Germany and its other allies so the Games were transferred to Antwerp. The Olympic oath was also first taken in this Olympic Games by Belgian fencer Victor Boin. The Olympic Oath states,

"In the name of all competitors, I promise that we shall take part in these Olympic Games, respecting and abiding by the rules that govern them, in the true spirit of sportsmanship, for the glory of sport and the honor of our teams."

The oath supported the Olympic Creed which reads:

"The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win but to take part, just as the most important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle. The essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well."

The aftermath of WW1 saw the break-up of Empires, the establishment of nation states and revolutions against the prevailing powers (After WW1). One outcome among these changes

aligned with the Olympic movement was a move towards internationalism to prevent the re-occurrence of the horrors of world war. The League of Nations resulted from the 1919 Paris Peace conference whose primary aims were to prevent wars through collective security and disarmament and settling international disputes through negotiation and arbitration.

(League of Nations)

Another movement which developed after the War was to honour those who had died. The custom of acknowledging the sacrifice of those who died in wars was a recent phenomena which had emerged in the late nineteenth century. Before then memorials to victories in battle were more common such as the Arc de Triomphe in Paris. This was commissioned by Napoleon in 1806 and has the names of all the French victories in the French Revolutionary and the Napoleonic Wars and his generals inscribed on its inner and outer surfaces.

David Railton was educated at Oxford University and was ordained in to the Church of England in 1908. From 1914 to 1920 he was a curate in Folkestone but secured leave of absence to serve as a military chaplain in France. During 1916 he officiated at the burial of a comrade and on returning to his billet in Erkingham, near Armentieres, he went into a small garden at the back of the billet. It was in this small garden that the idea for an unknown serviceman to be transported back to England and to be buried with full honours first occurred to him. In an article on The Origin of the Unknown Warrior’s Grave, written by Railton in 1931 at the request of the Editor of a magazine called Our Empire, he recalled the genesis of the idea

‘I came back from the line at dusk. We had just laid to rest the mortal remains of a comrade. I went to the billet in front of Erkingham, near Armentières. At the back of the billet was a small garden, and in the garden, only about six paces from the house, there was a grave. At the head of the grave there stood a rough cross of white wood. On the cross was written in deep black pencilled letters, An Unknown British Soldier, and in brackets underneath, of the Black Watch. It was dusk, and no one was near, except some officers in the billet playing cards. I remember how still it was. Even the guns seemed to be resting. How that grave gave me to think !!. How I wondered. How I longed to see his folk !!. But, who was he, and who were they ?. . . Was he just a laddie... . There was no answer to those questions, nor has there ever been yet. So I thought and thought and wrestled in thought. What can I do to ease the pain of father, mother, brother, sister, sweetheart, wife and friend? Quietly and gradually there came out of the mist of thought this answer, clear and strong, Let this body, this symbol of him, be carried reverently over the sea to his native land’.

He wrote to Lord Douglas Haig expressing this idea but received no response but the idea stayed with him and in August 1920 when he was a curate at Margate he wrote about his idea to Herbert Ryle the Dean of Westminster Abbey. Doctor Ryle made the suggestion to the Government and the proposal was supported by the Prime Minister David Lloyd George. A Committee under Lord Curzon was set up to make the arrangements.

According to the officer in charge Brigadier-General Wyatt one body, identifiable only as a British soldier, was exhumed from each of the four main battle areas, the Aisne, the Somme, Ypres and Arras, on the night of 7 November and brought to the chapel at St.Pol. Each body was covered with a Union Jack and placed on a stretcher. Wyatt pointed to one of the bodies, which was placed in a coffin and the remaining three bodies were removed and reburied.

The next day the dead soldier began the journey to his final resting place. The coffin was taken to Boulogne and placed inside another coffin, made of oak from Hampton Court and sent over from England. Its plate bore the inscription: "A British Warrior who fell in the Great War 1914-1918 for King and Country". This second coffin had a 16th Century sword, taken from King George V's private collection, fixed on top.

On 9th November a French military escort went with the body to Boulogne, where Marshal Foch paid his own homage. British troops then took over guard duties and the body crossed the Channel in the destroyer Verdun, receiving a Field Marshal's nineteen gun salute on arrival at Dover. Crowds gathered at every station on the way as the Unknown Warrior's train travelled north from the Kent coat to London's Victoria station.

On the morning of November 11^th, exactly two years after the war had ended, the body of the Unknown Warrior was taken to the Cenotaph on a gun carriage pulled by six black horses, followed by twelve distinguished pallbearers, including Haig, Beatty and French.

This new war memorial on Whitehall was then unveiled by George V. At eleven o'clock - "the eleventh hour" - as Big Ben began to chime, the King turned to face the Cenotaph and, by a touch on a button, released the flags veiling the monument. As the chimes died away, everyone fell silent for two minutes, and the Last Post sounded.

Many of those who lined the streets watching the procession pass had been waiting all night.

The body was then taken to nearby Westminster Abbey where it was buried, passing through a guard of honour of 100 holders of the Victoria Cross. In a particularly poignant gesture, the grave was filled with earth from the main French battlefields, and the black marble stone was Belgian.

It had been planned that the grave of the Unknown Warrior would be closed after allowing a pilgrimage of three days but the Government were taken completely by surprise by the response of the people who all wanted to see the grave. Once the ceremony was finished the thousands of people who had lined the streets began to queue to pass through the Abbey. At least 40,000 people passed through the Abbey before the doors were closed at 11pm an hour later than the scheduled closure time. There were still long queues at midnight and people continued to visit the site through the night. The pilgrimage went on throughout the weekend, with Saturday bringing large numbers of pilgrims from outside London. Up to the time the grave was closed on 18th November an estimated 1.25 million people had visited the Abbey. Many more came in following months with the space enclosing the grave remaining filled with flowers and other tributes for almost a year.

The text inscribed on the tomb is taken from the bible (2 Chronicles 24:16): 'They buried him among the kings, because he had done good toward God and toward his house'.

There is a very good film using archive footage of the journey of the Unknown Warrior from France to England and his final resting place in Westminster Abbey in 1920 (The Unknown Soldier).