Voices blog

A mentor once offered me this nugget during one of many iterations of my quarter-life crisis: ‘find where head and heart intersect…and stay there’. A rather lofty guiding principle. But it’s possible that through conducting evaluation research for Go-Givers, I have.

I’ve spent a good part of the last few months poring over children’s mindmaps, or in the technical language of our recently completed evaluation report: ‘pupils’ pre and post topic assessments’. Using these humble representations of their minds, I have been trying to read into the pathways and cognitive activity of 4 to 11 year olds, but with little expertise on what constitutes trajectories of progression in social, emotional and moral literacy. My intuitive self thinks that the 10-year old grappling with issues of scapegoating, for example, who states that,

‘scape goating is where someone blam[e]s a person or a animal because someone who looked like them or is in the same religion or is the same animal did something wrong, so they blam[e] it on the other person/animal that didn’t do anything wrong’,

probably has a sound understanding of the stereotyping that underlies its more violent counterpart, scapegoating. Ok, I admit he shows some confusion with the charming allegory in the Go-Givers lesson that features a character who happens to be well, a goat. But his literal interpretation indicates to me this pupil has internalised the concept, rather than regurgitating a soundbite from his teacher. I can tell, for example, that he has progressed further along than his classmate who states:

‘I have learned that the goats got blamed for what the sheep did’,

who doesn’t appear to have moved from the specific (fictitious) examples to realise the bigger societal picture. But perhaps this response from another child does signal that shift:

‘scapegoat mean that if 1 child is bad everyone think all children are bad’

Certainly, this pupil has extrapolated from the story about the goat who is a victim of scapegoating to another vulnerable group in society. Perhaps she has herself felt the unfairness of this particular strain of stereotyping. None of these pupils were answering a specific question (as on a test-based assessment), but via free associations, all of them volunteered something about scapegoating that suggests varied levels of conceptual understanding.

This is the kind of intuitive ‘leveling’ that has guided my qualitative analysis of the ‘data’ in this evaluation, that is, the mindmaps that were completed before and after pupils engaged with Go-Givers resources around themes ranging from ‘anti-bullying’ to ‘rights and responsibilities’ to ‘sustainability’, among others. (See a sample of pupil mindmaps [pdf])

Teachers probably make these kind of intuitive judgements every day to determine if their pupils are progressing. But here in the office, far removed from the ‘field’ and the constant observable clues, our cerebral selves are supposed to take over. We are bound by sector imperatives to ‘demonstrate impact’, ‘measure social value’, ‘assess outcomes’, and so on. I don’t need to be convinced that if we are in the business of creating change, it is important to know if we are doing it, and doing it right. It’s equally important to know if that change would happen anyway (deadweight in eval speak) and whether that change is indeed due to our intervention (attribution)? In short: do we need to exist?

But does a fixation with neatly standardised data to provide an evidence-based justification for the work we do compromise our affective sense of what comprises change? Conducting an in-house evaluation certainly is rife with issues about objectivity. But at the same time, with our institutional knowledge of our users, our acute awareness of the roadblocks to participation (in the programme and in its evaluation), and perhaps somewhat childlike sensibilities that allow us to get ‘inside’ the heads of children, we (a team of ex-teachers excepting myself) may be the best equipped to apply the wealth of evaluation best practices and make them age appropriate, and of educational value, for our cognitively specific stakeholders of primary school children.

Our evaluative process has been riddled with questions I feel we have not satisfactorily answered: How do we know change has occurred? How do we know pupils’ intention will translate into action? How do we know the impact will be long-lasting? How can we be rigorous and flexible in methodological design? How can we make evaluation meaningful for the participants? But we have made some (qualitative) progress towards negotiating these tensions. (For a fuller discussion of the methodology, see p.5 of the full report)

Even though we may not be able to quantify the social value we generate, or scale and score the non-standardised data with any confidence that this would be meaningful, we may at the very least have come up with a way to visualise internal changes in our beneficiaries. The best we can do is observe, interpret and make judgements that justify the content and opportunities we are providing through our intervention, as teachers so often do.

Perhaps evaluating outcomes in children is precisely about being affective and analytical at the same time, about trusting our intuitive sense of what qualifies progress. Perhaps, as a reflective activity for us as practitioners, it is ultimately where head and heart intersect.

On Friday I attended a Go Givers session with some year 5 students at St Ignatius Primary School in Tottenham. I was at the session with Guardian journalist Fran Abrams who is writing a piece about the class’s anti-knife crime campaign, which was initiated through Go Givers.

First the class demonstrated several real-life scenarios and acted out the different choices they could take in each instance. This was followed by a talk from Alvin the Outreach Worker at the local church. He talked to the class about the choices he had made in his life, and was successful in relating his life choices to the choices the pupils have to make for themselves now, and the ones they may go on to make in the future.

This was followed by a lively discussion where the pupils talked about knife crime in their community, and how it has impacted on their lives and the lives of people they know. They talked about the motivations for carrying a knife and the prevention of this behaviour, and how they felt they could positively influence their peers. I was impressed with how knowledgeable these young people were and the maturity and passion with which they were able to tackle the issues around knife crime.

I was thrilled when Fran asked whether they felt that these kinds of issues should be tackled in primary classrooms and almost every student in the classroom jumped up to answer. It seemed every student felt that, yes, it was important for young people to discuss these issues because they were aware that knife crime happens in their community and they felt they could make a difference. I can’t wait to see Fran’s piece in print in a few weeks!

Go Givers is our flagship programme for primary schools to develop caring, concerned citizens with the confidence and skills to make a difference to their communities, both local and global.

Go Givers resources are usually used in citizenship education classes, but this subject is not currently statutory for primary students. The Democratic Life campaign, of which the Citizenship Foundation is a member, is working to change this.

Yesterday I attended the Citizenship Foundation’s Go-Givers ‘Make a Difference Challenge’ event at City Hall. The event was held to celebrate the achievements of children from 21 different schools, in the Greater London area, on their ‘Make a Difference Challenge’ projects.

The ‘Make a Difference Challenge’ is run by the Go-Givers team and works with teachers in primary schools. The pupils are asked to pick an issue that is important to them, and then figure out a way to improve make a difference on that issue. Some examples the children presented at yesterday’s event included racism, children in the nearby hospital, dirty water in Africa, and global warming.

The schools each took a different approach since they were dealing with varying issues. For example, the group that focussed on racism worked to raise awareness and the pupils who were concerned about the children in the hospital decided to hold a toy sale to raise money. The event was exciting to take part in because the children’s enthusiasm was contagious. They were all keen on talking about the issues they chose and how they worked to make a difference. Not only did this event celebrate the children’s work, but it also promoted values of citizenship through the children working together for a common goal that will improve others lives.

It was nice to see their excitement about being at City Hall and watching them showcase their projects. The schools were able to hang up pictures and examples of their work and lay out their class scrapbook for other schools and passers by to see. Groups of excited, and slightly nervous, school children filled the chamber and took turns to present their work. Some schools had choreographed dances, others made videos, and some took a more traditional stance and just spoke about why they picked, what they did, and what they learned. They also had a break where they could have some juice and biscuits and just enjoy the view. After each performance, the group was presented with a Go-Givers certificate and had their picture taken.

Overall, I really enjoyed helping out at this event because the children were very adorable and inspiring. It was great to see how much some of them have learned about the issue they chose. It was such a positive event and also a pleasant reminder that doing little things can make a big difference.

If your school would like to get involved with Go-Givers ‘Make a Difference Challenge’ in the future, visit our website or contact Marguerite Heath.

Children, among the ‘cuddliest’ of causes, in the language of the sector, are most often on the receiving side of philanthropy. We are less primed to think of them as the givers - of time, talent, and funds - to ‘cuddly’ and ‘non-cuddly’ causes alike.

However, the recently published Giving Green Paper poses the question, how can we ‘increase levels of giving and mutual support in our society and catalyse a culture shift that makes social action a social norm’? And the paper readily recognises that the building blocks of empathetic attitudes and complex social understanding established in the earliest stages of development will inform lifelong giving: ‘giving is more an attitude than something you only do when you have money. It’s easiest if you learn it young’.

Similarly, Go-Givers‘ broad theory of change is that embedding the knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviour of giving and other forms of social action in the primary stages of education will persist across the individual’s life span to create a more vibrant democracy and cohesive society for generations to come. The vision of the Big Society recognises that access to opportunities for participation and giving is a social differential that needs to be equalised. Operating in almost a third of English primary schools, Go-Givers has been working towards mobilising a mass population of dormant givers — often overlooked as cuddly, but ineffectual.

We know from our organisational memory and research that primary-aged children are often startlingly aware, empathetic and ready to mobilise, but with little structured opportunity to do so. An entrant to our ‘Dear Prime Minister’ competition held during election season in 2010 laments the fact that for upper primary pupils, ‘there isn’t a way to get thoroughly involved! I feel at the moment children’s voices aren’t being heard, we seem to be drowned out by the monsterous bellows of adults.’ In its fourth year of implementation, Go-Givers has been addressing this appeal by offering comprehensive citizenship-oriented learning resources and active citizenship opportunities to primary schools across the country.

As prescribed by the government’s Green Paper, Go-Givers has a history of focusing on the benefits of giving to the individual - the skills gained and knowledge acquired - as well as the less tangible benefits to society that come with transformed attitudes and positive early experiences of giving. This month, Go-Givers launched its annual Make a Difference Challenge, where pupils in Greater London, Kent, West Berkshire, Hampshire and Leeds learn about, campaign, and generate solutions to an issue of their choice. A participant from last year claims, ‘before I started the project I felt selfish, but now I feel more kind’.

Register to use Go-Givers free PSHE & Citizenship resources and join the Go-Givers community on facebook for topical tips and opportunities.

When Marguerite and I arrived at the auditorium at the Romsey School in Hampshire, we entered a world of organised chaos. Like elves in a workshop, over 40 primary pupils guided by 20 of their secondary school peers were busily cutting, gluing, measuring, designing and fitting.

In the background, a projector rotated pictures of carnival festivities in Rio, Trinidad and Notting Hill to the drum beat of soca, while the walls were adorned with messages, such as “what is your cause?”, “what do you care about?” and “what do you want to say?”  These questions were answered at the end of the day when parents gathered in the hall for the colourful culmination, a carnival where students paraded the social issue or charity of their choice.

Heather, who works with Go Givers schools in Portsmouth and Southampton, organised a full day event where pupils from Awbridge Primary School, Portsmouth Schools Student Voice group representatives, the Go Givers Club from St. Joseph’s RC Primary School, and a network of home schooled children came together to choose an issue they care about and then create costumes and floats to represent their choice.  Using the history of carnival as a form of social organising, Heather worked in partnership with community artist, Jennie Rawles, to give the pupils an opportunity to voice their concerns creatively. The event piloted the “Senior Leader Teams” model where Year 9 students facilitated the process with the designing and costume-making skills they gained in their training session with Jennie.  The older students took their jobs seriously, whether it meant maintaining the safety standards of the glue guns, or patiently helping their primary-age counterparts cut around a tricky bit of material, or making sure everyone was happy with their final product.

As Jennie pointed out, the event “gives them a chance to be creative.  Most people think you have to be an artist to be creative, but children see things adults might not.  They can turn a scrap of material into a sleeve.”  From a cardboard box converted into a 2-person dog costume to represent the RSCPA, to an old fleece transformed into a polar bear trapped by melting ice caps, an effect of global warming, both pupils and students learned how to be resourceful, but also that fun and celebration can make a difference.