Times Interview with Kate Clanchy - shared article in post

This is a really good point. In the absence of the 'perfect' support, is the answer really none at all? It seems like Clanchy's impact on these children was overall very positive, even if some of her actions can be questioned.

We hear that in many places, for example, there is zero mental health support available for children. There may be a bit of medication available. But there are no counsellors trained in safeguarding and supporting paediatric mental health.

So should a teacher, confronted with a traumatised child, just ignore that? It is probably the sensible advice if one values one's career and doesn't wish to get into deep shit.

Is it the human thing to do?

What I expect happens far more often than a teacher encouraging a child to express themselves, is that broken children get no help at all. No teachers offering to listen to them, no counsellors springing up out of nowhere to offer this perfectly appropriate 'support' that people like to imagine exists.

I think I'm going to have to read it too, but it's going at the end of a long, long tbr pile.

When I was at primary school, a number of decades ago, we were given a book to read that descriptions of Kate Clanchy's book brought to mind

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Wedding-Nicer-Than-Cats-Miss/dp/0435121820

From comments in the reviews it may be there may have been a deliberate effort to have this book widely read. Perhaps to foster empathy for recent immigrants, the problems they faced. I don't doubt were I to go back and reread it I'd find bits problematical, but I think it was well intentioned and probably did massively more good than harm. I think it's out of print now.

Some of the bits quoted from Kate's book have made me uncomfortable. Some of her defences seem nitpicky. Although I don't see the problem with some bits that others criticised.

It's an interesting point. That heartbreaking article seems to me that she was trying to help, and succeeded in helping, deeply traumatised children.

I think the arguments are maybe about very intense human issues. Yes, allowing a child to write poetry may upset them. Yes, children are upset at school. Yes, teachers' jobs include pastoral care that they may not be perfect at. And yes, one could argue that offering to help someone is a risk.

It’s in the book, the whole scenario is detailed, and this was also published as an excerpt in the guardian in 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/mar/31/kate-clanchy-some-kids-i-taught-and-what-they-taught-me

Where is the evidence that she did any of these things?

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

Everything filtered through this 'identity'or 'oppression' nexus lens. It's just so terminally dull, pointless and shuts down all genuine debate and genuine empathy and understanding.

This woman knew these children well and quite obviously cared about them. The fact that she's white doesn't change that.

You talk about broader context: how about considering the power of a posh, white, educated, lauded teacher, who publishes your work and takes you into radio etc, and how that dynamic might play out with the children in her care.

Isnt the whole point of the book to look at prejudice and discrimination and classism, racism, etc, and how it affects society and education?

Certainly sounds like it to me. The children themselves were very happy with the output by all accounts.

It’s not just ‘a word they don’t like’ - that is a reductive and patronising take.

Well her training is clearly out of date or she has wantonly gone against its principles, as she detailed in her book. You cannot pursue a child (vulnerable or otherwise) over and over again, going against the authority of a child’s key worker/main responsible adult, just to get them to write a poem about their trauma. Or is that ok to you? Does that genuinely seem like a safe thing to do in your eyes?

I feel that certain elements of society have become totally incapable of seeing the bigger picture or understanding broader intentions.

They cannot see this commitment.

They just go off on one based on a word they don't like, like pavlov's dog. All broader context and common sense go out the window.

I actually read this book before all the furore because I thought it sounded interesting. What comes through is her commitment to these children and her determination that their voices should be heard. At no point did I feel she dehumanised them, rather the opposite in fact. Yes , occasionally there are bits which make you feel a bit uncomfortable, but since when was it the job of a writer to make the reader feel comfortable all the time?

What the Orwell Prize judges said about her book:

“In this book, a brilliantly honest writer tackles a subject that ties so many people up in knots – education and how it is inexorably dominated by class. Yet this is the very opposite of a worthy lecture: Clanchy’s reflections on teaching and the stories of her students are moving, funny, full of love and offer sparkling insights into modern British society.”

I am going to read the book. Because it seems to me that the book is more than just odd snippets taken out of context. I don’t know if I’ll like it or not. But I feel that I owe Kate more than just discussing the theoretics of it on MN.

Really interesting podcast/ documentary. I felt most alienated from the episode about the publisher. How about employing better editors, and giving them more power, and then standing by your publication?

Bevause I did feel shocked at some of what I heard being read out from the book. It seemed to me that it desperately needed a highly involved edit, if it was going to be published at all. I was also a bit WTF at the Orwell prize committee.

I didn’t think the social media accuser came across at all well, and I thought the idea that Clanchy was adding fuel to the fire was pure victim blaming. I felt for her, she sounded broken, but also unseeing. It all certainly reinforced my experience that the world of publishing is like a secondary school playground except the acid tongues soray real acid.

Sadly I cannot get the archive link to open. I dont subscribe to the Times, so cannot access the other. Is the shared link limited?

Has she even had any teacher training? Nope

It would take you about 30 seconds to discover that this statement is untrue. She trained as a teacher in the 1980s and her memoir was about her 30+ years of teaching.

‘So many of our children had a loss to mourn. Isn’t that what poetry’s for?’ | Kate Clanchy | The Guardian

Thanks for replying to my post, but could you answer my questions?

Grow up.

Yes it does

Nope

So you haven’t read it but you think that gives you the right to play judge, jury and hangman.

It doesn’t.

What on earth makes you think I missed this? I watched it play out at the time.

I don’t have to have read a book to know about it and know what happened.

And the difference is you’re slagging off an author and a book you haven’t read. I’m supporting an author to write her own words and not be thrown under the bus by her cowardly publisher.