I’ve read a lot of outrage on twitter and in articles over the last few days over the government’s decision to withdraw the funding from the Booktrust charity, which currently runs a number of bookgiving schemes, including the well known Bookstart.
The quote which made me stop and think the most was from the Guardian:
Richard Holmes, biographer of Coleridge and Shelley, joined the criticism. He said: “One of my earliest memories is of my mother sitting under a Victorian standard lamp with curious golden fringes, reading the poems of Robert Louis Stevenson to me, while the rain beat in gusts on my bedroom window. I think my feeling that life is some sort of mysterious adventure, which I still feel after 60 years, began with those three things: the rain, the poems, and my mother softly reading under a golden palm tree. That is why I support the brilliant, magical idea of Bookstart.”
Hm.
For mothers who are going to read poetry to their children, receiving a couple of board books from the health visitor when baby is 9 months old is not going to make a lot of difference. I read poetry to my children. It’s not because of Bookstart though. Don’t get me wrong, I love free books, but I’d read poetry if we didn’t get them. And I suspect that being given a couple of books to read aloud with your baby, if you’ve never read poetry, isn’t going to set you off down that path.
Having books around is a good thing. But more than that, I think that children need to see ppl reading. Perhaps bookstart would be more effective if it gave a family pack – or an invitation to join the library.
Or perhaps the fact that it takes a (government funded) charity to give out books is part of the problem. Yet another example of the state interfering, saying don’t worry, we will tell you what is best, we will give your child books as we check their growth, tell you what you should be feeding them when, whether your house is clean or safe enough, when they should learn, what they should learn. Ever earlier intervention and meddling that removes family’s self determination, telling us that we need teachers for our children from earlier and earlier ages.
Unsurprisingly, I don’t agree. We don’t need interference and instruction at anywhere near the level we’re getting. And I’d never realised before that Booktrust was government funded – I really don’t think they ought to be called a charity in that case. It’s extremely misleading. How is it charity if it comes entirely from the taxpayer’s purse? Or perhaps we should refer to schools and hospitals as charities too?
There are undoubtedly families who do need targetted assistance, resources and support. But because we have this across the board approach, they aren’t getting it. And because the state will do it, individuals don’t. It’s a vicious circle where magic wands are brought out to fix the things other magic wands broke in the first place.
Since I started writing this post yesterday there appears to have been a u-turn. It’s hoped the government will go on funding Booktrust. But I’m not altogether sure this a good thing, and I think looking at how this has been achieved is even more enlightening. There were no protests in the street from families bewailing their loss. Instead lots of influential ppl got on the phone or in the paper, and pressured ppl who can pressure ppl. Democracy in action?
Yet more food for thought.
Leave a Reply