What makes schooling good?

Last Monday, a Radio 4 'Analysis' programme discussed what makes good schools good. Ethos and environment were important, and of course the quality of teaching. The programme also pointed out, however, that family background/influences account for 90% of a child's progress, with only 10% due to schools. Put another way, 'successful' pupils are mostly from middle class homes. But it's not the bigger house or fancier food that makes the difference, though no doubt they help. The things that predispose children to succeed include discussion, questionning, curiosity, and a sense that the world is full of wonderful things that are worth discovering.
These are intangible yet profound benefits, and can only be acquired by a close and happy relationship between parent and child. If we want to improve the lives of children who come from disadvantaged backgrounds we should focus on ensuring that their parents have or gain these skills. If we want to increase the influence of schools, and make schooling good, we should ensure that teachers behave like the best parents and interact with children at a personal level to help them not only understand and learn, but to make their lives happy and exciting. And we need to reduce class size. Actually, I'm probably describing Eton without the boarding and flogging, and I'm implying cost. But fulfilled children are more important than a handful of satisfied bankers.

Migraine II

My last migraine episode reminded me in no uncertain terms about the gastro-intestinal aspects of the condition. The complete lack of cold symptoms at the time also made me doubt my previous ideas about a viral origin (though I still think it was an interesting idea!). This has led me to a re-think, and a realisation that the emetic centres of the brain ( specifically the area postrema in the medulla) must have some involvement. This links to some extent to the observations from PET scans (as reported by the Migraine Trust) that brain stem areas appear to be active during migraine attacks. The Migraine Trust article indicates that current thinking is more in favour of neurological origins of migraine than vascular, but I wonder if both are involved. The area postrema is a curious structure that by-passes the blood-brain barrier to some extent and is sensitive to several circulating chemicals. One substance for which receptiors have been found is prolactin, which apparently is associated with osmoregulation in lower animals. Perhaps migraine attacks are associated with changes in prolactin levels - these can vary diurnally and seasonally, and perhaps might peak after periods of stress; the osmoregulatory aspect of its function may cause changes in intra-cranial pressure associated with headache.The involvement of prolactin - or something like it - might also help explain why females are more affected than males, and why women tend to suffer less after menopause (see Migraine Trust factsheet). However, migraine does not seem to be a major symptom of hyperprolactinaemia. Apparently, dopamine tends to inhibit synthesis of prolactin, so the ultimate orgin of migraines may be disturbances to dopaminergic pathways - this could be tested by appropriate use of dopamine agaonists/antagonists.
It's another idea, anyway!