Gove Reports To The Education Select Committee

Get Rid Of Michael Gove E-Petition

Here's your chance people:

Click Here!

It's a parliamentary e-petition that needs to be signed by 15th February, 2012.

Don't miss out!

Teachers' Standards

Usually I get nervous when I receive an email from the head, but this one appeared to be pretty safe as it contained an attachment of the latest document published by the Department of Education entitled "Teachers' Standards".

What an interesting read it is too, albeit most of it fairly obvious and what you'd expect to be honest. It has probably taken a huge amount of time and money to produce when there was a similar thing around before called the Core Standards.

There are a couple of interesting bullet points mind, and I shall review them below.

The very first bullet point says the teacher should "establish a safe and stimulating environment for pupils, rooted in mutual respect". The first bit is fine, if a little rose-tinted as not everything on the curriculum (a curriculum that the government wrote, or their minnions did at least), The final bit does make me laugh a little. I presume that the children will all be informed of this mutual respect thing. Respect is a two-way thing after all.

It reminds me of a time when I taught one of a set of triplets who liked to disrupt every lesson he was in and that meant me (as well as his other teachers) constantly trying to chivvy him along, asking him not to disturb the rest of the class and inform him that he lacked respect for his classmates who were trying to learn and was therefore quite selfish. It resulted in him standing up in the middle of the class and shouting "I hate you", to which I replied "I reckon I'll sleep tonight". At that point everyone (bar me, I hasten to add) laughed at him and he ran out, never to be seen again. It meant everyone else having a chance of actually passing. There's no way that you can convince me that he would ever show respect to anyone, let alone any of his teachers, to whom he clearly felt some sort of pre-conceived revulsion, for no apparent reason.

That point could be interesting to enforce.

The other part of the Teachers' Standards document that made be laugh/despair was the bullet point that says teachers should "be accountable for pupils' attainment, progress and outcomes". I've always struggled with this accountability thing that politicians go on about. The one major issue I have with it is that the outcome isn't entirely down to the teacher; the children have quite a lot to do with their final results through paying attention, making an effort, revising, and many other things that would contribute to their eventual success. Strangely enough the pupils' role in this isn't mentioned. This appears to be a fairly common theme in the public sector at the moment.

The rest of the document is the usual standard, wishy-washy tripe so often spewed from Whitehall, of the "act decisively when necessary" ilk. The document itself is yet another stick to clobber a teacher with when they have fallen out of management's favour and once again fails to give youngsters any responsibility for actions, choosing to blame teachers for things out of their control.

I eagerly await the publication of the "Parents and Childrens' Standards" document. It should be an entertaining read.

"Below Average" Kids

I found this article on the BBC News website the other day: Click here!

What a bizarre story! It essentially says that those children who turn up at secondary school with below average grades, finish secondary school with below average grades. Thank you Sherlock, I'd never have guessed.

This is fairly typical of politicians who will never admit that some children aren't cut out for academia and may have talents in other areas, but due to the nature of education in the UK and it's academic focus, these children "under-achieve". What do you expect from teachers? They can't work miracles for all those "below average" students. Some do close the gap with enormous amounts of extra help from staff, but with average class sizes still at around 30 and funding being cut, the time that politicians suggest teachers devote to these children just isn't available.

If the time required to raise these children's attainment was afforded to them, those who had worked hard before entering secondary school would have to be ignored which would therefore have a detrimental effect on their grades. Once again teachers can't win and are chastised by those in suits as a result.

What is also ignored is that these children may not actually want to learn, whatever efforts are made. A lot depends on parental support, which in many cases isn't forthcoming as statistically these children tend to be from backgrounds where schooling wasn't seen as important. You'd be surprised at how many parents support their child's lack of application at school, making excuses for their child's lack of enthusiasm for learning.

I teach an intelligent lad who entered secondary school with above average grades but has since decided to enter the tattooing and piercing profession (which is fine) and, with the support of his parents, is convinced that he doesn't really need qualifications. Due to his natural aptitude towards learning and his knowledge gained up to this point he will probably leave school with the statutory 5 A* to C grades, but well below what he has been targeted by the algorithm schools use to generate targets. Whose fault will it be? Mine, and his other teachers despite the fact that this is a choice made by the child with the full support of his parents. This doesn't really seem fair to me, as all his teachers have tried to enthuse him with little or no success.

My other issue with this report is the fact that the statistics were released by the Department for Education, who would have ploughed thousands, if not millions of pounds into the frankly obvious findings of this research, and that money surely could have been used far more effectively elsewhere.

It got the government another headline though, I suppose, at the expense of teacher morale once more.

Work/Life Balance - My Ar*e

It was the big thing a few years ago, but it appears to be out of favour now as politicians attempt to lengthen the school day, extend school terms and even insist upon Saturday classes.

You may have noticed that I haven't posted for a few days. This is due to the fact that I have been preparing resources for the past three or four evenings in an attempt to produce those outstanding lessons so desperately craved by the politicians. I should add that I haven't planned when these resources are going to be used yet, but they are ready to be used when I finally get the opportunity. The planning will eat up a few more evenings I'm sure.

My days are currently timetabled as such:

6.15am: Get up and dressed.
7am: Get child ready for school.
7.30am: Drop child off at the childminder's so that I can get to work on time.
7.45am: Get to work and get everything ready for the day.
8.30am - 1.30pm: Teaching.
1.30pm - Lunch break (duty for the second half of that).
2.15pm - 3.15pm: Teaching.
3.15pm - 5pm: Preparing lessons and phoning/emailing parents with troublesome children.
5.15pm: Collect child from childminder.
5.30pm - 8.30pm: Arrive home and preparing resources whilst spouse puts child to bed.

This isn't a sob-story, but this is my day without the extra, proposed hours (and therefore lessons), so if or when Gove gets his wish, I will be doing little other than working; this can't be healthy for anyone. I'm certainly not on the wages that merit the hours I would have to put in (and nor are other teachers) so what will happen to education? It's fairly obvious isn't it? There won't be any.

Not that anyone outside of the profession cares, after all we get 13 weeks holiday per year. But for how much longer? The only reason that many teachers remian in the job in the current climate of "blame teachers for everything" is the fact that the holidays are actually (still) quite good. Take those away, I have a feeling that you may find that your children will be in classes of 45 students taught by over-tired staff desperately trying to keep up with the latest government whim.

What they fail to spot is that the so-called better countries as far as education is concerned have shorter days, longer holidays and no weekend classes. They have refreshed staff and students who are open to learning rather than pining for their beds.

Tweet Michael Gove

On Friday 27th January, 2012 Michael Gove will be asked questions put to him via Twitter.

If you have an account then you can write a tweet with the hashtag #AskGove and then put your poser to him.

Not convinced, then here's the article: Click here!

The only issue is how to word it politely!

Homework in Room 101

A new series of the popular TV show Room 101 began last night, with a new format whereupon three guests offer up an item for banishment and new host Frank Skinner decides which item is selected for disposal. The first category for the guest to choose was "School Days" and TV "personality" and the face of Ryvita, Fern Britton chose homework, which ended up being voted in.

Her argument was that children should work hard at school but be allowed to be children in the evenings whilst at home. I have some time for this opinion, I have to say, as long as the children actually do work hard in school.

As far as I can see it, the pros for homework are these:

1. It gives children the opportunity to practise the things they've learnt in class, relying on their notes and own understanding of the work - those are what they'd revise from after all. If they struggle then they know they need to get help to get over these issues.
2. It gives teachers some marks on different topics to see how each child in ttheir class is getting on, which helps the teacher plan for future lessons.
3. This is the main one: people expect it to be set, even if it's totally pointless, they want to see that their child is being set something to do. It is a way that parents can find out what their children are learning at school.

The cons for homework would be:

1. Teachers spend a huge amount of time chasing incomplete homework, time that could be better spent planning lessons or exciting activities to enthuse their classes rather than phoning home or sitting in detention with half a dozen miscreants.
2. Any child with half a brain will realise quite quickly (as I did) that if you do a little bit of a homework task and then say you got stuck you won't get detention because you "had a go", and you didn't waste your entire evening on pointless tasks.
3. It would save every school in the land tousands of pounds in photocopying every year. For a class of 30 children a teacher will have to produce around 45 worksheets due to loss of original, hungry pets, spillages in school bag and anything else they can think of. Could the money be spent better elsewhere?

It looks like it's here to stay whatever Frank Skinner thinks, as I noticed in Michael Gove's new document "Teachers' Standards" that was sent around this week that teachers must "set homework and other out-of-class activities to consolidate and extend the knowledge and understanding pupils have acquired." This document will feature in future posts having read it.

I just think that homework is set purely due to expectation rather than any education value, which is ultimately, a total waste of time for all involved!

Satisfactory Is No Longer Satisfactory

It must officially be teacher baiting season at the moment as Sir Michael Wilshaw, the new Chief Inspector of Schools has joined his boss, Secretary of State for Education Michael Gove, in kicking the teaching profession whilst it's down.

In recent weeks and months we have seen teachers face:

• A reduction in real terms pay due to a pay freeze, followed by a well below inflation rise of 1%;
• An increase in pension contributions, but a decrease in pension payments;
• The mandate that all teachers will have to work until their late sixties before collecting that reduced pension; 
• Schools being forced to adopt academy status (against parents, teachers and governors wishes), meaning that teachers see a change (usually for the worse) in their contract, pay and conditions; 
• The introduction of what is commonly being called a "bully's charter" whereupon headteachers can almost literally sack a teacher on a whim for "under-performing", or as many suspect will happen, headteachers will get rid of teachers they don't like in about a term; 
• Changes in the curriculum (meaning more work for teachers in planning) because teachers make stuff boring according to Gove; 
• The school day is to be extended and holidays shortened, but with no change in wage as far as I can see.

The list is relatively long and I have probably forgotten parts, but teachers are metaphorically black and blue as a result of these things alone.
Enter stage left: Sir Michael Wilshaw, who suggests that:

• Scruffy teachers be given official warnings (scruffy in whose eyes?);
• Ofsted inspections become far tougher to achieve the higher gradings (gradings that are in fact illegal in the first place according to the Hampton Review passed in 2005 - look it up);
• Ofsted inspectors will give schools no notice of an inspection (which will almost certainly mean increased workload for teachers as headteachers panic);
• Ofsted inspections will be more frequent for those schools who "require improvement". (Any ideas where the extra money for these extra inspections will come from?)
• And finally, "satisfactory" is being rebranded to "requires improvement". Now this last one may not seem a huge deal, but as Ofsted gets tougher, more and more schools and their teachers are going to be put under more stress to improve students (and parents) who don't want to change because they will be too busy listening to politicians tell them via various tabloid media forums that all teachers are rubbish, so why should they change in the first place.

I'm not 100% sure what the overall goal of the current regime is at the moment, although they presumably believe they are doing the right thing. If it's to totally demoralise the teaching profession, they have succeeded, outstandingly one could say. If it's an attempt to raise standards, I'm afraid they require improvement, or arguably are inadequate. And here is why:

• Teachers already work quite hard actually, despite what the gutter press tell you. Most teachers (there are always exceptions) work from around 7.30am until about 5pm at school itself, and many work at home in the evening too, as well as weekends.The work/life balance that politicians promised a few years ago has all but disappeared.
• Getting rid of so-called "satisfactory" or "requires improvement" teachers sounds wonderful, but those teachers beat worse teachers in interview to get the job in the first place, so who's going to replace these rubbish practitioners? There won't be enough new teachers leaving university of the standard talked about as it takes years to become established in the classroom. Some ought to go, that's fine, but most schools find that when they get rid of someone, the replacement is often worse.
• Are they going to change the students who "require improvement"? Of course not, they can't. In a growing number of cases, it doesn't make the blindest bit of difference what the teacher is doing, the student is not interested in learning. Social phenomena such as "X Factor" and "Britain's Got Talent" give young people the impression that they can get rich quick through fame on a reality TV show, and you don't need qualifications to do that. At our last Ofsted inspection at least two of my colleagues were told that due to the class they were teaching they couldn't get higher than a "satisfactory" grading, and quotes to staff such as "you will need to change your stock (meaning students) if you want to get higher than satisfactory" don't fill me with a huge amount of confidence.
• Making all students do more academic subjects like Latin, History and Geography, to name but a few. Some young people just aren't cut out for these subjects. Most, if not all lessons would be like bad dentistry - pulling teeth.
• Forcing schools to become academies and building them new premises is a white elephant as the "clientele" aren't going to change. I like to call this "turd polishing", meaning that "you can make it as shiny as you like, but at the end of the day it's still a turd".
• Making teachers work longer hours means that they have less hours to plan all those outstanding lessons so desperately craved by Ofsted and headteachers alike. They will also be more tired for their classes and not be able to show enthusiasm for what they are trying to get across to their class.
• Ultimately people will start leaving the profession as the pressure increases until there aren't enough teachers to go around (we are already seeing it in some subject areas), meaning that the remaining, presumably outstanding staff, are having to teach larger and larger classes that in turn makes their own standards fall and they get sacked for being inadequate in front of too many children.
• As a result of all of the above, teachers will be off sick with stress, depression, exhaustion and various other things, meaning that non-specialist cover staff will be drafted in to teach the lessons of those who are ill. These lessons will be worse than the original ones so reviled by Wilshaw and Gove.

These are all the things I can think of for now, but I'm sure other people could add some. We are currently seeing the systematic dismantling of the teaching profession and I fear for the youth of tomorrow, who as a result of the changes being made, will end up facing the consequences of this ill-advised edicts from Whitehall and get a pretty raw deal from the British educational system.

A Laugh At The Idiot's Expense

Ten Years To Notice The Difference

Michael Gove has suggested that it will take 10 years for his educational policies to bear fruit and send the UK back up the worldwide education league table, from about 25th position currently, to who knows where. The trouble is Michael, that you may have very few teachers left by then.

His proposals, as far as I can make out, are something along these lines:

1. Cut spending and make schools more efficient. I'm not sure that he really has a choice on this as everywhere is having to suffer cuts in funding to prevent financial meltdown countrywide, if not worldwide.
2. Encourage as many schools as possible to become academies, the reason apparently being to give schools more control over their budgets, but in reality it just threatens staff due to changes in contracts, and the top brass in schools award themselves disproportionate wages. Millions of pounds, that could be spent far more effectively elsewhere in schools, is spent building new premises when the old ones were perfectly workable. At the end of the day, the same kids will be walking through the door, a new building just gives them a fresh canvas.
3. Allow headteachers to sack any consistently under-performing teachers (a good thing) and any teachers they don't particularly like (not a good thing). Another policy that threatens all staff, even the good ones, who by the sounds of Gove's speeches, don't really exist, since he seems to be constantly undermining teachers and their professional judgements, informed by years of experience. Gove likes listening to people who don't actually enter the classroom very often, and headteachers will just manipulate observations and targets to oust teachers they are not keen on.
4. Make it almost impossible to permenantly exclude children by forcing the school that excludes a child to continue paying for that child's education. In a time of dwindling budgets, and the fact that the school only gets paid for the number of students in the school, this policy will mean a worsening situation in schools, where the few consequences that could face a misbehaving child are even further removed. Lawlessness is around the corner.
5. To ensure that exams are tougher and the higher grades are tougher to come by. I have no problem with this per se, as standards have dropped in recent times due to the inflation of top grades, or in layman's terms, giving top grades to those who don't really deserve them. My only issue is that teachers will get it in the neck because their classes will not be reaching the targets set by the school/government, as presumably they will not reflect the increasing difficulty of the children achieving the top grades.
6. To change the curriculum in many areas, which again I have little problem with in theory, the only problem being that those writing the new curriculum haven't ever or recently done the job. Teachers seem to be totally excluded from any discussions regarding their profession with this regime, although it was the same with the previous government.
7. Give the school more powers over the children, and not allowing parents to retain all the cards in the pack as they currently do. I have seen or heard no evidence of this policy in schools or on the news, but I did hear that this was a policy from the horse's mouth, as it were. Not Gove himself, but one of his underlings. Some of the comments made could only have been made by someone who has no experience of the workings of a school, such as telling parents to send their children to another school for simply not allowing their child to attend a detention. This is simply not workable, as anyone working in a school would know. That school wouldn't survive a a couple of years due to falling numbers and therefore falling budget. They are convinced though, because Sir Michael Wilshaw did it in Hackney, and he's God in their eyes - I jest you not.
8. Talking of Sir Micahel Wilshaw, Ofsted inspections will be far more rigorous and schools will be given no notice. I haven't a problem with the no notice thing, but the more stringent Ofsted insoection is a worry. These people (I mean the inspectors rather than the politicians, although I can understand if you were confused) are clueless and arrive in school with pre-formed judgements, the school having little or no chance of changing the inspectors' minds. The more stringent the inspections become, the more excuse the inspectors have to just slate a school for no reason, meaning that the staff in that school's lives become hell until the next inspection.

I'm sure that there are more policies up Mickey's sleeve, but these are the ones that stick in the mind. As I say, by the time Gove's policies bear fruit, I would be surprised if there are many teachers left due to ever-plunging morale in the profession.

Gove wouldn't know that though, as teachers' opinions are never actually sought.

Sacked Them All!

Michael Gove continues to bait the teaching profession by announcing that headteachers can sack incompetent teachers far faster, in fact within about a term.

See the article here!

In essence I have absolutely no problem with this new policy, but there will be a major problem with it, and it's a problem that many others have pointed out in various chatrooms and forums. That problem is that a number of heads will use the new powers to get rid of people they don't like rather than only those who are poor teachers. Many cases will end up being personality issues rather than teaching issues, and that is simply wrong.

Gove has opened the door for headteachers by suggesting that there are loads of poor teachers out there, and this carrot will be too tempting for many heads. The previous system encouraged heads to write good references for poor teachers to "move them on", and this clearly needed addressing. Genuinely poor teachers need to be removed from the profession.

The only probelm is the judgements upon whether a teacher is capable or not are based on the following:

• Results - these are affected by both the ability of the teacher to get the information across, but also on the willingness of the students in front of them to learn. Target grades that should be hit by the class are often "challenging" in the first place and set in concrete, meaning that if a child suddenly has a change in attitude for the worse, the teacher will get it in the neck through no fault of their own.
• Observations by senior management - these are totally subjective in that unless a lesson is completely awful, which would be obvious to anyone, the judgement could range from "outstanding" to "satisfactory" depending on the perconceived ideas of the observer.

All teachers have suffered from the first issue - teenagers are an unpredictable bunch (assuming that you teach in secondary schools) and therefore often surprise their teachers with their ability to self-destruct and throw away any potential they may have.

The second issue affects more teachers than you may think. It won't be a problem for those teachers who bow to every request from their head without question, but a teacher who dares to have an opinion will certainly have suffered from senior staff trying to "get their own back". It may sound petty (and actually, it is petty) but it definitely happens, presumably to remind the teacher who's in charge. I get told after every lesson observation by one particular member of senior staff at my school that essentially my character in general is a major issue. I presume that I will therefore be fairly near the top of the list for this implementation of this new policy at our school, not because I am rubbish, but because I don't teach like the automaton automaton the senior member of staff clearly craves.

What you often find is that the senior manager forgets their own time in the classroom (if they ever spent any), when they had very little power to discipline and they taught 5 lessons per day rather than 5 lessons per year, if as much as that. I had one deputy head say to me during feedback once, "you don't teach like me", to which I replied "you are absolutely right, I never want to teach like you, I don't even like you if that's all you can come up with by way of feedback." I obviously don't help myself, but bullies like this need tackling, not cowering in front of.

It's similar stories like this that have led to Gove's policy being described by teachers and unions as "a bully's charter". Along with the pensions debate plus the news that everyone will have to work until they are 105 (or whatever), teachers are feeling pretty got at currently. On top of this political drive to demoralise teachers, the public will also throw in their tuppence-worth. Popular soaps create new characters who are teachers (they like to have their fingers on the pulse these shows), with these new characters doing something abhorent, giving the public more ammunition to have a go at the profession. It sounds silly, but it's what happens I'm sorry to say because soaps are real life to some sections of the general public.

There is also the problem that having got rid of these apparently poor teachers, they need replacing with (presumably) better teachers. Where are these better teachers going to come from? I have been at schools where perfectly good teachers have been "moved on" only to be replaced by imcompetance. The grass is not always greener. Some subjects (maths, science and ICT spring to mind) struggle for numbers, both good and bad.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: these politicians really do have no idea.

Haeadteachers - worth the money?

It's probably no secret that headteachers are paid a lot of money. It depends on the size of the school (the more pupils there are, the more responsibility, the higher the wage) and whether the school has control over it's own budget i.e. it's an academy. Some academy headteachers are paid more than the prime minister gets at over £100k per year.

But are they all worth it and what is their actual role in a school?

I've worked under a number of headteachers in my career, of varying effectiveness. But since my teaching career started I've never really been sure what a "normal" day as a headteacher entails, other than a whole load of meetings. What these meetings are about, I have no idea and many will probably have little or no bearing on my existence as a classroom practioners.

Almost all are qualified teachers, but I've only ever had one who actually taught any lessons, although I should say that they taught a lesson per week, compared to the 20 or so that a regular teacher would teach, but at least that head had some contact with students other than just to tell them off or congratulate them in assembly.

The lot of many headteachers now involves little or no contact with the students themselves due to the apparent mountains of paperwork and endless meetings. I find it a little odd that someone who went into teaching wants to minimise their contact with students. But maybe the pound signs are too great a pull for them to resist, and on their wages I can kind of understand that.

The trouble is that with so little contact with students, a headteacher's effectiveness as a disciplinarian becomes less and less. Another head I worked under came out of their office one day (a rare occurance I should add) to be met with a well-known troublemaker swinging on the bannisters of the stairs. I happened to be descending those same stairs at the time. The head chose to challenge the student, and this is how the conversation went:

Head: Where should you be? (The head couldn't remember the child's name)
Child: What's it to you?
Head: I'm your headteacher.
Chuld: I don't believe you; I've never seen you before.

At that point the head went back into the office they'd just vacated, not to be seen again. I managed to chivvy the student along to where they should have been because I knew his name and he recognised me as a teacher and a person in authority, of sorts. There's another story as far as this head goes, and it's not too dissimilar to the first, just quicker. The head upon leaving the office stumbled into a fight between two girls almost on the welcome mat to the aforesaid office. A 180 degree turn and the head assumed a position back behind their desk, office door closed.

It would be less funny if it wasn't true to be honest, and when you find out that this particular headteacher was paid around £100k per year, the taste of bile become difficult to ignore.

So what is their role? You know, I have very little idea if I'm honest and I have a feeling that the money could be better spent, but people expect them so I suppose we will just have to put up and shut up. Some can be very effective, and are headhunted for struggling academies, only to get sacked when results and behaviour don't improve. I suppose that they are the "face and voice" of a school, but unless the children know who they are, what real use are they?

All I really know is that I'll never be one, and that doesn't give me insomnia.

ICT is Boring!

Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Education, has announced a radical overhaul of the ICT curriculum, and not before time. The current, government written curriculum is out-of-date and very boring as he rightly says (I'm going to have to sit down, having just agreed with the man!). Gove wants children in schools to learn coding and being able to design apps.

This is great, but not all children will find these new activities interesting either, and even less will find them of any use outside the classroom. Whereas the stuff Gove wants to eradicate actually will be of use to most: using MS Word, Excel and Powerpoint. Also, staff may actually struggle to teach the new topics due to lack of knowledge and confidence with the software/language of coding. I regard myself as being fairly ICT savvy but have struggled with Google's App Inventor, which presumably would be one of the things on the new curriculum, or something similar at least. The same with game design and coding - even "simple" html is quite tough.

There is also the cost of purchasing the new software, which will run into thousands, plus the money required to train staff to enable them to teach the stuff. Where's the money going to come from, as we keep being told that there is none? Those who have the expertise to the level required will, or perhaps should be earning more money in the private sector.

How many jobs nowadays invent apps and games? Ok, more than there used to be, but not that many.

How many jobs nowadays use MS Word, Excel and Powerpint? Loads! Especially Excel for accounts and Word for writing a CV in order to get a job in the first place. Powerpoint is perhaps not as useful as it once was, but most managerial positions would require some knowledge of it.

I think that there needs to be a shake-up, no doubt about it, but there needs to be a mix of the apps/games and MS Office (schools can't afford Mac, I'm afraid). Those who are bored with the current system will be those who have an interest in ICT in the first place and will be on the computer for hours at home and therefore know all about MS Office. There are plenty of kids who aren't as good as that and need to be taught how to use the software. Some can't even send an email with an attachment in my view, although they are brilliant on Facebook. Most jobs I know don't require a thorough knowledge of Facebook but probably require you to send an email.

This announcement has substance, but still smacks of "give me your votes" to me.

No Notice Ofsteds

Sir Michael Wilshaw has made his mark barely fortnight into his tenure as Chief Inspector of Schools by announcing that from Autumn 2012 schools will not receive any notice of an Ofsted inspection. Is this a major thing? No, is the short answer, and it should have always been like that in my view.

Currently schools get 2 days notice, so removing that will make little or no difference. It won't allow schools the opportunity to make certain troublemakers "disappear" through exclusions in those 2 days. Inspectors will get to see schools how all the students, teachers and parents see it, which should be a good thing.

I only have one worry with regards to this, and that is a knee-jerk reaction from headteachers so desperate for a good Ofsted judgement in order to further their careers, I mean, to ensure that the children at their school receive the best education available to them.

Headteachers and their underlings are constantly trying to second guess Ofsted's views/judgements. Ofsted seem fixated on paperwork and data, a fact that Wilshaw states that he want to address, although I doubt that he will. I am therefore awaiting the announcement from the head at our school that all staff must hand in full, written up lesson plans at least a week in advance. Other schools apparently do it, but the turnover of staff at those schools is far higher than at others because there simply aren't enough hours in the day. Also, what use are they? None, in fact most teachers when forced to wrtite them, barely take any notice of them at all - they are just a paperwork exercise. They take at least an hour to fill in, and if you have 5 lessons one day, that 5 extra hours to find. Whatever happened to the work/life balance?

Now you may think that I'm advocating that teachers don't plan lessons, and I can assure you that I'm not. What I am suggesting is that you don't need to break every minute of every lesson down into specific activities. I also think that having every possible detail of every child in a class on a lesson plan is completely unnecessary as teachers, I'm not sure if you'd noticed, are generally quite intelligent, and tend to remember important information like a child who struggles with English or maybe has a torrid home life. That's not to mention the cost of photocopying (about 4p per copy); the bill for the photocopying alone would run into tens of thousands of pounds per year. And on top of that the extra server memory required to save all the plans electronically.

You won't hear me say this too often, but Wilshaw's idea is fine in itself, I just worry about the repercussions.

Longer Day Anyone?

They're all at it now, even Labour's Shadow Education Secretary has started to make stupid comments, to go with his coalition counterpart. He reckons that the school day should be extended for the following reasons:

1. It will help stop kids from joining gangs - presumably gangs don't happen in schools.
2. It will offer kids a "haven from chaotic homes".
3. It will prepare kids for the hours they will have to work when they leave school/education.
4. It will raise standards, or should I say, grades as the kids will do nothing but school work.

All these are viable and decent points I suppose, although not all are applicable to some schools in the gang or "chaotic home" senses. In fact most, if not all teachers would welcome the opportunity for their students to practise what they've been taught in class more. I also agree that school currently does not prepare young people for the workplace, but will this really work? Is hoemwork still going to be a requirement? Kids have got to have time to actually be kids at some point.

How's it going to work?

This hasn't been explained of course, it smacks of a potential vote winning statement to me, the trouble being that Schools Minister Nick Gibb seems to agree, which means that it's a very real possibility. To be fair if Gibb said it was a bad idea he may as well say to the general public "please don't vote for us in the next election".

Are teachers going to be paid for the extra hours they do. Currently a teacher can have no more than 1265 hours over the year of "contact time", and that is spread over the 195 days spent in school. "Contact time" is the educational term for "kids in your class". This would have to be rethought unless new staff would be brought in the supervise the extra time required by the politicians. In which case these people would need payment, but we keep being told that there's no more money left in the pot. So something has to give.

There's also the fact that teachers use the time they have before and after school to plan those "outstanding" lessons that the government and Ofsted desire. If that time is taken away standards will actually drop, because teachers will either not have the time to plan the lessons or will have to work every evening in order to plan them. This will lead to burnout, stress-related illness and absence and this isn't good for anyone, teachers or students. Anyone fancy working from 7.30am to about 9pm every weekday? Nor do I.

This is yet another example of political idiocy, but I can't say that I'm surprised. Every day seems to bring a new example.

Read the article here!

Bandwagon, Here We Come

Back to school this week and we're met with a pep-talk from the head and deputy. And what a way to start the term! It seems that academy status isn't that far away for us, and probably all the other schools in the area. Nothing's been discussed with governors (like they'll argue - it might create some work for them) but the head seems to think it's a good idea, so therefore we'll almost certainly do it.

I've been in similar situations in my teaching career, when major decisions have been mooted. There is a "consultation" with staff, but if the findings don't support the proposal, the results are simply made up. I was at a school where they wanted to change the timetable from 5 lessons per day to 7. A questionnaire went out that was generally sent back showing little support for the change, but when the feedback was announced "lots of positives had been noted", although the head couldn't actually quote any at the time. I have since left the school, and so has the headteacher, and what has happened? You've guessed it; they've gone back to 5 lessons per day.

Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Education has been quoted today as saying that those opposed to academies are "happy with failure" (click on this link to read the article: Here!), And all this despite opposition from teachers and unions, who actually know what they are talking about. In actual fact there are many perfectly understandable reasons why people are anti-academies:

1. Academies get extra money for 2 years and then go back to their original budget, meaning that any additional staff brought in potentially could lose their jobs, or those who are not the head's "cup of tea" will be "got rid of". You are then back to square one.
2. The above can happen because all the staff at the school/academy have their contracts changed and they can, in theory, be dismissed on the whim of the headteacher. Obviously the teacher would have to put a foot wrong, but job security is relatively low (compared to local authority schools), and with less people wishing to enter the profession, this is rarely good for the students, as the staff who replace those teachers deemed surplus to requirements are rarely better.
3. The students won't change, nor will the future intake, so just how do you raise standards? Clearly the teaching would need to improve, and the ability to offer staff extra money could help, but not all can change. Also the leadership needs to be strong and have a good vision for the place. The fact that the school has chosen to go to academy status, the currentt head probably has neither of these skills, so little with change if anything at all.
4. The schools who become academies can use their budget how they wish. That almost always means that those at the top award themselves more, meaning there's less for those who actually teach the children and less for resources for the students after the initial two years extra funding. The Oasis Academy in Salford is a prime example of this. If you were the head, wouldn't you be tempted to award yourself a pay rise? MPs do, so why not headteachers?
5. The school will have to be totally rebuilt (I'm not 100% sure why, but I presume it's to physically show a "new start"), which sounds great. But some schools don't have the space to build new buildings, and actually if the original buildings were servicable, then what a huge waste of money. Money that could have been used far more productively on teaching staff (to reduce class sizes, which is proven to improve standards) or to buy better equipment to make the students' learning more interesting to them (which has also been proven to raise standards). Buildings will make little or no difference.
6. Those who don't have a university degree and therefore not a teaching qualification would either lose their jobs or take huge drops in wages. You may think that this is a good thing as we need "qualified" people, but actually there are loads of these people who do superb work as Teaching Assistants or working with the more challenging members of the school's community. These invaluable people would be forced out of the profession. Why don't they get the necessary qualifications, you may ask? Could you live on nothing for 4 years in order to do that? Exactly.
7. If every school becomes an academy, as seems to be the wish of the coalition government, the money in the pot won't get any bigger, so everyone will get what they were getting before but with a staff who are far less happy with their lot, and that is bound to be reflected in their teaching. As for private firms ploughing money in - the economic climate would suggest that this is unlikely to happen.

Despite there being many minuses, all our head can see is the pound signs, so it will happen, backed by a toothless governing body.

Can't wait!

Ofsted - clueless!

It's not just me who thinks that Ofsted are totally clueless when it comes to assessing schools. There was a letter from a teacher to Chris Woodhead (former Chief Inspector of Schools) in The Sunday Times this week bemoaning a glowing recent Ofsted on their school. The report had stated that the behaviour of the students at the school was "exemplary" whereas in reality the students ran the place with the headteacher being totally ineffective and using the Ofsted report as justification for doing essentially nothing.

The stories from this teacher, whose name is understandably withheld are truly shocking. Female staff are called "stupid bitches" to their face, students regularly "go on strike" and corridors are urinated in (by students rather than staff!). The place sounds like a candidate for academy status to me, but apart from one minor quote about behaviour in the corridors being occasionally "boisterous", the inspectors have clearly no idea what really goes on in the place, relying heavily on data to form an opinion.

You have to give credit to Woodhead who attempts to defend Ofsted, as he always does. He claims that maybe the troublemakers amongst the student body were "mysteriously disappeared" for the visit, which does happen regularly. When our school was last inspected the board listing those students on external exclusion was pretty jam-packed with the usual candidates. Woodhead does admit that due to the inspectors' reliance on data and the brevity of a visit, their judgement can be far removed from the reality of what's going on. Which would suggest that the entire inspection process is a bit of a waste of time, would it not?

The teacher is clearly exasperated with their head's totally ineffectiveness and Woodhead suggests writing, as a staff body, to the head explaining what the issues are. He then says that if the head does not accept the view from the staff then you should go to the school's governing body and/or the local authority.

This only goes to show how far removed from the reality of school life Mr Woodhead is. The member of staff would be committing career suicide by writing to the headteacher, and if they tried to drum up support from other members of staff, news would quickly get back to that headteacher about who was behind it. Bear in mind that the teacher requires a reference from that headteacher to move on, and if moving on isn't an option, they would almost certainly find that next year's (and all subsequent years) timetable would be shocking for them, and leadership drop-ins/observations would increase. On top of that teachers are very good at moaning about something, but not always so good at doing something about it.

Writing to the school's governing body would have the same result as writing to the headteacher in that essentially most of the governors don't want any grief and are doing the job either to further their career in the local community (mayor anyone?) or because their child is at the school and they want to know what's going on. A few might do something about it, but as it's not a paid position, can you blame them for wanting an easy time of things? The headteacher will often hoodwink the governors into believing that everything's going swimmingly, and they won't know any different, so won't realise that there's a problem.

The only possible action would be to write to the local authority, but that would almost certainly get tied up in red tape and take an eternity for anything to happen. Even then, when they visited, who would be the only person to have contact with the local authority employees? The headteacher. So ultimately, headteachers are untouchable. I suppose the new Chief Inspector of Schools' proposal to have local troubleshooters is an attempt to tackle this, although it remains to be seen if these troubleshooters will be effective.

The letter just highlights the fact that Ofsted are clueless, overpaid and of no use to parents, schools or children.