Why Teaching Isn't For You

Or at the very least, shouldn't be!

I regularly check the BBC News website for education stories, which currently there are plenty. Every now and then they allow people to comment on the news stories and hundreds of people do so. They mainly fall into two, admittedly broad, categories:

1. Teachers, former teachers or people who are related/in a relationship with a teacher who claim that they are working every hour God sends in a desperate bid to keep on top of things.
2. General members of the public who despise schools and all those who work in them, considering the "profession", if you can call it that, work shy, overpaid, having too many holidays and all union activists.

Now everyone is entitled to their opinion and that's fine, don't get me wrong, but why the BBC continues with these opinions is beyond me as the ground is well trodden to say the least, and invariably ends in each side abusing the other. I would like to comment on both groups however.

Group 1:
I have been a teacher for over a decade and apart from my first year or so where I was attempting to find a routine that worked for me, I have rarely taken work home. I get in early (around 7.30am) and leave late (around 5pm) and aim to get all my work done in that time. It's not always possible, but in general I manage. The teachers who post on the BBC who say that they arrive at 7am, leave at 6pm (or when kicked out by the caretaker who understandably also has a home to go to) and then continue to work until 10pm or later every evening, plus at least one day over the weekend I have always considered to be doing too much or lacking in organisational skills. It has been known for me to use the phrase "It's all about time management". In the last year however, I have been doing much the same thing. It has meant that I rarely talk to my partner in the evenings (I'm sure they won't grumble too much about that!) and I struggle to sleep because I'm thinking about all the stuff I am yet to complete. Now I consider myself pretty organised, but I genuinely can't avoid this and still certain things have to be put on the back burner until I can find the time to complete them. Why is this? Three things: government initiatives, Ofsted and apathy of the young people of the UK. It's not a healthy state to be in, whatever way you look at it and will surely lead to burnout and leaving the profession.

Which brings me onto my next point and that is that if teachers are genuinely working this hard, and I genuinely believe that they are now, then people will leave for jobs that pay similar or less wages, but offer a better quality of life and that begs the question "Who will replace those people?". Government of all colours, but recently blue/yellow, have been saying how we really need to get rid of poor teachers, and they are correct, but who is going to replace them? Attempts to encourage top graduates are the current trend, but as a mentor of trainee teachers, I can categorically say that "there ain't a lot coming through", both in numbers or quality of teacher, which is different from "highly qualified teacher". This is not a healthy situation.

Children nowadays expect everything to be plated up for them nowadays, and I suspect that this is the reason why many teachers are working such long hours. I call it the X Factor generation where success can literally land in your lap with minimal effort being spent. The problem is, and many children don't realise this, that for every success on this route, there are thousands, if not millions of failures, I remember teaching a PSHE lesson where we were discussing possible careers and I had one conversation along these lines (the names have been changed to protect the idiot):
Me: So Tracey, what do you want to do for a job?
Tracey: I want to be famous.
Me: Ok, for doing what?
Tracey: Just being famous.
Me: But you have to do something in the first place in order to be famous.
Tracey: I'll go on Big Brother or something.

I know I sound really old when I say that "there's no substitute for hard work", but the number of ex-pupils who say to me "I wish I'd tried harder at school" is astounding. Pupil apathy is often backed up my parental stubbornness where their attitude is instilled into their offspring: can't do it, won't do it. Maths is a prime example of this. Many parents will say at some point in a parents evening appointment, usually at the start: "I am useless at maths" or "Don't expect me to be able to help" and then wonder why their child has a similar attitude.

It's what's known as a losing battle.

Group 2:
These people clearly had a bad experience at school. Presumably they were bullied by other children or even the odd teacher and are understandably scarred by their experience. They assume that teachers arrive at 8.30am and leave at 3.30pm, do nothing at home and jet off around the world in their 50-odd weeks holiday that they get every year.

The trouble is that these opinions aren't entirely their fault. Politicians over the last 15 years or so, and possibly longer, have taken every opportunity to bash teachers with large sticks. The people of Group 2 are only believing what politicians are telling them, and why wouldn't you? Politicians have been very clever in setting up a situation where they can now cut teachers' wages and pensions with the majority of public support. The only option left to the teaching profession being strike action or work-to-rule which just compounds the view that teachers are lazy, work shy and left wings union people.

It's what's known as a losing battle. Deja-vu!

So all in all, don't bother teaching, it really isn't worth the grief. Those moments when a child's eyes light up and they say "I get it" are now far outweighed by all the negatives, an you can't even go on a decent holidays in the umpteen weeks we get off because travel agents hike up the prices so much that they are unaffordable on the wages that teachers now receive. Brilliant!

Maths Teachers Are Rubbish

In his latest assault on the teaching profession, the Chief Inspector of Schools, Sir Michael Wilshaw claims that maths teachers are letting all children down. The school system is so focused on the C grade that the best mathematicians are not being stretched, those who fall behind early in their educational career are just left to flounder, and exams are getting easier.

As a maths teacher I would like to try to justify, maybe defend, the maths teacher's predicament.

1. C grade being a Holy Grail - whose fault is this? Ofsted's, the very body Sir Michael heads. Schools are judged on their A* to C grade percentage, and for some reason the government and public seem to think that Ofsted know what they are talking about. Smell the coffee people, Ofsted don't have a clue what they are on about. The quango is made up of failed and ex-teachers who have little idea how modern classrooms work. Wilshaw himself has had success at a local level, but that's because he got rid of people who didn't toe his line. That's the path the Children's Minister told me our school should go down, and is easy to do on a local level, but what they all forget is that the children have to go somewhere. They can't be left to roam the streets surely.
2. Those children who fall behind are always going to flounder, because if they struggle with the basics, they are going to struggle with the tougher stuff - obvious, no? Not everyone can get a C grade (a pass in real terms), or the pass mark would have to be raised. This government, and in that breath I include Ofsted, who although apparently independent, are just a government vehicle, are fixated on getting everyone a C grade or higher. It's not going to happen I'm afraid - some people just aren't very good at maths. Fact! Not the teachers' fault.
3. Exams are easier - not the teachers' fault either.Government have allowed exam boards to be privatised, which has led to exam boards trying to attract customers. The more A* to C grades candidates achieve, the more customers you have, the more money you make. Simples.

The "celebrity" mathematician Alex Bellos was on BBC Breakfast this morning and hit the nail firmly on the head when he said something along the lines of:

The problem with maths in this country is cultural. People are happy to say that they are rubbish at maths, but they would never admit to not being able to read.

Spot on Alex - not teachers' fault! Wilshaw - shut up you idiot!

"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.

So We're Lacklustre Now

"There are too many lacklustre schools in England which are not pushing children to reach their potential, says the annual report from Ofsted."

This is the opening paragraph from this article: BBC News Article

My immediate reaction is "Well they would say that, wouldn't they".

I can't wait for the press release from Ofsted that says "All schools are doing really well; our job is done." It will never happen of course as they'd effectively be putting themselves out of a job. You don't get too many turkeys writing glowing reports about Christmas after all.

The article says that 40% of schools inspected this year have been found to offer a "satisfactory" education to their students. To the uninitiated that sounds fine, what with the dictionary definition of "satisfactory" being "fulfilling all demands and requirements". But in education "satisfactory" means "not doing enough".

What the report fails to mention is that the goal posts have changed for Ofsted inspections, essentially meaning that everything the inspectors required last time they visited is no longer of any importance (I'm exaggerating a little here, but only a little) and so schools have been downgraded in almost all cases because they don't really know what is required of them.

Is it any wonder the public are at a bit of a loss as to how they judge a school if schools don't know themselves?

The whole article/report is Ofsted's justification for why it should continue to exist, what with a "big name" assuming its headship in the new year - Sir Michael "We're Not Worthy" Wilshaw.

Nick Gibb, the Schools Minister is quoted as saying "There are still far too many under-performing schools making painfully slow improvements." I think I may have the reason, or reasons why:

• Schools are facing budget cuts, meaning that they can't afford to adequately staff or resource schools (unless they are academies of course, where they get more money and can do what they want with it). It's the nature of the current economic climate, but you can't give anyone less and expect significantly more, whatever business you are in.
• A teachers' priority is no longer teaching, it's administration. It's marking books with "formative" comments significantly more (despite the fact that the students don't read them or seem to care that much); it's testing the students to provide data for use in planning; it's reporting home every half term so that the parents know how their child is performing (although many appear not to be bothered); it's writing detailed lesson plans containing every last bit of information on every child in that class, plus deciding what particular questions could push each individula child to progress and actually writing it down rather than allowing teachers to have any sort of spontaneity in class (planning has always been part of teaching, but nowadays the expected process is unhelpful). The list goes on, but who is all this extra work for? It's not the students, it's Ofsted. Everything I've just mentioned just uses up time that teachers could be using to actually come up with good ideas to make their students progress and hopefully enjoy learning.
• Pensions and pay freezes - no matter what job you are employed in, if your wages are frozen for years (and therefore, in real terms, your wages are cut) and you are being asked to work longer for less, you are not going to be overly motivated. Lack of motivation is disastrous for teachers, as it's a profession that relies on enthusiastic delivery to enthuse students.

Maybe I'm being a little melodramatic, but all these factors make a difference, and when you get some jumped up, data reliant, pompous idiot, who hasn't actually done the job for years (if ever) telling that you're doing it all wrong, how do you think the teaching profession will react?

What's even more worrying is that politicians actually believe every word they say.
What chance have we got?