This Academy Business Is Not Fully Thought Through

As English education careers at towards privatization, because let's face it, that's what's happening, there's something I don't quite understand: how come the buck stops with a bunch of volunteers?

These unpaid, although mostly dedicated and hard-working people generally do a great job, don't get me wrong, but ultimately a load of people with little or no experience have the final say in what is essentially a multi-million pound business. School budgets would probably stagger most people, and it is generally money well spent, but if you went to Dragon's Den asking for £3 million per year so that you could run a private hospital with your medical experience being the dishing out of Calpol to your child you'd laughed out of the room. Ok, so I'm being a bit extreme, but essentially that's what's happening up and down the country to local schools.

Actually I have no real objection to academies or independent schools, who they can hire and how much they want to pay their staff. What I do object to is that the Gove/Wilshaw show keep telling us that academy will bring immediate results, which is frankly not true. What I also be a problem is the fact that the people running these academies need both business experience/acumen as well as school experience as an employee rather than student. The issue is that the people running academies either have one or the other but rarely both.

Essentially the DfE awarding academy status is a gamble in each and every case and some will fail due to lack of expertise, which generally will be no fault of their own. Governors, those unpaid volunteers, are supposed to hold the headteacher and therefore the staff to "account". What does that mean/entail? Does anybody really know? Do most governors know enough about education to be able to effectively hold headteachers to account? And even if they do spot that something is awry, what useful advice could they offer?

Before anyone gets their knickers in a twist, I know that there are plenty of teachers who become governors of schools that their children attend, but they won't be able to walk around the school during the school day. I also know that many retired teachers become governors, but with education moving so fast, their experience is often out of date before they've started.

Wilshaw, the Chief Inspector of Schools, has suggested that governors should get paid to make them more professional, or to encourage them to work harder. This has gone down like the proverbial fart in a lift with many current governors who suggest that it could encourage people to do it for the money rather than for the good of school. He may or may not have a point about paying governors but he has failed to mention where these payments are going to come from? School budgets are already stretched to breaking point, the DfE has overspent on academies by £1 billion in a year and the country is facing a "triple dip" recession, which adds up to the fact that there ain't no money out there.

To be honest, I'm not 100% sure that Wilshaw's brain and mouth are connected as every time it opens he seems to annoy another portion of the educational world; or perhaps the annoying of everybody is all part of a grand plan and he's immensely intelligent, only time will tell. Those who have been subject, and I use that word intentionally, to the new Ofsted regime will tell you that Wilshaw pontificates from his ivory tower, making, on occasion, sensible noises about lessons/teaching that are seemingly ignored by his minions - I'm talking about there not being a "standard Ofsted lesson", but inspection evidence would suggest otherwise.

Anyway, I digress. Governors have a really important job, namely making sure that the staff are running the school to the best of their abilities. The problem is that there is a danger that the governing body will just believe what they are told by the headteacher, and due to the fact that governors hold down full time jobs as well, they may be all they have time to do. What many people don't realise is the time and effort that goes into being a governor until they become one.

As far as I can see the whole system could collapse at the drop of a hat, but Gove/Wilshaw will or should not be in post when that happens. Picking up the pieces will be an unenviable task for whoever is charged with doing so.

The Problem With State Education

You may (probably not) have noticed that I haven't posted a new blog for about a month and a half. There is one reason for this: I've been ridiculously busy. And there are two reasons for this, listed below.

Problem 1 - Politicians/DfE
Education is seen as a major vote winner at the moment and this is a disaster for teachers and students as it means that people with little and more often, no experience like to tinker and make education "more rigorous". This has led to major exam reforms, that have been scrapped after significant opposition from those who might actually have some idea of what they are talking about. Pay reforms have also been tabled by the government so that a teacher's pay can be linked to performance, or should I say, a teacher's pay will be determined by the results that their students achieve, so therefore most will end up losing out for reasons that will become clear later on. The government claim that this new pay policy will enable "good and outstanding" teachers will be rewarded very quickly - presumably these "good and outstanding" teachers will only teach top sets or work in schools whose admissions policy is more of a grey area than perhaps it should be.

Ministers keep ploughing the academy furrow as though it's a bag of magic dust, although some "flagship" academies have had their collars felt over results/progress, admissions policies are becoming increasingly suspect in top performing academies and alleged reports of staff altering exams to increase grades. The bad press seems to get brushed under an increasingly lumpy carpet and the DfE have a stock answer to any criticisms that goes along the lines of "we can't stand aside whilst students are being failed by poor schools and teaching, and academy status can improve standards". When they talk about academies they do tend to mean "sponsored" academies, or public money ending up in the pockets of private firms. In fact the privatisation of schools is another hot topic with leaked memos from DfE emerging, along with accusations of inappropriate behaviour from some of Michael Gove's aides at the DfE.

The future is neither bright or orange!

Problem 2 - Ofsted:
Now you could argue, quite forcefully, that Ofsted should be part of the previous problem as it's quite clear that the £200 million per year quango is driving government policy. The Chief Inspector of Schools, Sir Michael Wilshaw keeps saying that Ofsted don't have a particular type of lesson that they want to see, which is great, it would just be nice if he would tell his inspectors, who quite clearly do have a formulaic view of what a good or outstanding lesson should look like. Wilshaw seems to increasingly be forcing his head into a place that the sun doesn't shine, be that the clouds or anywhere else.

Ofsted added "rigour" to its new assessment framework, which basically means that what used to be fine is no longer so. Schools are therefore panicking and are passing that panic onto their staff. Neither really know what they are supposed to do meaning that leadership at some institutions are essentially bullying staff who they either want rid of or who in their opinion of Ofsted's view, aren't cutting the mustard. Stress is becoming a major issue in schools and supply budgets are being decimated around the country as a result.

The problem for education is that all this hammering from both politicians and Ofsted is giving carte blanche to parents who can now fully justify blaming schools and teachers for their poor parenting, with the cartoon below neatly summing it up:

Now I'm not saying that 1969 was better than today, in fact I think that teaching has got better since that time, the problem is that we now live in a blame society where it's never your own fault for poor performance, it has to be someone else's.

I suppose that this post could be accused of blaming other people (DfE and Ofsted) for the woes of the teaching world, but unless something is done soon, there will be no teachers left to teach your children. The DfE being put on a "war footing" by Gove and his pal David Laws does anything other than help, although imminent strikes over changes in pay and conditions were clearly envisaged.

New Year, New Career?

As 2012 disappears and 2013 arrives it's a time for resolutions. And what will mine be this year?

This is my list of possibles:

1. Give up smoking.
2. Cut down on drinking.
3. Go on a diet.
4. Find a new job outside of teaching.

I'm sure that there are more, but these four immediately spring to mind.The one that should be easiest is number 3 as I have been building up to it since September, cutting various things out of my daily intake. The others are all linked though which makes them somewhat tougher but at the same time easier if one can be nailed down initially.

Why are numbers 1, 2 and 4 linked so closely? I actually gave up smoking in the middle of the summer and lasted until around October but found myself getting so annoyed with the apathy of students and demoralising edicts from government (Gove/Wilshaw, that means you two) that I started again. I realise that I was weak willed, but unfortunately I reverted back to smoking when I was at the end of my tether. A similar thing happened with the drinking, although I never gave up completely. I cut right down to less than half of what I been consuming on an average term time evening, but that has also slipped back into the old regime.

I have therefore come to the conclusion that teaching is bad for me and that I need a change. A colleague of mine said to me, knowing that I wasn't the happiest, that there was a job being advertised in the local sixth form college, to which I replied: "Why would I want to apply for that? Teaching's shit". And that is genuinely how I feel, but I didn't wlays feel like this, so why now?

There are a number of reasons, and they are below in no particular order, but in some cases are linked:

1. Teaching has become an exam factory, where league tables and results mean more than actually giving young people a proper education, the problem being that when young people leave school and go into the workplace they are not prepared and that means that business leaders say to the press that education in this country is rubbish and that's teachers' fault. It's not teachers' fault, it's the fact that exams results have become more important than imparting knowledge. With education the most popular political football, teachers get caught up in a slanging match between the political parties, where unqualified politicians with no experience of the things they are talking about and making policy on, come up with bright ideas about the system in an attempt to make their mark and move up the political ladder. Health has suffered similarly, it's just education's turn.
2. In order to justify the constant changes of policy to make his mark and ultimately become leader of the Conservative Party (he thinks, hopefully mistakenly, that he will be Prime Minister one day), Michael Gove has turned teaching upside down. Now don't get me wrong, not everything was rosy in the education garden before, with exam passes having become easier and easier under successive governments of different colours, but the way Gove has justified change (by rigging exam results for example) is beyond comprehension. The way he has forced schools into becoming academies by cutting their funding until they agree to convert is also scandalous and had it been done in a playground would be described as bullying. New policy is consistently controversial and never comes directly from the Department of Education but is leaked the the press on days when there are major news stories that will bury it.
3. As a result of the constant abuse from politicians and the negative news stories emanating from the DfE regarding teachers, the general public now feel empowered to criticise teachers. A colleague of mine told me that every weekend people phone him to literally abuse him about the school, teachers and anything else they want to get off their chest. This is simply not on and purely due to the constant statements from suits in Whitehall saying that teachers are rubbish.
4. And so we come on to Ofsted. Goalposts have been moved for right or wrong reasons, I sugest the latter. Wilshaw (I can't bring myself to give him his full title) was handpicked by Gove, and therefore one could suggest his puppet. All Ofsted's goalpost moving has played, unsurprisingly, into the hands of Gove who uses the findings of the inspectorate to impose his policies - the irony is not lost on me!
5. Ofsted bases their entire judgement of a school before they arrive at it, looking at exam results (notice we've gone back to these) which you may think is fair enough, but the judgement comes purely from targets that are generated by a computer program based upon where you live and what each child got in an exam 5 years previously. This target takes into account whether they are entitled to free school meals, but not their general attitude which changes hugely in that time. We were (un)lucky enough to have a visit from Ofsted recently and since we weren't told the grading, one has to assume that it wasn't very good! But they had made their mind up beforehand, and nothing they saw was going to change this, so why bother with the visit in the first place? What this will mean is increased pressure on staff and some being hounded out of the school, to be replaced by who? Not a good time for anyone.

Education has got its priorities all wrong, is putting undue stress on staff (whether teaching or non-teaching), and couple this with frozen pay (in reality a pay cut relatively speaking), the only thing that's keeping education in the UK afloat is the fact that we are in an economic downturn meaning that people are stuck. As economic recovery materialises you will find that more and more people seek their fortune in other areas. There's already a shortage of decent teachers according to politicians - this is not going to get better by demoralising those who are there and actually might be competent.

The pros of teaching (the holidays and ?) are now hugely outweighed by the cons (everything other than the holidays).

I must go and tidy up my CV...

From the ridiculous to the paradoxical

Now whatever you think of the Secretary of State for Education Michael Gove and/or his politics, you have to admit that he's probably pretty clever, what with being an Oxbridge graduate etc. He is being somewhat careless and forgetful at the moment I would suggest.

Why is this?

I shall explain.

Last week he announced that teacher training requirements are going to be made tougher (Click here to read the BBC article) so that the requirements for those wishing to embark on teacher training must pass tests in maths, English and "reasoning" (whatever that may be). They will get two chances to pass, and if they fail to do so they will not be allowed on the course. Where's the problem with that then? Well on it's own there is no problem, and no teacher will ever argue that there is. The only quibble one could have is that many of the skills that these tests will examine haven't been used for a long time, especially the maths ones, and the equivalent GCSE grade would be B, so not overly simple. Currently teacher trainees take the test during their qualification period and can seek help on it.

The problem is that in July, just 3 months ago, Michael relaxed the rules on teaching qualifications for those wishing to work in a free school or academy (Click here to see the BBC article), meaning that people without any qualifications can teach in those types of school.

Confused? Me too. In one breath he want more rigorous testing of teachers, and in the next breath he wants to allow unqualified teachers to practice.

Conspiracy theorists have suggested that Michael is using this as a smokescreen to get more people from industry into teaching and the increased difficulty of the training programme will mean less competition for those with no qualifications. Schools have to fill teaching posts, and if the only people who apply are not qualified, what choice does a school have?

I don't buy into the conspiracy theory particularly, although I see where it's come from. I just think that all the reforms that Michael's trying to cram in before his party gets voted out of government or he gets sacked have confused him, meaning that the backside has no idea what the elbow is doing. In other words, he's making it up as he goes along.

Gove's seemingly perpetual digs at the teaching profession just show how much he dislikes the people he leads. His policies have undermined education in the England (other parts of the UK are sensibly now opting out of Michael's reforms), as although there may have been the occasional decent idea, much of the educational policy emanating from Whitehall has been hogwash and designed to undermine teachers' rights.

The good thing is that it does appear that he has finally lost his marbles and therefore he can't be far from losing his job. The problem is that he has possibly inflicted irreparable damage on the teaching profession. 

Gove Under Pressure

Well if he's not, he should be. The current list of gripes and headaches facing the Secretary of State for Education is a long one:

1. That pesky GCSE English fiasco has been joined by a GCSE Science fiasco (and will eventually be joined by other subjects I suspect). A legal challenge has been mounted by schools and students and is gathering pace. Ofqual is predictably saying that they are not budging and the pressure on Gove to step in is growing. He's keeping a stiff upper lip and currently sitting on his hands, despressingly predictably.
2. Various experts are stating that Gove's changes to the exam system are being bundled through too quickly, including his own colleagues on the Education Select Committee and Glenys Stacey, the Head of Ofqual, who frankly should be getting her own house in order before commenting on other people's. If your allies are telling you that you may need to slow down, maybe you should listen, but no, not our Mikey.
3. Sir Michael Wilshaw, Gove's pal and Head of Ofsted, has been shooting his mouth off again, saying that teachers shouldn't get pay rises if they don't put the hours in. I don't think anyone would argue with the sentiment, but the tone and phraseology of the man leave a lot to be desired. This seems to be a common theme in Wilshaw's life, where he only appears to open his mouth to change feet.
4. The two biggest teaching unions have started their "action short of strike action" this week, with rumours in our local area that a couple of academy heads have threatened staff with punishment if they choose to adopt the policy. Not a great advert for staff, or indeed a great morale booster for already low-esteemed teachers. Academy freedoms may work well for the headteachers of those schools, but stories of staff being essentially bullied and threatened in them, and the fact that these academies have an extremely high staff turnover, would suggest that the benefits for ordinary teachers are limited at best.
5. An academy has been accused of doctoring students' exams to increase grades, and even worse, it's an academy that was highlighted by the Conservatives due to their improved results - no wonder, the teachers were apparently doing the exams for them! The anti-academy issue won't go away and these sorts of headlines are not helping. The money has dried up and the benefits are rapidly disappearing. Claims that academies are performing better in exams are baseless, not helped with this news of possible cheating.

Knowing our Michael, he will be blissfully unaware of any issues in education or with the teaching profession as he revs up his policy steamroller. What Gove has done to education in two and a bit years has been remarkable, but mainly in a bad way. Teachers were pretty demoralised before he stepped into the role, but now, having overseen an exodus of 10,000 teachers in the last 12 months, teaching is at an all time low in my experience of over ten years in the game - recruiting new staff is not always the answer due to them needing time to find their feet in the classroom. I was talking to a former colleague of mine who is leaving his school, along with another teacher, purely because they can't stand it any more. Neither member of staff has a job to go to - surely this has to set off alarm bells, doesn't it? Couple that with a Head of Ofsted who seems hellbent on winding the profession up and making their lives a misery, the recipe is not a tasty one!

I think it would be fair to say that education in this country needed some change, but the underhand way in which Gove has gone about his business, alongside Ofsted and Ofqual leaves a nasty taste in the mouth if you are a teacher. It's all well and good to have ideas of the way to move something, in this case education, forward, but wouldn't it be sense to seek advice and support from "experts", or at the very least, those who will have to face the consequences of the changes proposed. Seemingly not.

Gove may have achieved his goal by the time he leaves Education in that he will go down in history, but will it be for the right reasons? I doubt it.

Unqualified Teachers Are Welcome

A mate of mine watches Top Gear every week, but I wouldn't ask him to fix my car.
My sister is a big fan of Holby City and Casualty, but I wouldn't expect her to take my appendix out if the need ever occurs.
In which case, why do the government think that it's acceptable to have unqualified people teaching the young people of the UK?

Supporters of Michael Gove will tell you that people have been teaching in the top private schools of the land for centuries and produced the best results, so why not have the same policy for state funded academies? The reason is not that those without Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) don't know their stuff - according to the DfE there are engineers, scientists, musicians and university professors with a burning desire to relinquish their large salaries and swap them for the average salary afforded to a teacher. Of course, academies have the freedom to pay more to the "right" candidates for teaching posts, but with the news that the Natinal Audit Office are refusing to sign off a £63 million overspend by the DfE last year, this "benefit" may not last too much longer, unless savings are made elsewhere.

There is a marked difference between private/public schools like Eton and Harrow and many academies/state funded schools that will almost certainly ensure that those who haven't done a teaching qualification will struggle in the classroom and that is behaviour. A university or school based teaching qualification trains its attendees in two main areas:

1. How to plan a lesson effectively.
2. How to control a class of 30ish kids.

The key for both points is behaviour. If the class is "nice" and has a will to succeed (like almost all classes in private schools) then a teacher will get away with a poor lesson and some learning will take place. In a classroom with less diligent children shall we say, a poorly planned lesson from an inexperienced and unqualified teacher will be mayhem at best, and once that has happened that teacher will struggle to win the class over in future lessons.

Trainee teachers always say that the hardest part of their teaching practise is controlling a class and discipline within the learning environment. To think that anyone who knows a lot about a particular subject can just walk in off the street and be a success in the classroom is frankly naive, insulting to teachers and only goes to show how out-of-touch politicians really are. It is also another stealth dig in the ribs of the profession itself, something that appears to be an active policy from Michael Gove and his chums.

This government has been a disaster for the morale of the teaching profession in the UK. I have to be honest that all I can forsee for the near future are more strikes and disruption as teachers, having been backed into a corner, have little option other than to vote with their feet. Recruitment of teachers will slow and experienced staff will look to get out, leaving a pretty bleak future for the young people of Britain.

Gove Has Been Busy

Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Education, is really earning his corn at the moment. There is barely a day that goes by when he doesn't come up with a new idea to "improve" education in the UK. But, stop press, because he's actually come up with a reasonable idea:

Unify all the exam boards at GCSE level to avoid "dumbing down" as the different exam boards attempt to get schools' business by setting easier papers and therefore better grades for your school.

This is a superb idea, and one that many teachers have been shouting about for a while. The fact is that in this results driven business, schools understandably shop around for the "easiest" board. They can't change every year because that would be too expensive, but every 10 years they can probably afford it, and this can't give employers a huge amount of confidence in the calibre of the potential recruits wandering through their doors with C grades oozing out of every orifice.

The problem is that Gove wants to take education back to the 1970s by reintroducing the O-Level and CSE system at the same time, which is a two-tier system, although apparently not in the opinion of the government who must have chosen an exceptionally easy Maths GCSE exam board as they clearly can't count to two. I'm not sure of the point of this policy - the GCSE would be fine once there was only one board. Also, those sitting the CSE will automatically know that they have been labelled as "thick", which is hardly a motivating factor for them.

Govestill  maintains that academy status is the way forward for schools, but continually fails to give any concrete reasons for this. The actual reason is that it is in order to save government money, and potentially allow schools, or the companies who run them, to make money out of education. Not even public schools like Eton and Harrow do this as they have charitable status and therefore are not allowed to make a profit - everything they get in has to be spent eventually. One year's surplus goes on improving facilities, as it should be. Academies do have feedom from the national curriculum though, which suggests that the government penned national curriculum is rubbish. But there's the other point here, all the kids have to take the same exams at the end of day, so there's no incentive to do that either. He neglects to mention that schools originally went for academy status because they got a golden handshake, but now there is no extra money.

What it boils down to is the following:

Michael Gove is a pompous arse with an unfathomable desire to turn back the educational clock 40 years, but every now and then one of his extensive, and probably expensive team of advisors has a reasonable idea.

I Can Hear The Beeping Of A Reversing Politician

It must be in the genetic make-up of a politician to make a bold, inflammatory statement and then retract at a far faster rate when they suddenly realise that these policies are both unworkable and unpopular. And so it comes to the turn of the Secretary of State for Education to putting his blunder bus into reverse on Ofsted inpsections whilst speaking to the National Association of Head Teachers. This isn't the first time when actually faced with talking to real people in education that Michael Gove has said stuff that will get him out of the room in one piece.

The "no-notice inspections" have been scrapped apparently, although Gove didn't manage to say what would replace them, which may suggest that he has no idea and was in fear of a lynching had he not made the comment. This also comes at a time when headteachers are being encouraged to report on the inspectors via a website the newly set up School View website, with cries of a lack of consistency and of inspectors having made up their mind before even arriving in school. It's something that I've experienced, so I know it goes on but what will that actually achieve? Headteachers will not want to rock the boat for fear that if they complain, the repercussions during the next inspection could be disasterous.

Gove also questionned whether Ofsted inspectors are paid enough at a mere £60,000 per year - more than most teachers, or should I say more than every regular classroom practioner in the country in a bid to encourage "the best" people to become inspectors. Outrageous suggestion - these people are parasites on the education profession and should be paid nothing. Any encouragement to force the collapse of the quango should be shouted from every rooftop in the country.

I notice that Gove made no reference to his deeply unpopular policy of forcing schools in to academy status, especially the day after the DfE asked dozens of academies to pay back their share of £15 million, due to a mis-calculation in Whitehall over the usage of predicted roles instead of actual roles. This will mean, according to the news, that the academies will each have to pay back around £200,000 and could lead to disaster for those institutions, unless their financial managers spotted the error, which one would assume is a little unlikely. Not  great advert for educational independence.

Until the British public vote by spoiling their ballot papers or not turning up at all, these idiots in Westminster will think that they are important and wrap themselves up in their own self-importance, surrounded by "Yes" men and women destroying the public sector. It makes no difference what their political affiliations are as all parties seem to have similar, if not identical policies designed to destroy the public sector.

Rant over.

I Don't Get It...

Without wanting to sound like one of the children in my class when you put any work, no matter how difficult, in front of them, "I don't get it". I just don't get the obsession of successive governments to promote the policy of academies for schools. I genuinely have no idea what is in it for them other than perhaps eventually education will be part-funded privately, allowing government to spend the billions they save on other stuff, like a duck house for their moat or an "arthouse" film in the local Travelodge.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist by any means, but the policy has recently become more aggressive recently, with schools seemingly jumping before being forced to walk the plank to academy status. And what reason do leadership in schools give for going for academy status?

1. It's inevitable. It's only inevitable if schools fold to government pressure, and unfortunately teachers are generally keen to moan about something but less keen to actually do something to fight it. Due to diminished job security in academies and fewer benefits for regular teachers, maybe this will spur the teaching profession into action.
2. Increased funding. What little extra there is will go into paying for services lost, although some maybe left over to pay for "better" teachers (in whose opinion?) or for new technology for usage in school (that will be out-of-date within 12 months). Conspiracy theorists (and many of the children in school) will tell you that headteachers will all grant themselves a pay-rise - it's possible but almost certainly won't happen unless deserved. A recent news story of this essentially happening probably won't help, with a Lincolnshire headteacher paying his own children to "work" as consultants for a school, where their job was to travel to Bali to look at a hotel for example.
3. Increased independence over the delivery of the curriculum. This is a total red herring as everyone, whether at a private school, LEA funded school or academy has to take the same exams, meaning that there actually is zero freedom over what subjects to teach. There has always been a choice over how the information is delivered in the classroom.
4. Raising standards. Another complete red herring, as the same kids will be wandering through the doors (academies can't get rid of kids very easily, just like LEA schools). When BTECs were worth 4 GCSEs academies made it appear that standards were lifted, but this year a truer picture will appear and many academies will be back at the bottom of the league tables (I will wash my mouth out with soap) where they were previously.

When I say that it costs up to about £50,000 to actually convert to academy status, the sums really don't add up. What's the point? Really. All the policy seems to be doing is unionising a generally placid workforce, and with the recent news that the numbers of teachers has fallen by 10,000 in the last year, this really is a worrying time for the nation, not just teachers.

There is also the factor that the headteacher and governors hold ultimate power in the school, so there is a major question of trust. These people claim to be accountable to the DfE, but they will only do something if schools go disasterously wrong. The door is open to overt and unopposed bullying in the worse cases, with the bullied unable to do much about it, and the bully (usually the headteacher) able to do what they want, when they want. So it boils down to trust in the governors and headteacher to do the right thing for the school. I'm sure that many are trustworthy, but not all.

Not only are attitudes towards education worsening, but government policy is ensuring that terms and conditions are also worsening. Can't wait to teach classes of 60 kids all telling me that they don't need to learn what I'm teaching them to sit in front of the TV watching Jeremy Kyle. Extreme, but not unrealistic.

Playing Them At Their Own Game

So all the teaching unions conferences have finished and surprisingly its been the NASUWT rather the NUT who have been making all the headlines. There has been a lot of whinging that won't win much public support, despite the fact that many of the points raised have been legitimate, the public will generally just wish that teachers would stop moaning. Hot classrooms are not going to extract much sympathy I'm afraid.

Arguably the best bit of conference season was Chris Keates' (General Secretary of NASUWT) closing speech. Having taken a leaf out of Gove's book she used the gimmick of having a cadboard cut out of the Secretary of State for Education to symbolise the fact that not a single Minister has attended any part of any conference. Keates described Gove as a teaching union's poster boy as his reign in office has led to a huge increase in membership for all three teaching unions. This is worrying for two reasons: government policy has made more teachers feel threatened but also because there are a lot of teachers who aren't union members, which is naive at best.

Keates used the opportunity to accuse Gove and his cronies (yes Wilshaw, you are one of those) of "eroding the professional status of teachers", and she is absolutely correct. Gove seems hell-bent on demoralising the profession in what he claims is a bid to raise standards. An army general doesn't instil courage and fight in their troops by telling them repeatedly that they are sub-standard and should be worked into the ground. All the Department for Education ever say is that teachers have been given more power to rid classrooms of disruptive influences and that academies offer schools and staff greater freedom to teach children without government interference.

Anyone who has had any recent experience of schools will tell you that it is still nigh-on impossible to exclude pupils, and is arguably even more difficult now since the excluding school has to pay for the excluded student's future provision from an increasingly shrinking budget. Academies, it is claimed by unions, are a step towards privatisation of education and an invitation to privateers to make a profit from schools. I think that it may be a little dramatic to suggest that private companies want to take over schools to gain profit but there is very little evidence that academy status raises standards at all, especially considering that the new academy has the same under-achieving students wandering through the doors, probably late. Academies offer most teachers worse money, worse benefits regarding sick, maternity and paternity pay as well as longer hours. Are the government really surprised that teachers are opposed to the move? Turkeys don't queue up to vote for Christmas.

The fact that no-one from the Department for Education has attended any conference shows the contempt for the unions who represent the profession, and in my view, the cowardice of politiians. Ministers are happy to sit in press conferences or typing up press releases in their comfy, air-conditioned offices that slate teachers, but are extremely reluctant to actually face them.

Strikes seem imminent - bring on the revolution!

Secretary of State for Education Michael Mugabe-Gove

Ok, so people aren't being starved or murdered by our Right "Honourable" leader, but the way he deals with people who disagree with him is certainly similar.

Remember Downhills Primary School in Haringey? That's the one where everyone except for Ofsted, including parents, staff and pupils were quite happy with things, but because Orville, sorry Ofsted said that they were failing and ought to be an academy, Keith Harris, I mean Michael Gove insisted they become an academy. I'm being harsh of course, as Gove did allow the school to be reinspected in the name of "fairness", and surprise of all surprises, Ofsted backed their original assessment. The headteacher resigned, against many people actually involved with the school's wishes, but still the governors resisted.

So now Gove has sacked the governors and put in place an interim governing body who will decide on whether the school will become an academy. The new Chair of Governors is a certain Les Walton. Heard of him? Didn't think so, but guess what, he's in charge of the Young People's Learning Agency - the academies' funding body. He's going to be dead impartial, what a wise choice Mr Gove. The school will become an academy as soon as is humanly possible one suspects, and with it educational choice in the UK essentially dies.

Schools who aren't yet academies are essentially being forced into becoming them as funding is squeezed. The only schools that can generate extra funding from government are academies. Guess what my headteacher is currently investigating in that case, although you could be excused for thinking that it's an albino elephant that has gripped their attention. Very recent data suggests that academy status makes little or no difference to school performance, which is hardly surprising since the same failing students are still wandering through the gates with their ties at half-mast and their trousers arguably lower whilst rolling their next cigarette. Some academies have even gone into special measures - those academies don't tend to be championed by the current regime in Whitehall.

Also in the news is the fact that literacy progress has stalled meaning that we are falling behind other, similar countries - naughty, lazy teachers, resting on their laurels; goalposts have moved you know, onto the next fad or target.

Maths needs to be taught in more contextual ways apparently - unimaginative, lazy teachers, still teaching the stuff that has seen society through perfectly well for the previous 200 years or so, you really ought to spend lots of time and money reinventing the wheel only to be told by 30 spotty teenagers that they won't ever use this stuff when they leave; they already know exactly what every jobs entails of course, and will walk into their number one choice.

Language teachers required urgently, loads of people want to take your subject now, which is almost as quick a U-turn as many a front-bencher in Westminster will undertake as only a few years ago language teachers were being told that they were no longer required and to seek employment elsewhere; please return to a grotty, smelly classroom from your better paid and relatively hassle-free jobs outside of teaching, all is forgiven.

Could it be that the last paragraph is the key to all this - perhaps it's not all teachers' fault. Maybe, and I'm throwing this one out there, it's the constant interference from people in Whitehall that is part of the problem, as they try desperately to make their mark before moving up the government pecking order. And maybe, careful now, it's the general public's opinion of teachers, schools and education in general, fuelled by a corrosive British media (on the whole) that means that school children and their parents have little/no respect for teachers, education or learning, choosing to question the word of a school and argue their child's innocence until they are blue in the face, even though they know that the school is right; it's a point of principal for them to prove that schools and their staff are below them.

Ok, so I'm ranting a bit, but the constant criticism by ministers and their puppets (that's you Wilshaw) is not helpful. Yes, there are some rubbish teachers and headteachers out there, but not all are below standard. If you want people to listen to what you want them to do then you need a smattering of praise in there occasionally, and not being politically caned at every given opportunity.

I was talking to my father the other day and he said "do you think education is the UK is perfect?". I replied that I didn't think it was, and he came back with something that made me think "Gove is trying to change something that you say needs change", which I suppose is a fair point. I'm not saying that he's doing things right, but education is the UK does need a change. Academies aren't the answer however, despite what Gove seems to think.

Governors Beware

Sir Michael Wilshaw, Chief Inspector of Schools, has set his sights on governors of schools now. In a sense I welcome this, in that governors should be held to account for weak governing bodies who allow poor leadership to continue without challenge. Governors after all are the only people who can "sack" a headteacher.

The trouble is that governors are unpaid - Wilshaw's solution is to pay them. With what? At the expense of teaching staff? Budgets are dwindling Sir Michael - where's the money going to come from?

The job of school governor is an important one, of course, but due to its voluntary nature, not one many want to get their hands dirty performing. Some governors are only there to make themselves look better within the community, say before running for Mayor, council, parliament etc. Now I know that this sounds fairly cynical on my part, but it is true I'm afraid.

Many governors are parents of children who have done well at the school, perhaps dare I say, despite the school and will have a rose tinted view of the school and its leadership. You won't get many parents of kids in the bottom sets volunteering to sit on the governing body, which is partly why their kids are in the bottom sets - little interest in education in many cases.

Will Wilshaw's plan ever see the light of day?

In my view the answer's "No", for these reasons:

1. There won't be enough money to do it - each school requires around 5 governors, if not more. It depends on the size of the school.
2. If governors become a target of Ofsted, no-one will want to do it as they can live without the grief.

The only way schools will ever be governed properly is if local authorities or academy organisations employ "professional" governors who govern a group of schools. This will eat into the budget as far as the local authority are concerned, and eat into the academy organisations' profit. It therefore won't happen.

Nice try Michael, but once again your judgement is clouded by your buttocks.

Bullies Win In The End

So sure enough the primary school in London, Downhill Primary in Haringey, that Michael Gove wanted to force into academy status but fought back has been re-inspected and put into "special measures" meaning that they have to accept Gove's judgements.

This seems to be a modern tactic in education from government level all the way down to individual school level. Gove clearly had his nose put out of joint when Downhill decided to fight back - he's not used to the minions actually having an opinion after all. It is something he may have to get used to though as I am convinced that more an more of this kind of rebellion will happen as the Secretary of State attempts to force through new, ill-advised policy.

What did for Downhill initially was an Ofsted report claiming that the school was giving its children inadequate provision for education. The re-inspection was, and I quote Gove here, to "provide an indepedent assessment of the school's position". It is a well known fact in education that Ofsted inspectors will support each other through thick and thin (mainly thin), and with the previous judgement being so public, "independent" was the last thing that this inspection could claim to be.

Current pupils were reportedly distraught as their headteacher resigned having received the new judgement, and despite parental support for the school, their pleas has fallen on deaf ears. Like so much in education nowadays, Gove and his cronies clearly have targets to meet regarding the conversion of local authority schools to academies. I still don't really understand the motivation for this policy as the government ultimately still pays the money but has little say in how it runs anymore. If you held the purse strings, surely you'd want some kind of say in how the money's spent? Obviously not.

Gove's bully boy tactics have won the day, and his "best pal" Wilshaw seems to enjoy using the same tactic. In his short tenure as Chief Inspector of Schools he has managed to alienate and worry almost the entire profession. He consistently talks only to Ofsted "outstanding" headteachers at conferences, although that judgement is all relative. Surely if he wants to make a difference to schools he should talk to all the other "non-outstanding" people and try to to indoctrinate them. Maybe because he knows he will get lynched by others (the "outstanding" heads are all his mates, I should add), such is the vitriol from the teaching proffesion aimed his way. His budget is supposed to be cut this year but he's been quoted as saying that his mate Gove should sort that out. Makes you want to vomit, doesn't it?

Sir Michael (of Mouse?) has been on the television a lot recently trying to justify his appointment, enormous pay packet and the existence of Ofsted that many experts are currently claiming is too big for its boots, lacking any real accuracy or consistency in its judgements. Wilshaw is a wholly unimpressive man when interviewed; he can barely speak and looks uncomfortable. That's not to say that professionally he hasn't worked wonders in some schools; his bullying tactics of forcing his staff to work above and beyond what is healthy or sociable clearly works on a small scale (in one school at a time),as he can easily replace the few staff who refuse to sell their soul to devil, I mean Sir Michael. Nationwide there just aren't the numbers of staff in reserve to do that, and the fact that the staff in tenure of the jobs currently, beat the "reserve staff" at interview would suggest that those in reserve aren't always better. He will no doubt try though and at the same time alienate an entire profession.

No-one in education can argue with both Gove and Wilshaw's apparent philosophy of improvement of education and raising of standards, but the way they are going about it leaves a lot to be desired. Their bullying policy is a common one in schools though as teachers who dare to question their leadership (whether constructively or not) or simply fall out of favour for whatever reason, find their progression up the pay scale blocked and life made very uncomfortable indeed (mainly through aggressive and demoralising lesson observations/judgements - a headteacher's trump card over their staff) purely down to the judgement of one or two at the top.

If you are thinking of becoming a teacher, you'd better think long and hard about it, as it really isn't all it's cracked up to be. Although, on the plus side, there will be plenty of vacancies soon as current classroom practitioners race for the door, whether through retirement or career change. This coalition government has obviously set its stall out to completely ruin education in this country, and they are doing a remarkle job of it.

Academies Aren't Doing As Well As They Claim - Duh!

A report has just been released by "School Improvement Expert", Dr Terry Wrigley claiming that most academies have appeared to raise their results/achievement by essentially cooking the books and relying on vocational qualifications.

A link to the news story is here: Click here!

This a yet another non-story if you are a teacher and therefore have some clue about the education system in the UK. Academies up to this point have been failing schools forced into a change of status to raise standards. The problem being that the same students wander through the million pound doors, and even with the best teachers in the country, these academies are going to struggle to raise standards at the rate that they claim to have done. The children that have come on "leaps and bounds" have just been placed onto courses that require 100% coursework and therefore can essentially be completed by the staff themselves. The only issue that they have is getting these children a C grade at English and Maths, and credit where credit is due, they do a very good job at that.

Now, if you don't know, many vocational courses have been worth 4 GCSE C grades up until recently, when the government decided to "downgrade" these qualifications. You can almost sense the wave of panic going through much of secondary education, but especially academy headteachers who are paid silly money, sitting in masive offices whilst playing Angry Birds on their complimentary ipad2s. As soon as their "true" results appear in August, they will all be making a beeline for the Job Centre in a blind panic.

There are a few positives though:

• Since these qualifications have been "downgraded", employers will be able to make better judgements about who to employ as the playing field has now been levelled. Undeserving children will not feel that they have achieved by putting in zero effort and stillwalking out of school with 10 "GCSE" grades.
• The "fat cat" headteachers deserve pretty much everything they get. The good ones will stay because the results will have genuinely improved; the frauds will be unemployed, as they should be.
• The current government, who have been lauding academy status, will end up with not just egg on their face, but a whole battery farm that will hopefully lead to the sacking of the idiotic Michael Gove. Around 70% of academies will see a massive fall in their results to somewhere near where they should be. One can dream, but I won't be purchasing a "Sorry You're Leaving" card for Michael.

The whole thing only goes to prove that the current regime is purely out for headlines, not for the good of anyone other than themselves.

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.

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!

Turning To The Dark Side

Excellent, that's my sister's Christmas present next year sorted: a red light sabre. All those in the Star Wars films who have turned to the Dark Side own a red light sabre.

My sister, who is also a teacher has turned to The Dark Side by accepting a job that starts in September at a private school on higher wages and what has to be better working conditions than she currently endures. After a few years teaching at an academy she has finally had enough.

She has been called every name under the sun by students, regularly has boys pulling each others trousers down in class, trashing the classroom/equipment, found subjects on her timetable that she has no desire to teach and had requests for assistance to the leadership team ignored, or even worse, told "what you need to do is...". Having got into her car and bursting into tears one Friday, a quick polish of the CV and a first class stamp later she was at interview being offered a job, which she took with no hesitation at all. The academy now has to replace a hard working and good teacher, spending hundreds, if not thousands advertising a wholly undesirable post in an academy that is arguably going to the dogs due to overpaid leadership being reluctant to get their hands dirty in any way, shape or form.

Can you blame her?

The simple answer is "No", and I nearly did the same thing a couple of years ago, but with the increased travel coupled with a similar wage as I was already on, I decided not to take the post I was offered.

What are the benefits of teaching in a private or public school (there is a difference, but both essentially involve parents paying money for their child's education)?

1. The term are shorter, although more intensive for the teaching staff as the days are longer and the running of extra-curricular activities tends to be an expectation. The holidays are longer though, which means that staff can take of advantage of cheaper holiday prices as they can go outside of state school holidays.
2. Discipline is far stricter due to the fact that private schools can just get rid of those students who feel that it's beyond them to be able to behave. If you are too much hassle as a student (behaviourally that is) you can leave - the school can live without your fees, thank you very much. In a state school evidence has to be gathered in the form of statements from all witnesses, staff and students, and even then the governors might just let the child back or the local authority will rule that your school has gone over its quota of exclusions this year, meaning that the student can continue to cause havoc without fear of recrimination. All, that drivel in Channel 4's "Educating Essex" about not excluding permenantly just doesn't teach kids how the world works - if you mess up you face consequences. Not in state education people!
3. Resources don't tend to be as good in private schools as they are in state schools, purely because the school has to buy the stuff itself rather than get it all funded by the local authority. The upside in private school is that because the discipline is good, you can use what you've got effectively, whereas many resources in state schools are just abused by children who don't realise how lucky they are. The state-of-the-art equipment is rarely used to its full potential because the teacher is constanty trying to discipline the class or stop them breaking the stuff.
4. Extra-curricular activities are allowed to flourish at independent schools in general - the facilities are excellent and it is made clear that you are privileged to be allowed to use them. Time is given for students to reach their potential outside of the classroom, which can have a positive effect in the classroom; whereas in state schools, depending on the make-up of the top brass at individual schools, extra-curricula activities often get sidelined due to pressure on achieving results to gain a decent league table position.

Many teachers and people in general may feel a little intimidated by the independent school system, not knowing how they really work. Some have a moral objection to their existance, but you have to remember that not every student in private education is going to be or act like a front bench politician (fortunately), most are just like the children in state schools - decent and hard working if given the opportunity to be so.

I must admit that I did start looking at local independent schools again after a recent incident at school where I was told that I was an "F****** C***" by a child in class. I told the boy to "Stop acting like a prat and sit down" as he was just showing off to his mates. I was told shortly afterwards that I had made the deputy head's job almost impossible with my comment and the child dutifully received a day in internal exclusion and an hour's detention. The child not only swore at me, he then used his mobile phone (which he shouldn't have in school) to phone his father to accuse me of all sorts of things that I hadn't done (my story was backed up by the "statements" of all the other students in the class) and the father abused the deputy head down the phone. The deputy duly folded to parental pressure and relented from excluding the child for a few days. How supported I felt - not!

I will be checking online for any upcoming jobs, as well as finding a red light sabre. I might even get one myself.

Academies - The Way Forward?

News has broken this week of an academy being accused of mismanagement. More precisely it's a group of academies, the second biggest in the country.

Academies, we are told in the teaching profession, are the way forward, and there are rumours that all schools will eventually be forced to become academies, with courses being held for schools' leadership to attend on how to become an academy. The theory behind schools becoming academies is this:

• Schools who become academies can plough their budgets into whatever they deem fit. Financial incentives can be made to prospective staff to encourage them to take the job, and presumably make them work harder. Academies don't have to adhere to the pay structure set out by maintained schools. Academies get money from the government but can use it in whatever way they think is most beneficial for their school. This seems a decent idea on the face of it. You would assume that a school's management would know best how to spend their money rather than be dictated to by a suit in Whitehall.
• Academies take over under-performing schools across the country and by offering better wages to staff, attract the "best" teachers who will turn those under-performing schools into beacons of education, a blue-print to be admired and drooled over by all. This also seems a decent idea in principal, as those students getting a raw deal in "failing" schools will get a better deal.
• Ultimately all schools will be encouraged to become academies because of the huge benefits of doing so. And who could blame them?

What actually happens is the following:

• All the money is spent on leadership and not very much is spent on the people who actually have to go and teach those "under-performing" children. This is what has happened at the MediaCity Oasis Academy in Salford, where 13 teaching staff are being made redundant in order to pay for the leadership team, many of whom I presume don't teach very much, if it's anything like any other school in the country. Many academy leadership teams are made up of old mates who pay themselves increasing amounts to do less and less. The only thing being that if the results don't meet expectations, those members of the leadership are out on their ear. We have a local academy whose headteacher was escorted off the premises and many senior staff are just being given a box to pack up their things. Make a deal with the devil people...
• The clientele, or "stock" as Ofsted like to call them, remain the same. It doesn't matter how many millions of pounds of public money are spent on new buildings, state-of-the-art facilities/resources and "the best teachers" in the land if those who are receiving that education are disaffected and have little or no interest in gaining qualifications because their parents hated school and have imposed their attitude towards education upon their offspring. You can polish a cowpat until it's so shiny you could do your hair in it, but ultimately it's still a cowpat.
• The number of "top quality" staff available to fill the posts falls well short of the number of posts to fill. There are lots of good teachers in the land but not all are up to it to be honest. You can't just magic up a replacement for a poor teacher over-night, and many don't want the extra stress that an increased wage can bring.
• If all schools become academies, the financial benefits of becoming one will be nullified as there's only so much money to go around.
• What isn't reported by the government is the fact that the main reason academies have appeared to make huge strides in raising achievement with their cohort is because loads of them are put on BTEC (or equivalent) courses which require little or no exams, but are mainly coursework which can essentially be dictated by the teachers and are worth 4 GCSE grades. This is changing so that a BTEC is going to be worth just 1 GCSE - I can't wait to see how the academies do then!
• The increased money paid to teaching staff needs to be earned (rightly so - you shouldn't expect to get more money for no extra work), so therefore those "top quality" staff end up burning out very quickly and either have lots of time off with stress (cover teachers will need paying) or will just leave the profession, because of stress (they will then need replacing with teachers who aren't as "high quality"). In some subjects, it's difficult to get mediocre teachers to fill posts.

Most educational policies that recent governments have pushed through are just designed to win votes and gain good press. Very few, if any actually encourage students to reach their potential in education, and just as importantly, although often forgotten, none of the policies make teaching a more manageable or desirable job. In fact, teaching is becoming an untenable job, as increased interference and demotivation become serious issues in the profession.

Article here!

ICT Teachers Are Rubbish!

Ofsted have reported this week that "the teaching of information and communications technology is inadequate in a fifth of school", with Schools minister Nick Gibb claiming that ICT teaching was "far too patchy".

Here's the article: Click Here!

The article says that last year, out of 74 schools inspected, 14 showed inadequate teaching of ICT. Now you are welcome to accuse me of splitting hairs at this point, but I kind of presumed that the country had more than 74 schools, and actually 14 out of 74 is just under 19%, rather than the 20% quoted. The trouble is that I just sound like a politician, spewing numbers out for no apparent reason, but it does seem a little sweeping to me.

What the article doesn't mention is that there is a chronic shortage of ICT teachers in the marketplace, or should I say, there is a chronic shortage of "decent" ICT teachers in the marketplace. The school I teach at held interviews for a new head of ICT and didn't appoint any of the four candidates for lack of quality, and all these people were experienced practitioners. The post had to be readvertised, and we did get someone second time around.

There's also the fact that the ICT curriculum, written by the government isn't very good. Having taught ICT I know this from first hand experience. The tasks are woefully thought out and totally uninspiring, which means that young people aren't enthused enough to carry the subject on further.

ICT isn't the only subject, with mathematics being another problem area to staff. I have known of collegaues of mine say to senior management who were on their case "Feel free to get rid of me, but good luck replacing me with anything as good or better". It may sound arrogant, but they almost certainly had a point.

Teaching, along with police, are seen as relatively safe jobs - there will always be children and criminals after all. People blindly stumble into teaching via a PCGE course expecting to turn up and be able to "knock 'em dead" from day one. This isn't the case, no matter how proficient you are in your subject, the skills involved in relaying that information to a bunch of teenagers who can't be bothered have nothing to do with your aptitude for the subject.

And herein lies the problem with ICT - those who are good at it and have knowledge that could be passed on to youngsters aren't always the most out-going of people. Let's face it, people who are great at programming and databases tend to be geeks (not all of them!), and the same applies to maths. Teaching involves a personality that many of those apparent experts don't possess.

There's also the fact that if they are genuinely good at ICT (or maths) there's probably more money to be made outside of teaching, in an environment that doesn't involve actually talking to people very much. Trying to encourage these people to leave university with a first class degree and walk into teaching with a golden handshake and a shortened teacher training period is not the way forward, even though it sounds good to those who don't know, namely the general population who cast their vote, and the press.

Of course there are people who are good at ICT (and maths) and can deliver it, but they are few and far between, and often lured to academies who don't have the strict financial controls that a mainstream school has with regards teachers' wages.

And as we all know, almost all academies have become academies because the clientele aren't necessarily the most diligent, so you have the best teachers teaching those students who are highly unlikely to actually want to progress in the field.

It's the teachers' fault for being rubbish though, clearly.