Rewards - something for nothing?

This news story was floating about on social media today, a story about a middle school that held a "mufti day" only for those who had reached their accelerated reading targets. Click here to see the full story from the Telegraph.

This got me thinking about the expectations of students about to sit their GCSEs and A Levels. The Easter holidays have just begun but many secondary teachers will spend some time in school delivering revision sessions, or in the case of many of their charges, "desperation" classes for those who didn't listen in class first/second/third time around and can't be bothered or don't have the discipline to revise independently.

I had a conversation with a colleague the other day who described this telephone conversation with a parent about their underachieving child in an option subject (names have obviously been changed):
Teacher: I was just ringing to say that Alice is currently on about a C grade but is very capable of getting an A grade if she puts in a bit of effort and knuckles down for the remaining 5 weeks or so at school.
Ms Smith: "Knuckling down" isn't really Alice's I'm afraidt.
Teacher: It really wouldn't be that arduous, in fact I can tell her specifically what she needs to improve upon.
Ms Smith: I really can't see her doing it, but it's great that she's capable of getting the A grade. Is there any way she could get the A grade without putting in the work?
Teacher: Not really I'm afraid, but I was thinking that if you had a quick word that might give her some encouragement.
Ms Smith: It won't work so I probably won't, but I look forward to her A grade in August.
Teacher: *Sigh*

I'm not embellishing this conversation; it actually happened. It's not untypical in the school I work in either. Something for nothing is almost expected. The entire culture of holiday and after-school revision sessions is a toxic one that encourages this "something for nothing" attitude; one no longer has to bother to listen in lessons as you will get numerous other opportunities to be taught what you've missed. After all, teachers have to do all they can to get their classes through 4 levels of progress or whatever ministers and their quangos decide is acceptable nowadays. Ofsted's and the DfE's obsession with data/exam results is the root cause.

And who can blame the students exclusively? At home students receive rewards for nothing. An obvious example immediately springs to mind: a student who has had to leave one school due to his behaviour and is lucky to still be at his current one received but a brand new vehicle for his birthday, despite being woefully below target in every subject on his timetable. So what chance have we, as a school, got? None is the short answer.

Deadlines are not deadlines and students know that if they wait long enough a teacher will essentially be forced to write coursework for them, having been pressurised by a nervous SLT who fear a visitation if the following summer's results are below par. No wonder employers think that schools don't produce young people ready for the workplace (as this story from January 2014 highlights). I'd have to agree that they don't, but aren't allowed to, despite what ministers say.

So when a headteacher tries to highlight the fact that if you work hard you get rewarded, like the workplace, loads of people moan and pick out that those who miss out, for whatever reason, have their self-esteem damaged. You can't win.

How will those children, future members of the workforce no less, how will their self-esteem be when they can't get a job that feeds their excessive lifestyle that they see in the media because they didn't work hard? Where do you draw the line? They have to learn the lesson at some point.

The Chinese Are Coming To Save Us! Or Are They?

In a desperate bid to make British children better at maths the DfE, via Liz Truss, have decided to jet in 60 Chinese mathematics teachers to run maths classes in 30 "maths hubs", whatever they are. The story from the BBC website is here: click me!

I can see numerous business leaders and politicians breathing a huge sigh of relief that we will finally have a numerate generation ready for employment and a set of Pisa results that can be boasted about around the world. On second thoughts, business leaders aren't that stupid and surely can't believe that these 60 visitors from the East will make any difference whatsoever; politicians, however, are stupid enough to believe that this will work despite being told otherwise by various people (read the comments on the BBC article).

So why won't it work? Why the negativity?

I shall answer the second question first, as it's quick and simple:
This is just the latest in a long running campaign to denigrate the current teaching profession in the UK. For a while now ministers from the DfE have stated in various speeches to anyone who will listen that we need top graduates in teaching, and mathematics is one of those subjects where there are relatively few top graduates working as teachers. This because mathematics top graduates are like rocking horse poo (rare, if you're unsure) and get snapped up on big wages, that schools can't really afford to compete with, by industry. And anyway, would a top graduate really be the best person to get algebra across to a stroppy bunch of teenagers? Probably not, as the aforesaid top graduate won't be able to understand why these teenagers struggle to see the point of "letters in maffs". All the government are currently doing is ensuring that no-one will really want to become a maths teacher and the crisis will build in schools from what is already a critical state.

So now we move onto why flying in 60 maths teachers from Shanghai is frivolous at best:
What ministers fail to realise is that the results from certain provinces in China aren't truly representative; statistics are doctored to show them in their best light, something that politicians, particularly those from the DfE are well practiced in. What ministers, and clearly Ms Truss also fail to acknowledge, is that the learning culture of Chinese students is completely different to that of UK students. I'm not saying that UK students shouldn't be like their Chinese contemporaries, but the fact is that they aren't and are highly unlikely to change due to a guest speaker from Shanghai. The consequences of not doing well in maths in China is poverty and starvation; the consequences in Britain is the entitlement to endless benefits which allow you to have much of what you desire without any personal outlay. The incentive to succeed in maths is just not there in the UK. So no matter what these Chinese teachers, very good they may well be, if the horse doesn't want to drink, forcing its head under water will be pointless and will likely end up in a four-lettered tirade towards the guest. Until attitudes towards mathematics change in the UK, the DfE may as well save on the air fares.

This is yet another example of pigheadedness from a DfE minister designed to fool the public into believing that they actually care about anyone but themselves in the run up to a general election. Fortunately, I think that the general public have been under-estimated by ministers and they can see through their smoke and mirrors; at least I hope they can.

Help! I'm In Maths

Not a phrase you are liekly to hear at the moment, apparently. An "extensive" survey of 1000 students between the ages of 10 and 16 was carried out that stated the following:

1. Most students would rather struggle alone than ask for help for fear of looking foolish.
2. The older a student, the less likely they are to answer a question aloud.
3. Girls are far less likely to contribute in maths lessons.
4. Those who are good at maths don't like showing that they are good for fear of being persecuted as a result.

Is any of this surprising? Not really because maths is considered a "geek" subject, and what do people do to geeks? Take the mickey out of them, or a fair proportion of the population do anyway.

Maths is not something British people readily admit to liking or having talent in. Many parents, if not most will open a parents evening appointment with the line "I was terrible at maths when I was young", or words to that effect. What they are doing is excusing their child's lack of work or effort due to them "not getting it" and the parents not helping.

Various "experts" , Carol Vorderman being one, are stating that the teaching of maths needs to change. As a maths teacher I could throw a cat among the pigeons by saying "I don't get it" and asking Carol to stand in front of a group of Year 11s and deliver this new, engaging curriculum. I can guarantee that she would turn a shade of green and run as far as she can.

I agree that much of the maths syllabus seems irrelevent, but in some jobs quadratic equations are essential, along with other areas of maths that appear of no use. I thought that the idea of education was to keep as many professional doors open for children. It's an accusation that could be levelled at any subject - I don't ever remember having to describe what happens to sodium when I put it in water, apart from now of course. No-one questions science though.

The main problem that maths teachers face is a national attitude towards the subject that it is generally useless in real life and therefore why try?

The curriculum may need to change, but the focus should be on attitude, of both children and parents.

Over Half Of Adults Are Poor At "Maths"

Would you openly advertise that you couldn't read or write? Very few will. But people will openly admit to not being able to do "maths". A report by a new group called National Numeracy claims that just under half of adults have the numeracy skills expected of an 11 year old and only about a fifth of adults are capable of gaining a C grade at GCSE.

The body is unfortunately fronted by Carol Vorderman who is not only awful but also knows absolutely nothing about education beyond her personal experience as a student. The report does have a point though, and is absolutely correct when it says that being poor at maths is a "badge of honour" and a "British disease". Celebrities are cited, even named and shamed as openly admitting to being awful at maths, usually followed by a laugh on a chat show. I invited our local MP into school recently and he even asked why we we bothered with algebra, which is like asking why you need bricks to build a house, which is encouraging!

Once again the kicking of the teaching profession begins - all students should be enthused when it comes to mathematics, despite clear and obvious parental/family influence to hate the subject. The government has repeatedly said in the recent past that they would like all students to continue with mathematics until the age of 18, for no other reason than other countries do it. I want an ipad2 because loads of my friends have one, but it won't make me any more efficient as a person, in fact it may well lead me to neglect other areas of my life. Totally pointless.

Maths teachers are under-qualified and lack the knowledge to enthuse and stretch their students, apparently. The desire of both government and National Numeracy is to get the top graduates, those with first class or upper second class degree to become teachers. Good luck with that - quality mathematicians are few and far between and will almost certainly be offered (and accept) jobs that pay far more than that of a teacher, and could well be less stressful. Those who do end up teaching (it sounds worryingly like the bum deal, doesn't it?) are perfectly well qualified to stretch the students and make the subject accessible. Politicians are dreaming if they think that teaching is currently a desirable profession.

The problem is that the politicians (people who talk about stuff, but actually do very little) are targetting the wrong people. Those they need to target are the pupils, their families and their attitude towards maths rather than the teachers and the curriculum. The curriculum is essentially fine, although the questions could be more geared to real-life situations i.e a little more relevent. The problem is that many children refuse to even attempt the work despite the best efforts of their teachers, and this behaviour is condoned by all the parents of those children who immediately say at parents evening that they can't help because they are rubbish at the subject. Giving up in maths is seen as acceptable to everyone but a teacher.

My "solution":
Educate the parents as well as the children. I already teach an after-school course for parents at our school, but funding is limited and take up is relatively low. It needs to become an embarrassment to be poor at maths and those who should be getting the snide comments should be those who are poor mathematically rather than those who are good at the subject as currently happens. No-one wants to be embarrassed, so people need to be embarrassed when they have insufficient skills in the subject - it should force them to improve. Enough of the covering in cotton wool, these people need to know the truth.

There is another point to be made: I think that what the politicians mean is "numeracy" rather than "maths". Maths involves pretty complex stuff that you wouldn't necesarily expect most people to understand or use outside of the classroom, although you'd be surprised at the uses of some mathematics. Numeracy is a necessity for people to function efficiently in the real world - stuff like percentages and fractions of a numbers, estimation. No wonder so many people get into horrible debt (including some mathematicians!) if they don't understand the interest they pay (percentages) and how much they're spending (estimation). I had a conversation with a class with whom I was teaching linear graphs, when one child asked what they were used for. I suggested a profession as an example amongst many, to which a few said "Oh, I don't want to do anything like that, so I don't need to learn this".

When anyone asks me when they are going to use this in later life, I now have a standard reply, which is: "During your GCSE exam, which will lead you on to a job decent job, assuming that you get a decent grade".

Still, it's all their teachers' fault, not a dreadful national attitude towards the subject.

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.

Teaching Methods Don't Ever Change Apparently

There was an interesting letter to Chris Woodhead, former Chief Inspector of Schools in The Sunday Times this week. It was about non-teachers and those who have little recent experience of classroom practise. It basically said that those with little recent experience have no place telling teachers how to do their job. These include Carol Vorderman (the current mathematics in education czar for the government), some Ofsted inspectors and Woodhead himself.

Woodhead agreed that Vorderman's job was a farce and that those who inspect should have relevent experience, but it was his final point that made me laugh out loud. He said that despite not having taught in a classroom since 1974, good teaching methods never change. Why did it make me laugh so much? I would love to see him teach my bottom set year 10 with his 1974 routines. It would be a (hilarious) disaster.

Why do I not think that it would work? Even though he has a point that good teaching methods don't change (and it's the point he'd justify his statement with), the attitude of children has changed enormously. Even in my 10 plus years of teaching I have noticed a sea change in children's attitudes, and perhaps more importantly, the attitudes of parents.

In my second year of teaching I taught an unpleasant child called Peter. He decided that he would draw on my desks one lesson, so I set him a detention after school, giving the (arguably ridiculous, as few secondary school children head straight home) 24 hours notice required by law. Peter decided that he wouldn't do the detention, so after he'd gone home I phoned his parents and they brought him back to school, sitting there as he cleaned all my desks, rubber gloves and all. There are two points I'd like to make about this:

1. Nowadays, very few parents would actually bring their children back to school. In fact, many would argue that Peter didn't actually draw on my tables because he'd told them he hadn't (despite my witnessing the act). The detention would be made out to be harsh and unfair, and Peter wouldn't be doing it.
2. I wouldn't be allowed to make Peter clean the tables - health and safety/human rights - you name it, they'd hide behind it. The parents would probably resort to saying that it was demeaning, and I would get in trouble.

I say this with a recent incident at my current school fresh in mind. The first involved a well-known trouble-maker shouting "f***ing c***" at me across the road, unprovoked. The school were very supportive and immediately phoned the child's house to explain that he was to be excluded for 5 days. The mother, despite having not been there, denied that he'd ever done it, claiming that it was completely out of character and that he never swears at home. The 5 day exclusion stood fortunately, otherwise I would have been livid, but it was the attitude of the parent who essentially accused the school and me of lying. This is the same parent who claims that her child struggles to make friends - he appears to have plenty of friends as he hands cigarettes out in the playground.

In Woodhead's day he even had the cane to hide behind in a discipline sense, let alone the ability to detain wrong-doers at will. Now he would have to give 24 hours notice of a reasonable detention, which the child would probably fail to attend.

That leads me onto another case at our school, of an awkward child, who's parents are equally awkward. The child, who's decent at sports, is allowed to play for school teams, but can't do detentions after school. Why is this? The parent has to collect various children from different schools and detentions don't fit in with that timetable, but sporting fixtures do. Calling their bluff we offered to make detentions (of which many are pending) the same length as sporting fixtures, but still permission wasn't forthcoming. I have to say that at that point I asked myself why this child and their awkward parent weren't asked to find a school that would accept their attitude/pick-up timetable. The child is still in my class.

So good luck Chris, and your 1970s classroom ideals.

Cricket Is The Key - Apparently

I was browsing the BBC News website the other day and found the following articles about cricket/sport and schools:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-15675694

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10086915

Ok, so the second one is not directly linked to cricket other than a bloke from the Cricket Foundation (Wasim Khan - a journeyman opening bastman) is quoted at the end, but the first one is interesting and most definitely about the game.

The first article says something along the lines of "cricket teaches people a sense of sportsmanship and calms everyone down". It's something they tried in the USA, encouraging gang members to partake in a spot of leather upon willow as a way to get along and steer them away from gang related activities. And it's worked to some extent, by all accounts. Cricket is a great game for camaraderie, mainly because it lasts what seems like an eternity, so you are forced to get along or you're in for hours of friction, which is a waste of useful energy. The England Cricket Board (ECB) has a programme called Chance To Shine where coaches go into schools and coach cricket. If a child is really interested in playing a little more seriously, a club is suggested by the coaches. The game is riddled with sportsmanship, with the main calming influence when it comes to grievances being the shaking of hands - the traditional version rather than some rehearsed sequence of hand touching - and clapping the opposition. Schools who are involved in the programme have noticed an improvement in behaviour in those who take part. Surely this must be encouraged.

The second article explains how school sport has become unhealthily competitive, whereupon children copy their heroes from the professional game. I used to coach a football team but gave up for the following reasons:

1. I couldn't really give up the time to run it properly, although I will help out if I can. The increased pressures on classroom teachers mean that those members of staff who could offer some expertise in certain areas can't afford to give up the time to share it like they would in the past. This is a real loss to school sport in general.
2. The attitude of the children became unbearable, with them refusing to come to training but still expecting to play in the matches (if they were dropped I'd get an irate phone call from a parent) and when you tried to work on the basics (which they were invariably incapable of doing) they just ignored you and challenged each other to a "keepy-ups" competition. I lost count of the number of times I said "If you were actually capable of that 70 yard pass or footballing trick, you'd be playing for Barcelona or Chelsea, not St Cuthberts' U14s".

Part of the problem, and it is taken into classrooms, is that the children and their parents all think they know all there is to know about football (football is the main protagonist here) because they see it on the TV all the time. They also see their heroes repeated petulance and take a similar attitude into the classroom. Rugby and cricket (as well as many other sports) don't really have this, and if it does occur it is dealt with swiftly and harshly to discourage others from doing the same. Football cannot say the same thing. Fining someone who gets paid £250,000 per week 2 weeks wages (the maximum fine allowed in professional football is 2 weeks wages) is pointless. If these people can be financially successful but seemingly not have to adhere to any rules, then why should our young people?

I can't wait until the money falls out of football - the world will be a better place