The Problem With Top Graduates...

The government has been on about attracting more top graduates into teaching for a while now. They've offered bursaries (see here), expanded the remit of the teaching recruitment charity Teach First to allow it to recruit greater numbers (see here), and made various announcements that have been lapped up by the media of varying quality (Telegraph, Independent, Mirror, Daily Mail to link just a few). A simple search online will unearth hundreds more articles I have no doubt, if you can be bothered that is.

The requirement to actually have a qualification to teach in the state schools of England has been relaxed in the most favoured types of school for the Department for Education, namely academies and free schools. The qualification requirement has never been compulsory in private/public schools, the type of school that a high proportion of MPs attended, or in the case of my local MP, wish they'd attended. Now you may say that if it's worked in private and public schools, what's the problem? They get great results that state schools could get after all. It's a question of intake, student motivation and support from home that is a major difference my friends. Anyway, that's a separate point; what I wanted to cover is the myth regarding top graduates.

There are a few subjects that have been highlighted by DfE ministers and other MPs on programmes like Question Time that really ought to have top graduates teaching the youth of today; namely mathematics and science. You could throw "new subject" computer science into that mix too, as you are either very good at it and therefore probably did it at university; there is no middle ground with computer science: either you're brilliant or you're crap. I'm the latter.

At A Level and Degree I couldn't agree more that maths and science could do with being taught by top graduates, although they need not be the be all and end all. Teaching of those courses is to children who have chosen to take those subjects and already have an deep-seated interest in the subject. They not only want to know how to do something, they want to know why it works that way; something that a top graduate can explain with ease, whilst others would possibly have to do a little research. So, dear DfE and those in expensive suits in Westminster, feel free to attract top graduates for those posts, but don't disregard others. You will have to dangle numerous carrots in front of these high flyers to divert their attention from the lucrative careers that top mathematicians and scientists have traditionally entered. It might help if DfE press releases and various Ofsted employees didn't consistently criticise teachers in the media too. I digress again...

My main query is whether a top graduate really is the best type of person to teach maths and science to disinterested children who have no choice but to be there and just want to get the minimum grade in order to never have to sit through a lesson again? Unfortunately with a total lack of interest in the subject, the likelihood of achieving that grade is minimal. These students need to be taught in a different way. Empathy with the inability to understand a concept first time around is hugely helpful. A top graduate in their subject will invariably have found most, if not all of their subject pretty straightforward. The trouble is this means that our much lauded top graduates will get increasingly frustrated as their charges fail to grasp covalent bonds or simultaneous equations. A teacher who was not a top graduate probably won't have found everything easy, and can therefore understand the frustrations.

If you couple this lack of empathy for a  student's woes with a lack of any teacher training or qualification then the recipe is potentially disastrous. If there's one thing that my PGCE did teach me it was different strategies for dealing with classes, mainly through teaching placements admittedly, but without it I would have floundered even more than I actually did in my NQT year.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that top graduates couldn't empathise, they are just less likely to understand. So Mr Gove, DfE, Sir Michael and the various other political types who drone on and on about top graduates, they may not actually be the answer to all your problems!

The Holidays Are Upon Us, And We Know What That Means...

The first term of the year is always the hardest for the following reasons:

1. It's the longest term of the year, usually 15 or 16 weeks altogether (before you non-teachers moan, feel free to train as a teacher and then get back to me).
2. The days are getting shorter, the weather getting worse and therefore children less opportunities to expend energy outside.
3. Christmas always makes the students excitable and therefore drain more energy from teachers as they try (occasionally in vain) to control them.
4. You know that due to the nature of the Christmas break (you rarely relax due to the various commitments at that time of year) that you will go back in early January just as tired as when you broke up.

The trouble is that rather like the sale of turkeys skyrockets at this time of year for obvious reasons, politicians and their ilk, as well as journalists with little to write about, regard this as open season on teachers - don't they get long holidays?

Some of this year's examples are below, from a mixture of broadsheets and tabloids, containing various messages to the general public, but the main one being, in many teachers' opinions, that teachers are the scum of the earth.

• From the Daily Telegraph and suggesting that a significant percentage of teachers are suspended due to illegal activities, which is costing the taxpayer - all their good readers - thousands of pound each year. Here is the article. As a teacher I read two messages from this: 1. Lots of teachers are criminals, whereas actually less than 1% of the teaching profession is suspended, and no comparison with other professions is available; 2. This has made a significant contribution to the economic downturn in the UK, whereas actually the amount being paid to teachers, some of whom are innocent, is tiny in comparison with, for example, MP's expenses. It's a blatantly a selective use of data to illustrate a non-point; Gove would be proud.
• From the Daily Mail, Michael Gove suggests that all schools should remain open for 51 weeks per year and longer every day. The article is here. Now I don't have a massive problem with this since me and my partner spend hundreds every month on childcare costs, and I'm pretty sure that many other teachers do the same. The unions have, as is their regular tactic, moaned a lot about the idiocy of the policy and how teachers are being made to work harder for less money. But as usual the unions, the voice of teachers in the public eye, missed the opportunity to question Gove on how he plans to implement this initiative. Who will staff these extra hours, especially since there aren't enough quality staff around to man every classroom in the country as it is, according to Ofsted? How will these extra weeks and hours be funded or will teachers just have to have their contracts changed and do more for less money? When will teachers get their holiday? Flexi-time will be hard to implement in schools after all. It's the sort of sound-bite that idle journalists and editors crawl all over, and Gove knows that as a former hack himself.
• From The Guardian/Observer there was an exclusive interview with Ofsted Chief Sir Michael Wilshaw who states, amongst other things, that moaning parents are to be applauded for driving up standards. The article is here. So why pick on the parental part of what he said? simply because the parental stuff is the bit that infuriates me the most. Parents often get just one side of the story (often not bothering to listen tot eh other side), namely the myopic view of their child, who in a self-preserving way, will make themselves look angelic and the teacher some kind of ogre. How does this drive up standards? All it does is demoralise a staff who can only feel "got at" by this. A demoralised staff will not perform to their potential in the classroom, which will, in turn, mean that the students aren't getting the best from their teacher. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but that will not make us, as a nation, climb the "oh so important" Pisa league tables. I think what Wilshaw is trying to say, but extremely badly, is that all "stakeholders" (whereas my bullsh*t bingo card?) have a part to play in the improvement of schools, and he's right. He has moaned a lot about his comments being mis-interpreted by the press, so why does he continue to talk to them? Idiotic.

There are probably many more stories, but these are the ones that have stuck in my mind. You will notice that a large percentage of the column inches are dedicated to the words of Gove, Wilshaw or whoever has decided to stick their oar in despite having little or no recent classroom experience. Teachers rarely get to offer their point of view, in fact the main respondents being union leaders, who are no longer teachers, if they ever had been. Those who make decisions about classroom practise are rarely affected by them; the teachers who are affected being left with no right of reply. And herein lie the frustrations of the teaching community.

I actually tell a little porky here, teachers do have one opportunity to speak out in The Guardian's "Secret Teacher": the link is here. Now I suspect that the majority of the readership of "Secret Teacher" are teachers, and the rest of the population just see the articles on there as the regular teacher moans. Now not all teachers moan (a huge number do I hasten to add) but the press have created that impression and the unions reported at whinging at every given opportunity. If those in charge actually read the "Secret Teacher", they should be very worried about some of the practises in schools and the ramifications upon the mental state of the country's educators; I am assuming that the "leaders" haven't buried their heads in the sand over this.

Ultimately the press in this country are, in many teachers' views, in the pockets of the politicians. There's little evidence to argue otherwise and Gove, Wilshaw et al are making hay whilst the sun shines. I suppose that you can't blame them for milking the press for all they're worth, if only the unions were as clever. You can blame the journalistic community for laziness however, which is frankly, unforgivable.