Sacked Them All!

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

See the article here!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Haeadteachers - worth the money?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ofsted - clueless!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The (Potential) New Head of Ofsted

His name is Sir Michael Wilshaw and Micahel Gove, the Secretary of State for Education, has described him as his hero. He has a reputation for being one of the best headteachers in the country and is nicknamed "sergeant major". He has turned around a failing school in Hackney until last summer they had around 10% of their sixth form be offered places at Oxford or Cambridge, including one girl who was a mother at the age of 14. Every lesson at Mossbourne Community Academy begins with the chanting of the school motto, and pupils now study latin. You can understand why Gove likes him, but let's be honest, based on his record so far as Education Secretary, what does he know? Wilshaw made an inner city academy a success, which is a good thing, but can his educational template work in all schools in the country?

The main worry for teachers his comments about "10% of teachers in every school need help to leave as quickly as possible". That's fine, it's no secret that some teachers aren't really up to the job, and I've had a few as colleagues that this describes in my time if I'm honest. The trouble is that there are around 450,000 teachers in the UK, and you don't have to be a great mathematician to work out that Wilshaw is saying 45,000 teachers aren't up to it. Not only is that 45,000 livelihoods in the balance in a worsening economic climate (no doubt the unions' stance) but also, who's going to replace those 45,000 "incapable" classroom practitioners?

I know from personal experience that it takes a while to establish an air of authority in the classroom, an authority that is regularly challenged by "nice" students, but experience in the classroom gives me more ways of dealing with those challengesand hopefully sorting them out, although not always I hasten to add. Presumably the people who are going to replace the "incompetent" teachers are going to come from newly qualified members of the profession as 10% of those who are doing the job are clearly not up to it. I can also say from experience that newly qualified teachers take time to "bed in" snd rely on experienced colleagues to back them up. They also rely on schools discipling children effectively, somethings that's become increasingly tougher during my career.

Wilshaw likes newly qualified teachers though, as he makes them believe that working 15 hour days for no extra money is a good idea. Mossbourne Community Amademy is open early and closes late, as well as opening on Saturdays to give the students a safe and stable environment to do their studies, which can only be commended, but it does smack of Wilshaw taking advantage of impressionable young teachers who don't want to get on the wrong side of the boss. Does Wilshaw really think that burning young teachers out by making them work long hours for little money is the way forward?

What Wilshaw doesn't seem to appreciate is that not all schools are populated with children who come from troubled backgrounds. The school I teach at is populated in part by spoilt middle aged brats who can't wait to get excluded so that they can get good at Fifa 12, something they can't do during the evenings as they are out in big groups intimidating people and drinking cheap cider. Ok, so I'm exaggerating a little, but where Mossbourne's children find solace in school until late or at weekends, students in other schools can't wait to get away.

Whereas Wilshaw's students at Mossbourne see education as a ticket out of what we are told is a downward spiral of poverty and deprivation, the students at lots of schools see education as a meaningless waste of time before they can sponge off their parents whilst getting RSI in their thumbs, or perhaps getting a job in the family business until their family realise that they are essentially lazy and unqualified to perform the functions required of them.

The main worry is that Wilshaw appears adament that it's his way or the highway, which hasn't worked in the past - Chris Woodhead anyone? It's been nice to see that Woodhead had been offering "chip off the old block" Wilshaw some wise advice, although Wilshaw could be described as an "extreme Woodhead".

If Ofsted wasn't bad enough, Wilshaw's ascension to head of the organisation can only make it worse. I fully expect to be forced to grow a small moustache and have to goose-step around the school come our next inspection.