The Vorderman Report

Yes, you read that correctly, Carol Vorderman has penned a report for the government about the standard of mathematics teaching in England. The former Countdown co-presenter and owner of a 3rd class mathematics degree (a great CV to comment on teaching) describes the maths curriculum as "not fit for purpose".

Actually, it's not as bad as it sounds, my main issue is that a Z list celebrity has been recruited by those in charge to comment upon something they know precious little about. Her main finding are that England's mathematics provison is some way short of the likes of Hong Kong and perhaps alarmingly, Scotland.

The most sensible thing she does say, and I wholeheartedly agree with her about this, is that there should be two different mathematics qualifications available at GCSE level:

• "Academic" maths (as we currently have).
• "Lifestyle" maths (what has been called "functional" recently, but was integrated into the current "academic" qualification).

Vorderman bemoans the fact that only 15% of children go on to study maths beyond GCSE, but is that really any surprise? The step up from Key Stage 3 to Key Stage 4 maths is marked, and with the well-publicised dumbing down of GCSEs in a desperate government attempt to make it appear that standards were rising, the step from GCSE to AS or A Level is ever widening and this must discourage young people from opting to take the subject.

Part of the problem is also the fact that many students are just simply not interested and those who may have an interest are put off due to peer group pressure not to like the subject when they may actually have some talent in it. The option for people to take a "lifestyle" maths course instead of the "academic" one could actually see some benefit. The number of times as a maths teacher I have fielded the question "when am I ever going to use this in real life?", I would run out of fingers and toes within a week. No matter how many examples you come up with for the use of a mathematical concept in the outside world, the students tend to have an answer that gives them an excuse to avoid work. For example:
Me: "Algebra is used all the time nowadays - Excel uses it and if you are self-employed you are likely to use that when doing your accounts"
Student: "I'll pay someone to do my accounts for me."

But what does Scotland do so differently to England as far as mathematics is concerned?

Apparently Scottish students are able to "progress at their own speed".  The report also suggests that all students study maths up to the age of 18, which could be purgatory for teachers with some particularly challenging students, but it may allow more time for the penny to drop with some students, so careful setting would be required in schools so that those who are less keen don't encourage those who have potential to give up.

These reviews are all well and good but it appears that no teachers were consulted as to their thoughts (why change the habit of a lifetime?), and any changes to the curriculum will require schools to spend a lot of money on new resources just a few years after the curriculum was changed and lots of money was spent. The constant tinkering with mathematics may have to bear some of the blame for the perceived low standards as teachers may not know whether they are coming or going. Maybe this needs investigating.

Get me Katie Price's number, I need a report compiled.

Satisfactory Is No Longer Satisfactory

It must officially be teacher baiting season at the moment as Sir Michael Wilshaw, the new Chief Inspector of Schools has joined his boss, Secretary of State for Education Michael Gove, in kicking the teaching profession whilst it's down.

In recent weeks and months we have seen teachers face:

• A reduction in real terms pay due to a pay freeze, followed by a well below inflation rise of 1%;
• An increase in pension contributions, but a decrease in pension payments;
• The mandate that all teachers will have to work until their late sixties before collecting that reduced pension; 
• Schools being forced to adopt academy status (against parents, teachers and governors wishes), meaning that teachers see a change (usually for the worse) in their contract, pay and conditions; 
• The introduction of what is commonly being called a "bully's charter" whereupon headteachers can almost literally sack a teacher on a whim for "under-performing", or as many suspect will happen, headteachers will get rid of teachers they don't like in about a term; 
• Changes in the curriculum (meaning more work for teachers in planning) because teachers make stuff boring according to Gove; 
• The school day is to be extended and holidays shortened, but with no change in wage as far as I can see.

The list is relatively long and I have probably forgotten parts, but teachers are metaphorically black and blue as a result of these things alone.
Enter stage left: Sir Michael Wilshaw, who suggests that:

• Scruffy teachers be given official warnings (scruffy in whose eyes?);
• Ofsted inspections become far tougher to achieve the higher gradings (gradings that are in fact illegal in the first place according to the Hampton Review passed in 2005 - look it up);
• Ofsted inspectors will give schools no notice of an inspection (which will almost certainly mean increased workload for teachers as headteachers panic);
• Ofsted inspections will be more frequent for those schools who "require improvement". (Any ideas where the extra money for these extra inspections will come from?)
• And finally, "satisfactory" is being rebranded to "requires improvement". Now this last one may not seem a huge deal, but as Ofsted gets tougher, more and more schools and their teachers are going to be put under more stress to improve students (and parents) who don't want to change because they will be too busy listening to politicians tell them via various tabloid media forums that all teachers are rubbish, so why should they change in the first place.

I'm not 100% sure what the overall goal of the current regime is at the moment, although they presumably believe they are doing the right thing. If it's to totally demoralise the teaching profession, they have succeeded, outstandingly one could say. If it's an attempt to raise standards, I'm afraid they require improvement, or arguably are inadequate. And here is why:

• Teachers already work quite hard actually, despite what the gutter press tell you. Most teachers (there are always exceptions) work from around 7.30am until about 5pm at school itself, and many work at home in the evening too, as well as weekends.The work/life balance that politicians promised a few years ago has all but disappeared.
• Getting rid of so-called "satisfactory" or "requires improvement" teachers sounds wonderful, but those teachers beat worse teachers in interview to get the job in the first place, so who's going to replace these rubbish practitioners? There won't be enough new teachers leaving university of the standard talked about as it takes years to become established in the classroom. Some ought to go, that's fine, but most schools find that when they get rid of someone, the replacement is often worse.
• Are they going to change the students who "require improvement"? Of course not, they can't. In a growing number of cases, it doesn't make the blindest bit of difference what the teacher is doing, the student is not interested in learning. Social phenomena such as "X Factor" and "Britain's Got Talent" give young people the impression that they can get rich quick through fame on a reality TV show, and you don't need qualifications to do that. At our last Ofsted inspection at least two of my colleagues were told that due to the class they were teaching they couldn't get higher than a "satisfactory" grading, and quotes to staff such as "you will need to change your stock (meaning students) if you want to get higher than satisfactory" don't fill me with a huge amount of confidence.
• Making all students do more academic subjects like Latin, History and Geography, to name but a few. Some young people just aren't cut out for these subjects. Most, if not all lessons would be like bad dentistry - pulling teeth.
• Forcing schools to become academies and building them new premises is a white elephant as the "clientele" aren't going to change. I like to call this "turd polishing", meaning that "you can make it as shiny as you like, but at the end of the day it's still a turd".
• Making teachers work longer hours means that they have less hours to plan all those outstanding lessons so desperately craved by Ofsted and headteachers alike. They will also be more tired for their classes and not be able to show enthusiasm for what they are trying to get across to their class.
• Ultimately people will start leaving the profession as the pressure increases until there aren't enough teachers to go around (we are already seeing it in some subject areas), meaning that the remaining, presumably outstanding staff, are having to teach larger and larger classes that in turn makes their own standards fall and they get sacked for being inadequate in front of too many children.
• As a result of all of the above, teachers will be off sick with stress, depression, exhaustion and various other things, meaning that non-specialist cover staff will be drafted in to teach the lessons of those who are ill. These lessons will be worse than the original ones so reviled by Wilshaw and Gove.

These are all the things I can think of for now, but I'm sure other people could add some. We are currently seeing the systematic dismantling of the teaching profession and I fear for the youth of tomorrow, who as a result of the changes being made, will end up facing the consequences of this ill-advised edicts from Whitehall and get a pretty raw deal from the British educational system.

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.

ICT is Boring!

Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Education, has announced a radical overhaul of the ICT curriculum, and not before time. The current, government written curriculum is out-of-date and very boring as he rightly says (I'm going to have to sit down, having just agreed with the man!). Gove wants children in schools to learn coding and being able to design apps.

This is great, but not all children will find these new activities interesting either, and even less will find them of any use outside the classroom. Whereas the stuff Gove wants to eradicate actually will be of use to most: using MS Word, Excel and Powerpoint. Also, staff may actually struggle to teach the new topics due to lack of knowledge and confidence with the software/language of coding. I regard myself as being fairly ICT savvy but have struggled with Google's App Inventor, which presumably would be one of the things on the new curriculum, or something similar at least. The same with game design and coding - even "simple" html is quite tough.

There is also the cost of purchasing the new software, which will run into thousands, plus the money required to train staff to enable them to teach the stuff. Where's the money going to come from, as we keep being told that there is none? Those who have the expertise to the level required will, or perhaps should be earning more money in the private sector.

How many jobs nowadays invent apps and games? Ok, more than there used to be, but not that many.

How many jobs nowadays use MS Word, Excel and Powerpint? Loads! Especially Excel for accounts and Word for writing a CV in order to get a job in the first place. Powerpoint is perhaps not as useful as it once was, but most managerial positions would require some knowledge of it.

I think that there needs to be a shake-up, no doubt about it, but there needs to be a mix of the apps/games and MS Office (schools can't afford Mac, I'm afraid). Those who are bored with the current system will be those who have an interest in ICT in the first place and will be on the computer for hours at home and therefore know all about MS Office. There are plenty of kids who aren't as good as that and need to be taught how to use the software. Some can't even send an email with an attachment in my view, although they are brilliant on Facebook. Most jobs I know don't require a thorough knowledge of Facebook but probably require you to send an email.

This announcement has substance, but still smacks of "give me your votes" to me.

What Do Teaching And Policing Have In Common?

I realise that with a question like that you could have numerous answers - perhaps it could be an exam question, as long as it's not deemed as being too difficult or easy. My (short) answer would be this:

Everyone has an opinion on how to do the job.

When I hire a builder to do something at my house, I tell them what I need doing and then bow to their superior knowledge on how to achieve that goal. I won't stand over them whilst they carry out the required work, telling them that they are doing it wrong and that a better way of doing it would be a way I suggest.

If I'm not feeling well I will book an appointment with my doctor, and whatever the doctor tells/prescribes me, I will almost certainly do. I won't let them tell me sat their bit then argue that actually I should do something else.

So why do people feel that they can tell teachers (who've done years of training and in most cases have years of experience) and police (who've also done loads of training and often have years of experience) how to do their jobs?

I must admit that I'm as guilty as the next person in some cases. We had a drunk person trying to get in our house at about 1am the other night and duly called the police. Now you have to bear in mind that we have a yound child in the house and that the drunkard had taken off his trousers, for reasons best known to himself. The police were quick to repond to their credit, and were soon outside our front door coaxing the man to dress himself and go home. After what seemed an eternity he was escorted around the corner and told to get back to his own place of residence. A quick chat with the police and we went back to bed, although not straight to sleep due to the adrenelin still coursing through our veins! Not a pleasant experience.

My partner is a police officer and I was quite angry that the bloke hadn't been hauled off to a cell for this. In my opinion he'd been trespassing on our property, been quite abusive (anti-social behaviour?) and had taken off his trousers (indecent exposure?), so why hadn't he been charged with something? It all seemed logical to me, someone with absolutely no expertise in the field. My partner explained that he hadn't actually done anything worthy of arrest, although if he came back he could be arrested for harrassment. As he hadn't got into our house there was no grounds for trespass, still had his boxer shorts on there was no indecent exposure, and actually had sworn on private land (our property) so there was no anti-social behaviour. It just highlighted my total lack of knowledge regarding policing (and the law) as a profession.

We see a similar thing in teaching on a daily basis. Regularly teachers have phone calls from parents to explain that their children are not being taught properly, or that the teacher is doing something that's unfair with regards their child. On what basis do these parents make these accusations? The answer: on the biased account of their child who is probably knowingly in the wrong and therefore embellishing the story in an attempt to make themselves appear to be the party that has been wronged.

As a teacher you find yourself constantly justifying yourself and your actions to parents, and increasingly, line managers, who have little or no experience of teaching your subject. To a certain extent this is fine, as parents should be kept in the loop, if they are interested, but do they really need to question everything?

I had an example of all of this recently when a parent phoned to complain that I wasn't setting challenging enough homework for their child. Fortunately my head of department fielded the call, which went something along these lines:

Parent: My child's homework is too easy and not relevent to their ability.
HOD: How do you mean?
Parent: It's all too easy and most of it is set from a website that neither I nor my child think is very good.

Now I ought to point out at this stage that the parent claims to be a teacher. The fact of the matter, a fact they later admited, was that they used to teach trainee teachers, which is a totally different thing.

HOD: We all put links to our homework tasks, both set on that website and on paper, on the school's website, so I will just go and have a look to see what homework your child has been set.
Parent: Yes, most of it has been on that website - the exam is taken on paper not online, it's ridiculous. And it's nowhere near challenging enough for a child of my child's ability!
HOD: Ah yes, I've found the right page. There have been 17 homeworks set to date, of which 3 have been on that website. And looking through the list of topics, the difficulty range is roughly from A* to B grade. What's your child's target grade for GCSE?
Parent: Their target is a B grade. Are you sure that only 3 out of 17 homeworks have been set from that website?
HOD: Positive. And it would appear that the work is challenging enough for your child In fact, in theory your child should find this work very difficult, so they are clearly tackling questions that are supposedly above their ability level. Is there anything else I can help you with?
Parent (sheepishly): No.

This is not an uncommon conversation for teachers to have with parents, and actually it's quite insulting for a teacher. On the one hand it's nice that the parent actually takes notice of what their child is learning at school, but the constant justification of what we do in the classroom (and out) is demoralising and shouldn't be required. Teachers in many cases have spent years learning how best to go about teaching their subject informed by experience and training, although many areas will need fine-tuning still and could be improved. A teacher's judgement is almost always going to be better than that of a parent or member of the public who has little or no experience of teaching. A parent can aid their child's learning in class by pointing out things that their child has found tough in the past or learning styles that they respond to, but ultimately it's down to the teacher to deliver the content in any way they deem best. I don't know of any teacher who would purposefully teach something badly.

The notion that "I know better than you" as far as teaching (and policing) is concerned won't change though as it's perpetuated from the very top, i.e. government. Constant interference from ministers and their celebrity "experts" who regularly state that schools are doing things wrong mean that there is no confidence in the profession from the top level, meaning that the general public have no confidence in it either. The spectre of Ofsted and continual changes to the curriculum mean that teachers have to justify their every move instead of doing what they should be doing: teaching children so that they are employable and can function in the world beyond school.

I'm not saying that all teachers are faultless, what I'm saying is that there's got to be an element of trust that they are doing what they think is best for the young people they teach. That's why they entered the profession in the first place.

Teach Maths Up To 18

The latest bright idea from Michael Gove, who seems to have a new policy for each period of 24 hours that he remains in the job of Secretary of State for Education is to teach most student maths until they are 18 years old. Gove apparently said that he found it "bizarre" that the vast majority of children in Britain have never even heard of calculus.

This is the brainchild and thinking of someone who is so far removed from the classroom that he may as well be holed up in a cold war bunker somewhere in Hertfordshire. Although I agree that many students forget very quickly the mathematics they were taught in schools, there are fundamental flaws in the idea that most young people should continue studying mathematics for a further two years beyond the age of 16.

The flaws are, in my view, below:

1. There aren't enough decent, or even part-decent maths teachers to teach most children mathematics up to the age of 16, let alone 18. Even now some children aren't capable of sitting GCSE level maths and end up taking what is known as the Entry Level Certificate. This exam requires candidates to turn up with a writing implement and their fingers to aid calculation. It is an excuse for a qualification and part of the reason that the general public believes that standards are falling. The extra two years will require thousands of extra hours and therefore teachers, which in turn will require a lot more money at a time when budgets are being slashed.
2. For well over half of GCSE maths entrants, the finishing of their final GCSE exam can't come quick enough - a further two years would be (even more) purgatory, not only for the students, but also the people who have to attempt to teach them the blessed calculus lessons. If I had a pound for every time I was asked by a student "When am I ever going to use this in real life?" I wouldn't be bothered by the pension debate, I'd have been able to retire within a few years of embarking upon my teaching career. Students don't learn for the sake of it nowadays, they will only learn of there's something in it for them (a decent qualification is not a sufficient carrot). Calculus is not going to whet a lot of 18 year old appetites.
3. Where are all these extra classrooms going to come from? Infrastructure will be required in the form of, presumably, portacabins in which these extra lessons will be taught until more permanent structures are erected. More money.
4. Presumably the 18 year old students will need a qualification at the end of it - more money. And are those who got an E grade in their foundation GCSE going to be taking the exam? What would be the point? They couldn't even properly pass the GCSE, so what chance are they going to have on a new, potentially more difficult exam?

There are probably many more flaws to this policy, but they have escaped my notice for now.

The more Michael Gove opens his mouth, the more idiotic he seems. He has commissioned a review of the curriculum in general, which will almost certainly mean that all the new resources schools bought 2 or 3 years ago to cover the last "new curriculum" put forward by government will be totally useless, and thousands will need to be spent updating them.

Clueless!

The article is here!

High Youth Unemployment

I found this article on how the lack of decent qualifications leads to youth unemployment: BBC Article

People are getting thousands of pounds in grants from the grants from the government for this stuff you know. The report, by Research by Centre for Cities (what a ridiculous name, by the way) suggests that areas where a (relatively) high number of students get a C grade or above in English and Maths have a lower percentage of youngsters aged between 18 and 24 unemployed. Thank you Sherlock.

The report suggests that government policy over previous years has led too many youngsters down the path of meaningless qualifications in order to boost league table positions, as until recently English and Maths didn't need to be included in the 5 A* to C used to calculate league table position. That's big of them, to blame the policy-makers.

The report mainly appears to blame schools, and ultimately teachers for this failure of many youngster to be equiped for the workplace however. I personally think there may be other factors:

1. The fact that there are league tables in the first place mean that schools are almost encouraged to push students down the path that will give them maximum chance of gaining as many C grades or equivalent, no matter what those qualifications mean or are in. Due to government policy allowing parents to choose schools for their offspring, the market is very competitive and a good or bad league table position could possibly be the difference between a school surviving financially or not.
2. Student apathy towards learning. The amount of times a student has told me "I don't need maths to do what I want to do" or asked "When am I going to use this in real life?". Many students now either don't care or will attempt to do just enough to get a C grade, which invariably means that they won't do enough. The standard reply of "You will use this to get a decent qualification, which will hopefully lead to a decent job" doesn't seem to wash any more, which is a shame, because it's true.
3. Schools have little or no power to actually discipline children due to woolly legal issues - no-one really know what teachers are allowed and not allowed to do. I'm not calling for a return to the days of canings in assembly, but being allowed to keep a child behind to actually complete some useful or worthwhile work is no longer available to a teacher. We need to give 24 hours notice, and generally the parents of those who need to stay behind won't allow their little darlings to do so.
4. That leads me onto the next issue - parents/family. In my 10+ years of teaching there has been  a marked change in the attitude of parents/carers whereupon all the mistakes made by their offspring must be the fault of someone else, usually the school in some way, shape or form. They will promise to employ their child when they leave school, and probably do so for a while until they realise that due to that promise of work, little Johnny failed to get any qualifications that will allow him to perform the job given to him at a reasonable standard. Statistics show that 80% of young people employed by their family are sacked within 12 months. Enough said.
5. The national curriculumn doesn't prepare young people for the world of work. I have some sympathy for those who ask when they are going to use simultaneous equations in real life. They clearly aren't (in my 10+ years I've struggled to find a use for the things outside of the classroom), so that topic should be pushed to the higher end, for those who may want to go onto do A Level maths. The government has made a start but there is still a long way to go, and the pressure to get as many C grades as possible (we're back to league tables) mean that most students can't use anything they've learnt in context anyway, and are unwilling to try.

And I haven't even mentioned Ofsted. But as usual teachers are at fault, not the lazy youth, unsupportive parents, unhelpful curriculum or government policy.

And they wonder why teachers are striking - it's not just about the pensions you know, the pension thing is just the glace cherry on a disgruntled cake!