Accountability and Resilience - Give Me Your Vote

There's an election in around 6 months, a troubling time for every public service as controversial policies are either rushed through before a party is voted out or idiotic statements by desperate politicians searching for your vote are made. The latest fad amongst the political classes regarding education is character, resilience, grit and the ability to pick yourself up and have another go. A couple of links are below (there will be more as the election looms):
BBC Education
Telegraph

It seems that the military are going brought in to teach "grit" and "character" and teachers must back this up, with Labour's Education spokesperson Tristram Hunt stating that if he were in charge then all new teachers would be trained to teach "character", which would no doubt be eye opening.

As you've probably guessed, I have a couple of issues with these noises emanating from the offices of Westminster.

1. At what point do parents get involved in the process of bringing up their own offspring? It seems to me that parenting has all but been abolished by government and the various agencies/quangos that claim a stake in education. The number of times I get a note in a child's diary to tell me that a child didn't understand (despite links to tutorial videos that apparently can't be accessed or weren't known about) or that the child "had a busy weekend" just shows how a complete lack of resilience, grit or any other character trait that might aid a young person in the big wide world is condoned by parents in general. And if parents won't allow their children to have "grit" what chance have teachers or military personnel?
2. Why do students at school need resilience nowadays anyway? Students have no responsibility whatsoever regarding their academic outcomes; teachers claim all that whether they want it or not. Students know this and realise that if a teacher wants to avoid capability proceedings then the teacher will essentially do the work for them, in fact only recently this very problem hit the media (The Guardian's coverage is here). DfE and Ofsted obsession with data, or in layman's terms, exam results means that this is an ever increasing phenomenon; kids aren't stupid, they know it and literally let the teachers get on with it. The days of "you get out what you put in" are no longer with us for some, but fortunately the majority of students are conscientious.
3. What on Earth are MPs doing telling anyone about resilience and grit? The first whiff of scandal and there's a resignation and expensive inquiry.

Politicians in the UK need to make their mind up and choose one of the following two options:

1. Insist that parents play a role in the upbringing of young people rather than just blindly blaming public sector workers.
2. Remove every newborn from their mother at birthand bring them up in their own vision in thousands of state sponsored workhouses.

I'm pretty sure they'd prefer the second option but it's unaffordable in times of austerity. More importantly it might lose them a vote, so it's definitely off the menu.

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 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!

Why I Dislike Most Ofsted Inspectors...

Ofsted is a beast that has grown beyond comprehension; they now essentially run education under the leadership of Sir Michael Wilshaw (despite claims of independence from the DfE). All the ignorant ministers think he's wonderful, the media love him because he gives them soundbites that slate teachers (the media really like slating teachers, in case you hadn't noticed) which he later tries to claim have been taken out of context. Teachers, in general, however, can't stand the bloke nor his inspectorate.

Few people actually like or agree with those who judge them, other than those who require a wet wipe for the end of their nose, but Ofsted not only take a biscuit, but arguably the whole packet.

What really gets me about Wilshaw (and the same goes for his mob, sorry, inspectors) is that he's quite clearly forgotten what it's like to be a classroom teacher. He makes statements about "moaning teachers" (here's the BBC link). but neglects to consider that perhaps his seemingly continuous gripes in the media about teachers possibly leads to the "moaning". He became a headteacher at the age of 39, and is nearly 70 now, so it's fair to say that he has had little recent classroom experience.

I know that I'm supposed to be talking about Ofsted inspectors and have spent wordage so far on Wilshaw alone, but he is their leader. Let's face it, the minions follow their leader, and the problem is that I wouldn't urinate on the leader if he spontaneously combusted. That aside, he actually has the right idea at heart: he wants all children to have the best opportunity to fulfil their potential, and no-one (not even me) can argue with that. The methods he employs to impose this, however, are questionable.

So if Wilshaw's so great, why do his minions constantly ignore him? He has said for a while now that he doesn't have a particular lesson style in mind as long as the children learn and progress at a fast rate. Fair enough; most teachers know that. Unfortunately, many inspectors don't (see the blog Scenes From The Battleground for more info) and they expect to see the teacher not teach - group work/discovery etc. Wilshaw is quite clearly a poor leader if he can't get his message across; I shall be struck down for besmirching the good Sir Michael's name!

And so onto my main gripe: Ofsted are very keen on data and contain a huge proportion of failed classroom practitioners (don't believe the "we only employ top quality headteachers" rubbish). Please bear in mind that many failed in the classroom in days gone by, when discipline was a whole lot easier. No, I don't mean that you could cane the poo out of a child who misbehaved back then, although Sir Mike did admit to doing so. I mean that parents' views hadn't been tainted by an acidic media, meaning that now loads of them believe teachers are the spawn of Satan (perhaps they're right in some cases, judging by the abuse cases that seem to be mounting up) and fair game for verbal abuse.

Ofsted hold so much power nowadays that a pretty average inspector (one with little or no track record, and there are plenty) can essentially decide the fate of a school on a whim. We live in a time where anything Ofsted say, goes; if Ofsted wanted winter to be summer, then so be it - they would manipulate data to show that it would be beneficial, believe-you-me. So if the headteacher manages to annoy an inspector early on (I have experienced this), then there really is no point in trying because the outcome has already been determined. Inspectors know this, and in some cases, play on it. Professionalism isn't part of the equation; "I'm going to show you who's boss" is.

I also have a problem with the fact that Ofsted only recruit "outstanding" teachers or headteachers. If the people they are recruiting are that good, why the hell are they wasting their time judging sub-standard practitioners (it's all relative) when they could be getting the UK up the Pisa league tables? They clearly either dislike teaching (so shouldn't be involved in education at all) or are rubbish teachers (so shouldn't be inspectors). Either way, neither is desirable or employable.

That's why I can't stand Ofsted inspectors; and that's why I am rude to them at every given opportunity. If you ever wanted to see "poacher turned gamekeeper" personified, just glance at an Ofsted inspector and stifle the urge to vomit over them. It's a waste of good vomit after all.

Is The End Nigh For Graded Lesson Observations?

When I was training to be a teacher all those moons ago, lesson observations were generally a pretty positive experience. They were essentially pass or fail, and would have to be pretty awful to fail. They would focus on the following:

• What went well (where have I heard that before?);
• Even better if (Groundhog Day?) I did a couple of things - how I could have improved the lesson;
• My target is (Deja vu?) to try some new stuff to improve my teaching.

I actually quite liked lesson observations, although I wouldn't say that my day was made by one, but I saw them as a positive way of improving my practise.

Nowadays, in the era of "performance related pay" and express capability procedures brought in during Michael Gove's watch as Secretary of State for Education, although I suspect others would have brought it in as a desperate attempt to tighten education's belt, lesson observations can make or break a teaching career or a school, depending on who the observer(s) is. They have moved away from their supportive nature and become a threatening entity in education.

For those (presumably few, if any) of you who don't know, lessons are graded by management or Ofsted inspectors on a scale from 1 to 4:

1. Outstanding.
2. Good
3. Requires Improvement
4. Inadequate

In order to avoid "action plans" or "capability" procedures, a teacher must be consistently a 1 or 2, although the odd 3 is acceptable as everyone has a bad day, but expect to be seen again pretty quickly and make sure you get a 1 or 2 or else! You'd think that's fair enough, and so would pretty much every teacher as we all, as educators, want to produce lessons that encourage and enhance learning. And actually you knew where you were when Ofsted had a particular style of lesson/teaching that they wanted to see, because ultimately the observation was a box ticking exercise.

Now I'm not saying that I agree with Ofsted wanting to see a particular type of teaching, in fact I actively oppose it, but if a teacher's livelihood depends upon lesson observation gradings, then I don't see that you there is any fairer way. The problem is that now Ofsted have actively said that they don't want to see a particular style of teaching as long as learning is "rapid and sustained".

This therefore leaves observers in a bit of a dilemma when grading lesson observations, because it now becomes a personal opinion, which is anything but fair. One would hope that observers could set aside personal opinions regarding the teacher and just grade the lesson, but in my experience, this is seemingly impossible. Comments such as "I would have done it this way" and "I didn't like that" in the feedback are fairly commonplace, and surely it's irrelevant what the observer thinks; what the children in the class think is the important thing. Gradings that are linked to pay or, at worst, capability, become a personal opinion; expect numerous lawsuits for wrongful dismissal

So, as a result, some schools are abandoning lesson observation gradings to make teachers more comfortable and allow them to try to improve their practise without fear of reprisals if it doesn't go to plan straight away. It's brave but actually sensible. My school won't do it (for many reasons, most based upon the personality of the person at the top of the tree), and the fact that we now have numerous leaving speeches every term seems to be the modern trend (I personally find this cut-throat attitude towards staff/people unpleasant). The fact that children don't respond well to constantly changing staff seems to be ignored now, and please don't think that if a teacher is not up to the job then they should not be moved out, but many teachers who are "forced" (I did use the correct word there) out are actually pretty good in the classroom, but not liked by the person/people making the decisions. And what is rarely taken into account is whether the teacher being forced out can be replaced with somebody as good or better - often this isn't the case.

But what this also should mean is that Ofsted inspectors will no longer need to observe lessons, making an Ofsted inspection less stressful for classroom teachers, and ensuring taht leadership in schools actually earn their hefty pay packets. A "learning walk" (I hate that name too, but you all know what it means) will be sufficient to judge the atmosphere for learning in a school. Consistently good lessons will deliver consistently good results in exams. Inspectors therefore, will just need to look at the data of the school, aided by some informed words from SLT, to judge the school. This won't happen as I get the impression that inspectors like going into classrooms and making teachers uncomfortable; maybe I'm wrong.

The trouble is that I think that Messrs Gove and Wilshaw like threatening teachers, so the status quo will remain and the DfE budget will soar as thousands of teachers face capability based on the whim of SLT, or possibly because that particular member of SLT finds separating personal and professional feelings difficult.

This is without mentioning the potential exodus from the profession that already has a huge shortage ,in certain subjects, of adequate staff. Politicians and suits in large offices really are working wonders in education...

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.

Has Michael Wilshaw Lost It?

I read with interest the Chief Inspector of Schools, Sir Michael Wilshaw's speech to the Westminster Education Forum on 7th November this year.

You can read it for yourself HERE.

Now I don't know about you but I've not been Sir Michael's biggest fan. The reasons for this are listed below:

• From the evidence I've seen and experienced via Ofsted, I think his methods of leadership are tantamount to bullying.
• His Ofsted regime has led to a climate of fear in education in England that could be disastrous for young people for many years to come.
• He is phenomenally arrogant (although people who know me may see that as the pot calling the kettle black!).

His "raising of the bar" regarding education has been unreasonable in the sense that schools and teachers have absolutely no idea of what is now required of them. What was once graded "outstanding" is now far from being that and schools don't know why. I have no problem with bars being raised but when you've no idea what you've been doing "wrong" for years, it's difficult to put it right.

However, recently he's been saying things that I've found it difficult to argue against, namely that Ofsted should not be looking for one particular style of lesson (specifically those with group work integrated) but the lesson must exhibit good or outstanding learning no matter how it's delivered. I don't think that any educator would argue with this point of view - learning is the ultimate goal after all. The problem is that his inspectors don't appear to have got the message, as @oldandrewuk talks about in his blog "Scenes From The Battleground" repeatedly.

He seems to be trying to quash the rumour that his quango is the DfE's lapdog, by sending letters to a whole load of academies that they need to up their game and judging free schools as "inadequate", something that can only embarrass the Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove, which is no bad thing. Wilshaw still has work to do in this area, as his pro-academy leanings are well documented.

The speech on Thursday undid all the positives and gains he'd made though. As I read it my blood pressure rose. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but from classroom teacher's point of view I got the following messages from it:

1. Great teachers don't exist without great leaders.
2. Headteachers should consult with staff, but then do their own thing anyway.
3. Teachers should put up and shut up.

I'd like to deal with each point in turn:

1. Surely educational "greatness" it's a symbiotic relationship between classroom practitioner and leadership; you can't have one without the other. To dismiss the efforts of classroom teachers and place them firmly at the feet of management is frankly insulting as a classroom practitioner. What Wilshaw is saying is that "inadequate" schools must have 100% "inadequate" teachers, which simply can't be true; the school is only inadequate in the eyes of some inspectors whose judgement is potentially questionable (although not by MPs), but that's another story. But simply, on inspection, I can't believe that an "inadequate" school had 100% "inadequate" teaching.
2. Here's where Wilshaw's true colours shine through. Classroom teachers clearly aren't valued by the Chief Inspector, but he forgets that without them, schools couldn't function, or could only function if those "great leaders" went back into the classroom. He bemoans the fact that too few are being groomed for leadership in education, but when the expectation upon leaders is to be a tyrant, you can understand why few are champing at the bit to do the job. And as an aside, those who do want to do the job are probably the last people you'd want with that sort of power and attitude.
3. How to motivate an already demotivated workforce; or perhaps not. Teaching has been advertised as a short-term career for would-be city highflyers for a number of years now. Workload has become almost unmanageable for teachers and of those entering the profession from the various pathways available, only around 40% survive beyond 5 years, with some subjects facing a major shortage of staff. How helpful is Wilshaw's rhetoric? Not at all is the answer.

And I haven't even mentioned this part of the speech:

"There is absolutely nothing wrong in my view in saying to youngsters ‘do as I ask, because I am the adult, I am older than you, I know more than you and, by the way, I am in authority over you.’"

Would you want your child taught by a man who thinks this? Nor would I. Respect for authority is a good thing, but respect should be earned.

I was starting to warm Ofsted's great leader, but forget that now. Teachers will always dislike the Chief Inspector of Schools, but when I see parents slating him on social media, surely the man's position is now untenable. Fingers crossed...

Performance Related Pay - Smoke and Mirrors

We got an email recently telling us that we had to complete our Performance Management so that they can be approved by the wise and worldly at the top of the food chain. It's the usual fayre:

1. Grade related - 100% have to meet their given target.
2. Department related - how can to assist the department's move forward?
3. Professional development related - something you need to work one.
4. To do with TLR payment, if you receive one.

Now I have no problem with any of these types of target in essence - every teacher has to do them and in my experience, they are the same school in, school out. The only difference this year is that a teacher's success in achieving those targets will form the basis of the judgement upon whether they should receive a pay rise or not.

So as a result, I have a problem with one of them - the most important one as far as Ofsted, league tables and ultimately job security are concerned: target 1. The targets at our school were described by Ofsted as being extremely challenging, but teachers are expected to drag, in some cases kicking and screaming, all their charges up to those grades.

Just to explain how targets are generated, for those who don't know: in short, by various computer programmes that analyse the children's previous exam results, what they eat, and various other stuff and come up with a number of targets along the lines of:

• Target 1 - the child would get this in their sleep.
• Target 2 - what the child would get if they progress at the "normal" rate.
• Target 3 - what a child would get if absolutely everything went right, luck was on their side and the examiner inexplicably awarded you an extra 20%. Ok so not the last bit, but in order for the child to achieve this target, something special needs to happen and the child makes well above average progress.

Guess which one we use...

As a motivator, the message "your targets are almost impossible, but you still have to achieve them" is not a great one. Perhaps that's why schools are haemorrhaging staff - just a thought.

So after a rant about targets being "achievable", 100% being unreasonable when Ofsted didn't expect the wholeschool to get 100% and that some of my class don't even turn up to school, I was told exactly how I should word my targets in order to achieve without achieving them. As long as I tick a set of, frankly meaningless, boxes, it makes absolutely no difference what grades my classes get, in theory of course, because if my class' results were that bad I would fail, but as long as I get close-ish, I'll be fine.

My next thought was that this makes the entire process pointless, which hasn't changed, and I doubt ever will. The entire process is about your ability to word your targets and manipulate data in such a way that you can con your way to a tick in each box.

Of course, if you manage to word your targets correctly, you then lay yourself at the mercy of the whim of your headteacher and whether there's enough money in the pot for the school to afford your pay rise.

The brave new education world - it's rubbish.

Ofsted's Whimsical Judgements: The Fallout

I work in a school that has been through an Ofsted inspection within the last year. I won't pretend that it was a pleasant experience because it was anything but. A large number of colleagues were reduced to tears and a significant number have left or are leaving teaching as a result. Perhaps some of them should leave the profession, but not all.

At the time the school was certainly not outstanding, and only had elements of good, but Ofsted deemed that it should be placed in Special Measures. The reasons given were harsh but accepted by the school and everyone got on with it because there was nothing we could immediately do about it.

This Ofsted grading has had a far greater impact and could, not just in a worst case scenario, actually end up being fatal for the school. The Ofsted inspector's unquestioned judgements have far reaching consequences that these whimsical individuals fail to realise, whether through choice or ignorance.

Since the "judgement" the number of complaints from parents has increased hugely. Some are certainly justified but if all the complaints are valid then why weren't they raised beforehand? What we are finding is that parents can now justify their unquestioned backing of their "faultless" children by saying "it's the school that's crap because Ofsted said so". The kids aren't stupid either and are fuelling this to save their own bacon, but as a colleague pointed out to a serial miscreant "Would you have agreed with Ofsted if they'd have said we were brilliant?", to which the answer was "No".

Due to the Ofsted grading we now have various pressures on us as staff (not just teachers) to do exactly what HMI say in order to "improve". What staff are quickly realising is that what one person regards as improvement, another person doesn't due to teaching's subjectivity, so ultimately whatever we do as a staff body we are in the laps of the gods - you are either in favour or you're not. If the inspectors aren't in a good mood we're stuffed. Is that really fair?

New initiatives are dreamt up every five minutes it seems, and teachers are understandably jumping ship as quick as they can meaning that the school has to replace them. But who wants to come to work in a school in Special Measures? Not enough people it seems, so classes in many subjects will be staffed with supply teachers which isn't going to help anyone other than the supply agencies who fill the positions. Good exam results come from diligent children with consistent teaching from as few different teachers as possible. Constant change is a recipe for disaster, a recipe that schools in this position have no choice over.

Whatever you think of Ofsted Chief Sir Michael Wilshaw (I can't say that I'm a fan myself), he does occasionally make the right noises from his plush office in Westminster regarding inspections. Unfortunately his finger is so far from the pulse that whatever he says is irrelevant because his inspectors simply aren't doing it. Their judgements go unquestioned and ultimately they could argue that Sir Alex Ferguson was the greatest manager Chelsea ever had and people would believe it. Teachers in school are being pulled and pushed in numerous directions by a desperate management who don't really know how to get Ofsted to give the school a better grade, because even Ofsted aren't sure what they are looking for. It's making people ill (more supply staff required to cover) and forcing people out who can't be replaced (yet more supply staff required), so what chance have we got?

Ofsted is now a beast that probably can't be tamed and will destroy education in the schools that aren't fashionable in government/their eyes. They are not independent of government, in fact they have recently stated that if schools don't follow the new government Performance Related Pay guidelines, they will get downgraded upon inspection. They are too big an organisation and their inspectors too out of touch to be effective or accurate in their assessment of schools. Training is not a replacement for recent, hands-on experience. Schools genuinely close due to their whims, and this is can't be right because the inspectors are not always right.

But Michael Gove loves Ofsted, so that's ok then.

Conference Season

I really don't like Easter. It's not the holidays because after all, that is one of the few benefits of being a teacher. It's because the three major teaching unions (NUT, NASUWT and ATL) have their conferences.

Now I like unions, and I think that they have an important part to play in the life if any teacher (those who aren't members of a union are fools I'm afraid). They provide support for any teacher who finds themselves in a bit of a jam whilst at work. They will, if the case warrants it, provide legal support whose cost would be prohibitive otherwise.

So if I actually like unions, why do I dislike their conferences?

The problem is that anyone who is a member can make a speech in theory. Now I might sound undemocratic at this stage, but some people need to be prevented from talking in public. All unions have militant members, many of whom probably have a reasonable point, but the fact is that they just sound a bit pathetic and ranting.

Currently teaching has a few issues of which these are the main two:

1. Ofsted - the fear of senior management in schools is almost unbearable and the Chief Inspector, Sir Michael Wilshaw comes across as a bully and an idealist living in a fantasy world. The workload his rhetoric has produced is unsustainable and is driving people out of the profession.
2. Michael Gove - Secretary of State for Education. He is in the process (presumably because he knows that his party won't get voted back in at the next election) of radically changing the way schools work and teach the youth of the country at a frightening pace. Some of it is sensible and needs doing but much of it is lamentable, and this has been stated to him repeatedly by "experts". He ploughs on regardless.

There are others: pensions, pay freezes, attitude to learning and pupil/parental behaviour being among them.

The problem is that rather than focusing on pointing out the flaws in Wilshaw and Gove's policies, members if the various unions have cried "strike" at every given opportunity. There's a reason that this is a stupid and frankly annoying way to go from those speaking at the various conferences. The votes of no confidence are fair enough however - Gove and Wilshaw need to know just how unpopular and unwanted they are.

In the public's eyes teachers are doing a job that few would choose; on a par with the police if truth be told. Teachers do get 13 weeks of holiday each year (something the police don't get), and it's an accusation regularly levelled at teachers. So when the NUT are reported to have asked for teaching time to be limited to 20 hours per week this doesn't go down well with Joe Public as our Joe doesn't realise that classroom time is the least of a teacher's worries. The general public have no idea what goes into a lesson, and why would they? They just assume that teachers turn up and whitter on about stuff then mark a few books - end of.

What teaching currently needs is public support before a series of strikes over pay and pensions from the NUT and NASUWT who represent around 90% of teachers. By asking for what the public will perceive as less work is frankly idiotic. The fact that most teachers have little more than 20 hours per week of teaching time makes the request even more idiotic.

Teaching unions must get their act together. Most of the country find politicians abomnible, but by making silly requests they are playing into these people's hands. I have no idea if the unions have a PR department, but if they do they need replacing. It's inviting the press and public to label teachers as lazy, whinging freeloaders with too much holiday.

That's why I hate Easter.

Lesson Observations

Let's be honest, lesson observations are a necessary evil; an evil that few teachers enjoy. When I first started teaching lesson observations were a pain but generally supportive and useful. I think it's fair to say that nowadays their usefulness is generally limited. It all depends who is doing the observing of course. The trouble is that many observations are given by senior leadership who rarely teach (and occasionally never have) due the the mountainous paperwork now involved in school management.

So what's changed? Essentially, not a lot. They have always been an indicator of whether a teacher should be encouraged to move on, whether to another school or another career. The main difference, and the teaching profession has Ofsted to thank for this, is that feedback is a lot more aggressive nowadays.

What does that mean though?

Ten or more years ago the lesson observation was there to check that your classroom wasn't a warzone and that you, as a teacher, were imparting the correct knowledge in a meaningful way to your cohort. Plenty of warning was given to the teacher (which probably shouldn't have happened as it gave the opportunity to refine their lesson which made it too artificial) and a relatively simple lesson plan required. There wasn't a particular style of teaching or focus (unless that was thought useful); individualism was acknowledged and respected. Students were expected to listen and do what they were asked. Feedback pointed out your good points and areas that needed work, with suggestions made as to how lessons could be improved. Phrases like "What you could have done was..." and "Something that you could try is..." were commonplace. There was little or no threat of competency, or if there was, it was uncommon and probably deserved. The grading was essentially pass or fail.

The experience isn't even close to that now. Schools try to replicate an Ofsted inspection by giving little notice for observations (a day or so is fairly commone, which should be enough in all honesty). Full lesson plans and detailed seating plans are required which show all the students with special needs and whether they speak English as a second language or receive free school meals which is a current target group for government/Ofsted and therefore schools. Books must be marked with current grades or levels and a dialogue between teacher and student which will probably involve an individual question that forces the student to practise a teacher-noted gap in their learning. During the lesson the teacher must continually assess each child individually and refer back to the lesson objective. Each child must be called upon by the teacher to give or explain an answer by name and be able to tell the observer exactly what they are learning and convince them that this happens every lesson. Lessons and activities must be "active", which means that the students discover new concepts rather than get told/taught them. The feedback then gives the teacher a grade from 1 to 4 (3 and 4 are no go areas and risk competency - they should be renamed "You are crap") and involve phrases like "They will pick up on..." and "They will expect to see...", with the "they" referring to Ofsted. Any positives are glossed over and the weaknesses are pointed out endlessly, although often no ways of improving are suggested coherently. The teacher will often leave the feedback feeling pretty down, regardless of their grade.

So the differences are:

• It has gone from a relatively positive thing (possibly too positive at times) to being a threat to a teacher's livelihood when there is a shortage of decent teachers.
• The focus has moved from how you could improve your teaching to what Ofsted would want to see, which is usually a guess as it's not clear that Ofsted really know what they want either.
• Individualism was encouraged to a certain extent but now frowned upon for fear that the inspectors have a particular teaching model.
• Teachers aren't allowed to teach; the sudents have to teach themselves as the "teacher" wanders around "facilitating" discussion.

This is purely because Ofsted now have ultimate and unquestioned power over all state funded schools in England. Their judgements are unquestioned with the impression being amongst teachers that the inspectors make their judgement before they turn up and find evidence to back that judgement up. Despite what Sir Michael Wilshaw, Chief Inspector of Schools says, inspectors have a set image of a "decent" lesson and if you don't do that you are knackered.

But apparently education in England is rigorous and fit for purpose. I beg to differ.

What "Special Measures " Means To Me

It has been well reported that Ofsted inspections are getting tougher, or more rigorous if you want to use the political speak. This should therefore mean that more schools are going to be graded in the new "Requires Improvement" category or worse, "Special Measures".

But what does "Special Measures" actually mean?

This is what Ofsted themselves say:

Monitoring inspections for maintained schools

Schools that are subject to special measures

The Education Act 2005 states that a school requires special measures if it is failing to give its pupils an acceptable standard of education, and the persons responsible for leading, managing or governing the school are not demonstrating the capacity to secure the necessary improvement in the school.
For further information for schools that were judged to require special measures, and which have had at least one monitoring inspection prior to September 2012, go to Monitoring inspections of schools that are subject to special measures (January 2012).
For further information for schools which were judged to require special measures but have not had a monitoring inspection prior to September 2012, go to Monitoring inspections of schools that are subject to special measures (September 2012).

What does mean in practise though?

It seems to me that it means the following:

• Everyone panics, especially leadership and governors. CPD becomes compulsory and exceptionally regular for those deemed not to be up to scratch. Teachers feel inadequate (the choice of word was intentional), whether they are or aren't. New systems of "support" are put in place and many teachers are subject to action plans where they could lose their job if targets are not met. Some teachers will deserve to lose their job, but many won't.
• Added pressure on staff means the deterioration of life outside of school. Work pressure takes over and the families of teachers suffer hugely, some with irreversible consequences. Formerly good (or better) teachers become insecure and disappear within themselves which is no good for anyone. Everyone has a cloud hanging over them whether they deserve it or not.
• Governors all of a sudden take an interest in the school. I have never worked in a school where the governors take an active part in the day-to-day running of the place, and with their often limited teaching experience, that's generally a good thing. A poor Ofsted means that these people, who generally have the best intentions of the school at heart, try to make "helpful" suggestions and like to be seen in and around the place more often. Often this is unhelpful, despite their best efforts.
• Parents now have an excuse for why their child is essentially lazy, not going to get good grades, lacks motivation etc. It has to be the school because Ofsted said it was rubbish. Would those who are slating the school after a bad Ofsted be singing its praises had Ofsted found that it was "Good" or "Outstanding"? No, they would still whinge, but their argument would appear to have less weight.
• Schools face termly inspections, each time expecting to be torn apart. It's not good for the mental or physical health of anyone from staff to student.
• The cover budget goes through the roof as stressed staff feel the strain. Students have unfamiliar teachers in front of them, who aren't necessarily an expert in the subject they are supervising, which can't be good.

Ofsted hold a phenomenal amount of power in education at present and appear to make judgements on a whim at times. Schools are graded on results alone (they are, face it) and due to the subjectiveness of interpretation of data as well as lesson judgements, one inspection team could give a school one grade, whereas a different group of parasites, sorry inspectors, could grade a school totally differently. How can this be a "robust" system?

Don't get me wrong, "Special Measures" can be a good thing. It can bring in extra money for resources, it can focus a school on its weaknesses rather than allowing it to drift along, but it takes a talented, trusted and strong leader to do that. If staff have to be moved on, it can be tough to replace them; who wants to move to a school in "Special Measures" after all? There will be some who want a challenge (these people don't generally hang around for long and can be very destructive), but recruitment becomes increasingly difficult, especially in subjects that have a shortage of decent practitioners in the first place.

Ultimately all schools are in the hands of a bunch of people who haven't been at the front of a classroom for years. They may have lots of training under their belts, but there is no substitute for actually doing the job.

Ofsted Don't Want A Show

Sir Michael is out of his hibernation period and greets schools with this: Click here!

This interview only goes to show how out of touch the Chief Inspector of Schools is. I have a number of issues with this:

1. Not for one minute does he consider why teachers "put on a show" for Ofsted inspectors.
2. He claims that Ofsted don't have a preconceived idea of the ingredients that make a good lesson.
3. Schools should just carry on as normal when Ofsted are in.

Ofsted holds all the cards in education at present - they have outgrown their remit. Their judgements go unquestioned and unchallenged in the main. When someone does dare challenge an Ofsted judgement they are accused of not being forward thinking, happy with mediocrity and various other politically barbed comments from various parts of Whitehall.

Ofsted has the power to make or break careers in education with one of their judgements. Many teachers firmly believe that inspectors judge a school before they have actually arrived based upon exam results, value-added etc. As any half-competent mathematician will tell you, data can be made to show what you want it to show without too much effort. Lesson observations and conversations with management are also subjective. Observations can go a number of ways that are generally out of the control of the teacher. A really bad lesson is obvious to both inspector and teacher, but otherwise it's harder to call unless you literally tick off bulletpoints in a list of things inspectors want to see. So Wilshaw's claim that there isn't a particular type of teaching expected has to be at least partly rubbish, or the message hasn't filtered down to the Ofsted minions.

Wilshaw claims to want to see children engaged in their learning, but his inspectors seem to regard this as meaning "the teacher says as little as possible" and the students "discover" what they would have been "taught" is bygone eras. There are some things that are very difficult to "discover" and need to be "taught", although this is frowned upon by Ofsted as the learning is deemed "passive", whereas Ofsted want to see "active learning". If you are playing Education Buzz Word Bingo you may be close to shouting "HOUSE" at this stage.

A teacher should be allowed to decide whether their charges can "discover" something new or need to be "taught" it. Teachers are (still) professionals, for the time being at least. The trouble is that this decision is taken out of their hands. Thousands, if not millions of pounds are spent by schools every year on speakers who tell staff that Ofsted want to see teachers leading less from the front, "playing the Ofsted game". This money could be used to resource faculties fully rather than giving tips on Ofsted hoop-jumping. The fact is that these (presumably rich) people are employed by many schools each year, and must know what they are talking about in order to keep getting invited. So Wilshaw claiming that there is no game is frankly wrong and the fact that there is a market for Ofsted inspectors to charge £600 per day to "help" schools get through an inspection only proves this (see this article from The Independent: Click here!).

The main thing is that teachers are rarely sure of what Ofsted actually wants and their "show" for the inspectors is just like a pet trying to impress its owner, which many appear to get panned for. With Ofsted regularly changing the goalposts since Sir Michael's ascension to the "throne", teachers have no idea what to do.

Eventually teachers will just give up in a number of ways. They could leave the profession as many are doing, to be replaced by fresh faced top graduates through scheme like Teach First, but these schemes are a mixed blessing for the future of education as many of these graduates leave teaching after just a few years. How teachers should give up is by not caring what Ofsted say, and they can do this in a number of ways:

• Don't get lesson feedback - by getting feedback you are showing the inspectors that you actually value what they think, and let's face it, no teachers really do. So don't bother.
• Only be civil to them, never go out of your way to smile at them, even if they smile at you. Let them know that they are unwelcome because they are. Some inspectors delude themselves into thinking that they are doing schools and teachers a favour (I have had an interesting conversation with the partner of an inspector who was brave enough to call themselves "Anonymous"). They are not, they are an expensive political animal that no-one wants or likes except other inspectors, their partners or narcisistic politicians.
• Get them involved in a lesson by asking them questions. Embarrass them; put them on the spot; after all that is what they are doing to you and your colleagues so why shouldn't they taste their own medicine? If they make a stupid comment, make it very clear that you think it's a stupid comment; I once replied to an inspector who observed a challenging class and said "They seem like a nice bunch" with the following: "How would you know? You've seen them for half an hour and just looked at books and folders, not talking to a single one of them." He left with his tail between his legs after he asked if I wanted feedback and I replied "There is nothing you could possibly tell me that would be of any benefit to my teaching practise".

Wilshaw can make all the noises he likes from his ivory tower in Whitehall, with his direct line to his mucker Gove. Ofsted is now a political vehicle, used unapologetically to drive through ill-conceived government policy without question. Wilshaw may appear to disagree with Gove on some issues but his inspectors don't appear to.

Ofsted has outgrown it's own remit and really should be abolished for the future of education in England. If this doesn't happen the exodus of staff will continue and there won't be enough teachers left.

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...

Teaching's s**t: If management don't get you, Gove/Wilshaw will

Thinking about becoming a teacher? Don't, no really, don't.

Someone once said to me that teaching, policing and nursing will always be in demand, and they were right as there will always be children in need of education, criminals and sick people. The trouble is that in the UK it really isn't worth the grief now.

Government interference is at an all-time high in education. New initiatives from the Secretary of State for Education arrive ona weekly basis via the press in the same breath as "teachers are rubbish". It's the same in the police and health service. The public can only go by what they are told, via the press, and if a teacher dares to speak up they face reprimand and possible loss of employment.

League tables place increasing pressures on management in schools who pass that pressure onto teachers who are faced with an increasingly apathetic bunch of "learners". Parents, having read in the press that teachers are rubish, then blame teachers and schools for all their own failings and the cycle spirals out of control.

Teachers are expected to teach children not only their subject specialism but manners and also provide nutrition for their class. Ok, so they are not expected to feed their charges, but 16% admitted to buying some of them breakfast every month. With little or no parental support becoming increasingly the norm, how can standards be raised? I don't care what you say, but teaching does not pay well enough to burden its practitioners with the responsibility that society increasingly seems to expect. Politicians do anything but help in this matter by making repeated soundbites to achieve headlines that bear no resemblance to the reality.

And then we get to Ofsted, the "independent" regulator of teaching. Everyone knows that it is far from independent, considering that its leader is one of the Secretary of State's pals. Inspection teams take a snapshot of practise within a school and more often than not tell them that they are not doing well enough, placing the teachers in that school under increasing pressure to make silk purses from sow's ears.

Teaching is being held together as a profession by those decent practitioners who would love to get out but can't because they have hit a financial point where they couldn't afford the drop in wages to change career. The private industry grass is not always greener, we all know that, but there is the potential to earn a better living for the same pressure/stress.

I vowed after the first couple of years of my teaching career to do all my school work at school and take nothing home. I arrived at 7.30am and left at around 5.30pm and managed to keep this promise to myself and my family. Over the past 6 months I am regularly work in the evening despite keeping similar hours at school, and I know that I'm no the only one. For the privilege of having no life outside of teaching I am paid just the princely sum of around £35,000 and can just about afford the mortgage on a reasonably sized three bedroom house. I'm not moaning about my wage as I knew exactly what I was going to be paid when I started, but I didn't sign up for 15 hour days, a constantly reducing pension and a pay packet that shrinks every month due to it having been frozen for a significant amount of time.

Pressure is not an issue if I'm being paid enough to wear it, however, I'm no longer paid enough to wear the consistent barrage of abuse I get from management, Gove and Wilshaw as well as parents who want to know why I'm not doing their job for them too.

I repeat, don't even think about it. Empty bins, flip burgers, do anything other than teach because the cons so outweigh the pros now, it's really not worth it.

Longer Hours and Summer School

Money is being pumped into providing summer schools for "disadvantaged" children. What a great idea! Whose going to staff it though? Those with a full-time teaching job might want to do a week or two, but not the whole summer surely, and who will plug the gaps? Those who aren't full-time teachers? And there's probably a reason why they haven't got a job...

The argument above could be irrelevant though as if teachers want to improve their pay packet then they will have to work longer hours, and maybe working in a summer school could be an expectation rather than a choice.

Wilshaw is a vile and "outstandingly" arrogant individual in my opinion, and has an uncanny knack of winding up the people he oversees. But actually his latest comments are fair enough I think. All he's saying is that if you want a pay rise, you have to earn it - no problem there. The trouble is that he's has wound up the teaching profession so that they now automatically jump up and down every time he opens his mouth. To be honest the only thing he has really done wrong is give the anti-teacher group a bone to gnaw on about teachers leaving at 3pm, which rarely happens nowadays, and he really ought to be chastised for it and forced to apologise. He won't.

He made his statements in an interview with The Times on Saturday where the interviewer asked if he was a "control freak". He left the interview asking himself "Am I a control freak?" and I can answer that for you Mike: Yes you are. His arrogance oozes out of every pore as the interviewer suggests that his views on teacher development were "unbending", upon which he stated that everyone should share his views. Having a vision is great, but being so convinced that you have got it right is not healthy, and suggests that you believe that you are superior to everyone else, a trait that could be placed at the door of many a tyrant throughout history.

All in all, teaching has become an undesirable profession, and I fear that in 10 years time there'll be a huge shortage of people willing to enter the profession purely due to the behaviour of today's politicians. Well done folks.

One question I would ask is whether the Head of Ofsted is really worth £180,000 of public money per year? Especially when the person receiving that paycheck thinks of himself as a teaching Clint Eastwood. What an arse!

Ofsted "Copy and Paste" Scandal

This article turned up on the BBC News website today: Click Here!

Now anybody in education, apart from perhaps many headteachers, will tell you that this is not a massive surprise. Ofsted often make their judgements before actually visiting a school. They are a political animal and will make judgements based upon government policy, despite Chief Inspector Wilshaw's apparent best intentions and statements that teaching is "Christ's work on Earth".

The "scandal" centres around two primary school reports from the same company to which Ofsted outsources inspections, Tribal. Both inspections were headed by the same person and due to the fact that some of the statements in the reports read exactly the same, there seems little doubt that laziness has crept in and a higher agenda has influenced the reports. In my local area an academy, which I know quite a lot about for one reason or another, has just received "outstanding" gradings in every category when it apparently deserves none. One has to bear in mind that government (and therefore Ofsted) are keen to make every school an academy, and with education being such a vote winner, political decisions are bound to be made by inspectors.

Ofsted inspectors are usually former headteachers who want an easy life and something to boost their pension pot, or they are failed educators who have "befriended" the right people. An Ofsted inspector is paid around £60,000 per year, a pay cut for most headteachers, but a wage that is far higher than those they inspect. This should mean that inspections are done properly and written from scratch every time.

What the report seems to imply is that the inspectors write the reports and make a judgement, but Ofsted central office re-words things to ensure that the wording fits the grading. This would also suggest that grading can be made whimsically by inspection teams and the words written to fit that grading. Hardly a robust system, I'm sure you'd agree.

Ofsted, and their Fuhrer, sorry, leader, are not fit for purpose, and nor are their bosses - the Department for Education. No educator has a problem with standards being checked so that they remain high, but the current system is essentially corrupt and worthless. Not to mention demoralising.

More Good News

There was an interesting article on the TES website regarding teacher suicides: click here to read

It says that in 2008 and 2009 the rate of teacher suicides went up by 80% according to the Office for National Statistics, with the number of teachers rising from 35 to 63 in 12 months. It doesn't sound that many (although you could argue that 1 is too many) and I'm sure that politicians would spin the information in that way, but the fact is that numbers are on the increase. Another article in the TES magazine concerning teacher suicide apparently amounted to a huge response from readers.

The Teacher Support Network has been increasingly busy in the last couple of years, with call numbers doubling between 2010 and 2011. Stories along the lines of the teacher who set themselves on fire due to exam result anxiety, the teacher who walked out of school one break and threw themselves under a bus, and various others.

So why is this? There are various thoughts in the article and in the comments below, but I thought I'd add my own.

Teachers have various sources of stress:

1. Workload - this can include merely planning lessons, although this becomes more problematic and time-consuming when being observed either internally by a line manager/colleague or by Ofsted. Whichever way it's being done, the lesson is judged based upon Ofsted's current ideals as to what makes a decent lesson and what doesn't. Your guess is as good as mine as to what the current fad is, and actually it's unlikely that Ofsted know themselves. Often, and this adds to teacher stress, the lesson is judged based upon the observer's own prejudices/pre-conceptions, so unless you are a carbon copy of the observer and in their good books, you will struggle to gain a decent grade whatever you do. It's happened to me on a couple of occasions in a couple of different schools, with the only justification for giving me satisfactory being "I didn't like the way you did it/I wouldn't have done it like that" rather than "you did it badly because...". This boils down to confusion in education as to what is good and what is not, and that is Ofsted/government's fault, bearing in mind that teachers' jobs depend on these lesson gradings. I am constantly hearing about teachers spending from 7.30am to 6pm at school and then doing more at home. If this is the case, and I have no reason to doubt the stories, then this is beyond the call of duty. The constant pressure to reinvent the wheel in order to make the curriculum more accessible and interesting for a more and more spoon fed generation.
2. Control/Behaviour - this is made all the worse when a school's leadership is weak or unsupportive. It also depends on the teacher, their personality, and often how long they have been at the school or what sort of reputation they have with the students. Public perception of teachers is at rock-bottom due to media representation of teachers as deviants (I can think of relatively recent Coronation Street and Hollyoaks storylines immediately, but I'm sure that there are more) alongside the seemingly constant belittling of the profession by members of the Department for Education.
3. Pay - teachers' pay should never have been moaned about by teachers as it's advertised so obviously. The problem is that with pay freezes and increased pension contributions, teachers may be finding it difficult to make ends meet - teachers now have something to moan about in the monetary sense. With the increased workload, there is less time to fit in any extra work, so no way to make up the shortfall.
4. Ofsted - an inspection was cited as the reason a headteacher killed themselves i  the article, and those in the profession would understand the stress placed upon all staff when the phone call comes.

Ultimately, teacher depression boils down to lack of support in teachers from various places: government Ofsted, parents (and therefore their children) and due to being told that teachers are lazy and incompetent by the others, the public in general.

Be a teacher - it's so rewarding.