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...

Gove Under Pressure

Well if he's not, he should be. The current list of gripes and headaches facing the Secretary of State for Education is a long one:

1. That pesky GCSE English fiasco has been joined by a GCSE Science fiasco (and will eventually be joined by other subjects I suspect). A legal challenge has been mounted by schools and students and is gathering pace. Ofqual is predictably saying that they are not budging and the pressure on Gove to step in is growing. He's keeping a stiff upper lip and currently sitting on his hands, despressingly predictably.
2. Various experts are stating that Gove's changes to the exam system are being bundled through too quickly, including his own colleagues on the Education Select Committee and Glenys Stacey, the Head of Ofqual, who frankly should be getting her own house in order before commenting on other people's. If your allies are telling you that you may need to slow down, maybe you should listen, but no, not our Mikey.
3. Sir Michael Wilshaw, Gove's pal and Head of Ofsted, has been shooting his mouth off again, saying that teachers shouldn't get pay rises if they don't put the hours in. I don't think anyone would argue with the sentiment, but the tone and phraseology of the man leave a lot to be desired. This seems to be a common theme in Wilshaw's life, where he only appears to open his mouth to change feet.
4. The two biggest teaching unions have started their "action short of strike action" this week, with rumours in our local area that a couple of academy heads have threatened staff with punishment if they choose to adopt the policy. Not a great advert for staff, or indeed a great morale booster for already low-esteemed teachers. Academy freedoms may work well for the headteachers of those schools, but stories of staff being essentially bullied and threatened in them, and the fact that these academies have an extremely high staff turnover, would suggest that the benefits for ordinary teachers are limited at best.
5. An academy has been accused of doctoring students' exams to increase grades, and even worse, it's an academy that was highlighted by the Conservatives due to their improved results - no wonder, the teachers were apparently doing the exams for them! The anti-academy issue won't go away and these sorts of headlines are not helping. The money has dried up and the benefits are rapidly disappearing. Claims that academies are performing better in exams are baseless, not helped with this news of possible cheating.

Knowing our Michael, he will be blissfully unaware of any issues in education or with the teaching profession as he revs up his policy steamroller. What Gove has done to education in two and a bit years has been remarkable, but mainly in a bad way. Teachers were pretty demoralised before he stepped into the role, but now, having overseen an exodus of 10,000 teachers in the last 12 months, teaching is at an all time low in my experience of over ten years in the game - recruiting new staff is not always the answer due to them needing time to find their feet in the classroom. I was talking to a former colleague of mine who is leaving his school, along with another teacher, purely because they can't stand it any more. Neither member of staff has a job to go to - surely this has to set off alarm bells, doesn't it? Couple that with a Head of Ofsted who seems hellbent on winding the profession up and making their lives a misery, the recipe is not a tasty one!

I think it would be fair to say that education in this country needed some change, but the underhand way in which Gove has gone about his business, alongside Ofsted and Ofqual leaves a nasty taste in the mouth if you are a teacher. It's all well and good to have ideas of the way to move something, in this case education, forward, but wouldn't it be sense to seek advice and support from "experts", or at the very least, those who will have to face the consequences of the changes proposed. Seemingly not.

Gove may have achieved his goal by the time he leaves Education in that he will go down in history, but will it be for the right reasons? I doubt it.

Olympic Legacy? Good Luck!

With the continued success of Team GB (the only way to get some people interested in the Olympics is to give Great Britain a brand - says it all really) politicians have leapt onto the bandwagon with gusto. In order to make the Olympics of 2012 a legacy in the UK, schools and teachers must "play their part" according to the prime minister.

Frankly this is an insult to the thousands of teachers and volunteers in clubs who give up their time for free only to be told that they ought to try harder in the face of dwindling facilities, finances and resources. The current government (and the previous one wasn't much better, despite what they say) have done little other than cut services and facilities for sport. Funding is the key to the delivery of this "Olympic legacy", but seemingly the government are oblivious to this.

As far as I can see these are some major problems with this "Olympic legacy":

1. School playing fields being sold off is a bit of a red herring, but funding to schools through the SSCO and School Sports Partnership schemes is the real issue. The government has cut the SSP and therefore the SSCO scheme, meaning that the only PE provision now provided by primary and middle schools who can't afford a full-time PE teacher is delivered by non-specialists or by teachers giving up their own free time out of hours. Teachers have always been prepared to give up their time in the past, but with increased pressures to deliver "outstanding" lessons, league tables, Ofsted, a drop in real wages, being screwed over regarding pensions and various other things, including having a life outside of school, the goodwill of teachers has dwindled to a massive extent and there's no sign of that trend being reversed. Teachers have already "played their part".
2. Funding for equipment/facilities is the key - for most sports the correct equipment and/or facilities are needed for the sport to be played properly.and this doesn't come cheap to either schools or clubs. If the child wants to continue the sport then their parents will have to fork out for the equipment themselves and pay to join a club, which often isn't cheap. At every turn the issue of money rears it head, and this is the one issue the government want to avoid.
3. Government policy to "reduce the deficit" means that councils have to cut costs at every given opportunity. Sports facilities are always going to be the first to feel the pinch.
4. The introduction of competitive sports days will be purgatory for teachers, trying to control the kids who didn't qualify for the competitive events. I used to enjoy sports days when I was at school but that's because I was good at sport. There are those who just want to join in but are not that good, and by bringing competitive days back will discourage them from taking part. In the school where I'm a teacher we have a sports day contining a load of team games where everybody takes part as a tutor group. It sounds awful, and to be honest I thought it would be, but it's brilliant. Everyone joins in, staff and students alike, and the competitive element is still there as points are awarded to each group in categories such as "participation" as well as for the result. Competitive sport should be provided by clubs and state schools should introduce sports to their charges. Once again though the government have a "one size fits all" policy where they try, in vain, to compare private education (where facilities are excellent and time available to play them as well as money to pay for specific coaches) with state schools (no time available, relatively poor facilities and no money for expert coaching). It doesn't work! How many times do they have to be told?

The basis of the government's "Olympic legacy" policy is in volunteers from clubs and the teaching profession, and that's never going to work. It's all well and good making the right noises in speeches but actually putting your money where your mouth is (literally in this case) is the key, and I doubt whether our current set of politicians are capable of doing that, whatever colour their rosette.

I Don't Get It...

Without wanting to sound like one of the children in my class when you put any work, no matter how difficult, in front of them, "I don't get it". I just don't get the obsession of successive governments to promote the policy of academies for schools. I genuinely have no idea what is in it for them other than perhaps eventually education will be part-funded privately, allowing government to spend the billions they save on other stuff, like a duck house for their moat or an "arthouse" film in the local Travelodge.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist by any means, but the policy has recently become more aggressive recently, with schools seemingly jumping before being forced to walk the plank to academy status. And what reason do leadership in schools give for going for academy status?

1. It's inevitable. It's only inevitable if schools fold to government pressure, and unfortunately teachers are generally keen to moan about something but less keen to actually do something to fight it. Due to diminished job security in academies and fewer benefits for regular teachers, maybe this will spur the teaching profession into action.
2. Increased funding. What little extra there is will go into paying for services lost, although some maybe left over to pay for "better" teachers (in whose opinion?) or for new technology for usage in school (that will be out-of-date within 12 months). Conspiracy theorists (and many of the children in school) will tell you that headteachers will all grant themselves a pay-rise - it's possible but almost certainly won't happen unless deserved. A recent news story of this essentially happening probably won't help, with a Lincolnshire headteacher paying his own children to "work" as consultants for a school, where their job was to travel to Bali to look at a hotel for example.
3. Increased independence over the delivery of the curriculum. This is a total red herring as everyone, whether at a private school, LEA funded school or academy has to take the same exams, meaning that there actually is zero freedom over what subjects to teach. There has always been a choice over how the information is delivered in the classroom.
4. Raising standards. Another complete red herring, as the same kids will be wandering through the doors (academies can't get rid of kids very easily, just like LEA schools). When BTECs were worth 4 GCSEs academies made it appear that standards were lifted, but this year a truer picture will appear and many academies will be back at the bottom of the league tables (I will wash my mouth out with soap) where they were previously.

When I say that it costs up to about £50,000 to actually convert to academy status, the sums really don't add up. What's the point? Really. All the policy seems to be doing is unionising a generally placid workforce, and with the recent news that the numbers of teachers has fallen by 10,000 in the last year, this really is a worrying time for the nation, not just teachers.

There is also the factor that the headteacher and governors hold ultimate power in the school, so there is a major question of trust. These people claim to be accountable to the DfE, but they will only do something if schools go disasterously wrong. The door is open to overt and unopposed bullying in the worse cases, with the bullied unable to do much about it, and the bully (usually the headteacher) able to do what they want, when they want. So it boils down to trust in the governors and headteacher to do the right thing for the school. I'm sure that many are trustworthy, but not all.

Not only are attitudes towards education worsening, but government policy is ensuring that terms and conditions are also worsening. Can't wait to teach classes of 60 kids all telling me that they don't need to learn what I'm teaching them to sit in front of the TV watching Jeremy Kyle. Extreme, but not unrealistic.

"Societal Problems"

Schools minister Nick Gibb at the ATL conference:
"The societal problems that these schools have to face are much greater today... but the best way to tackle this is to make sure children are leaving well educated."

How do you suppose schools educate these children Mr Gibb, whilst they abuse each other, the staff and any equipment that is within arm's reach? Politicians are consistently asking the teaching profession to perform the impossible, and that is to educate those who have absolutely no interest in being educated. And let's be honest, why should the youngsters of the UK bother with education?

• There are very few jobs for them to go into, so the government wants young people to go to university, at a cost of up to £9000 per year. Do the maths if a regular course at university lasts 3 years - if you want to be a teacher (4 years minimum) and other professions like medicine far longer. That's no incentive, certainly not on the wages that are going to be offered when wage changes proposed by the government come into force. Teachers pensions all over again: pay more to get less.
• Their parents have managed perfectly well without a job all their adult life, living off benefits and essentially doing what they want, when they want to without much fear of repercussion. Threats from politicians to remove benefits from those who refuse work or training haven't materialised, although I'm sure that some statistics can be manipulated to show that actually this policy has been enforced. There are plenty of jobs out there, but perhaps not the kinds of jobs desired by those who require them.

And so it's down to teachers to essentially bring up these children, be their parents and instill the ambition to achieve through education.

We have two hopes people, and Bob Hope's on the golf course in the sky.

Every week I have at least one child tell me that they aren't ever going to use what I am teaching them, and every week I respond with "How do you know?".

Have they already got a job lined up? No. So why are they writing that off? Because they can't be bothered to try, that's why.

The last occasion I had this was when we were doing algebra and one nice lad stated that he didn't see the point of it. The conversation went like this from that point onwards:
Me: You don't use Excel then.
Student: Only in school.
Me: You're never going to work in an office I suppose.
Student: No.
Me: What are you going to do for work then?
Student: Don't know.
Me: Anyone else think that they are never going to use algebra in work.

Over half the class' hands go up.

Me: You have all just written off about half the job market by saying that you won't do anything with formulae in your work life.
Students: So.

I give up. These are genuinely nice kids too, I shudder to think what it's like in tougher educational environments.

What will happen? Teachers will get told to try harder or face a lowering of wages and increasing hours in order to give them more time to fail to inspire those uninspirable children. The only way that some children can be inspired to achieve educational success is to totally remove them from the toxic environment that is their home/background in some cases. All children will be forced to board at school, making teachers their actual guardians 24 hours per day - you heard it here first people.

Although, due to the prohibitive cost of beoming a teacher, there won't be enough in the profession to make this plan viable. Classes of 60 anyone?

Politicians really are clueless.