From the ridiculous to the paradoxical

Now whatever you think of the Secretary of State for Education Michael Gove and/or his politics, you have to admit that he's probably pretty clever, what with being an Oxbridge graduate etc. He is being somewhat careless and forgetful at the moment I would suggest.

Why is this?

I shall explain.

Last week he announced that teacher training requirements are going to be made tougher (Click here to read the BBC article) so that the requirements for those wishing to embark on teacher training must pass tests in maths, English and "reasoning" (whatever that may be). They will get two chances to pass, and if they fail to do so they will not be allowed on the course. Where's the problem with that then? Well on it's own there is no problem, and no teacher will ever argue that there is. The only quibble one could have is that many of the skills that these tests will examine haven't been used for a long time, especially the maths ones, and the equivalent GCSE grade would be B, so not overly simple. Currently teacher trainees take the test during their qualification period and can seek help on it.

The problem is that in July, just 3 months ago, Michael relaxed the rules on teaching qualifications for those wishing to work in a free school or academy (Click here to see the BBC article), meaning that people without any qualifications can teach in those types of school.

Confused? Me too. In one breath he want more rigorous testing of teachers, and in the next breath he wants to allow unqualified teachers to practice.

Conspiracy theorists have suggested that Michael is using this as a smokescreen to get more people from industry into teaching and the increased difficulty of the training programme will mean less competition for those with no qualifications. Schools have to fill teaching posts, and if the only people who apply are not qualified, what choice does a school have?

I don't buy into the conspiracy theory particularly, although I see where it's come from. I just think that all the reforms that Michael's trying to cram in before his party gets voted out of government or he gets sacked have confused him, meaning that the backside has no idea what the elbow is doing. In other words, he's making it up as he goes along.

Gove's seemingly perpetual digs at the teaching profession just show how much he dislikes the people he leads. His policies have undermined education in the England (other parts of the UK are sensibly now opting out of Michael's reforms), as although there may have been the occasional decent idea, much of the educational policy emanating from Whitehall has been hogwash and designed to undermine teachers' rights.

The good thing is that it does appear that he has finally lost his marbles and therefore he can't be far from losing his job. The problem is that he has possibly inflicted irreparable damage on the teaching profession. 

Gove Levels

Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Education, is going to announce changes to the exam system, in what have been described as "Gove Levels". Gove and his pals in the DfE don't like the relatively recent trend in modular GCSE courses and want to go back to the "old" system of just one exam at the end of a course. This is the latest in a long run of changes that Gove is attempting to impose on the schools of England.

There are a few issues with this in my view, that will mean that these moves won't be overly popular in the teaching profession.

1. This is going to cost a huge amount of money, buying specialist resources for the new courses, as currently there are a number of exam boards from which all schools choose, and the plan is that there will only be one. Where is this money going to come from. School budgets are being pushed to the limit in the current climate and have little to spare. Centrally the government are trying to save money wherever they can in order to reduce the national deficit, including attacking public sector pensions and wages through suggesting that a regional system is the way forward. I actually think that having just one exam board is a decent idea, because as Gove himself says, choice just means that there's a race to the bottom. Modular exams are also not ideal for a number of reason, but the main one being that they give an artificial impression of a student's ability in a subject due to the ability to retake exams that have been failed, occasionally numerous times. It is going to be very costly for schools, and there has been no explanation of where the money is coming from.
2. It's all well and good to change the qualification, but at the same time the government has said that schools achieving less than 50% of students gaining 5 A*-C including English and maths will be forced to become academies. The new exams are going to be graded by percentages of people at each grade, although no-one really knows how. It could be that 10% achieve the top grade, 15% the next and so on. This presents a major problem for teachers who are given targets. Currently each grade is topic or skill based, meaning that a teacher could say with some confidence that if a student had mastered a certain skill then they should achieve a certain grade. With the new system the teacher cannot predict with any certainty as they have no idea what students in other schools are capable of. Schools will therefore fall under the 50% line without realising it and be forced, probably against their will, into sponsored academy status. And let's face it, people are no more intelligent now than they have ever been, all that's changed is the availability of education for all, if not the attitude towards academia. The move smacks of forcing more schools to become academies in a back-door fashion.
3. New qualifications take a while to bed in, and with the recent (and ongoing) GCSE fiasco, public, or more importantly employer confidence in the exam system is at an all time low. Is this really a good time to make such huge changes? People do understand the GCSE, and what they indicate. Whether they like what they indicate is irrelevant, they know what they are dealing with. A new qualification is an unknown quantity, and often start off being too easy easy. Now is not really the time, although I suppose if it's got to be done, no time will be a good time.
4. Politicians like to tinker, and do so on such a regular basis that teachers often don't know whether they are coming or going regarding the latest policy directive from Whitehall. If you talk to most teachers they will tell you that all they desire is to be left alone to teach, rather than mug up on the latest theory coming out of Westminster.

Gove has done his best in the few years he's been in post to really make a mark by changing education at an alarming rate. Anyone who makes changes to anything ends up annoying someone, but the skill is to persuade those it effects  that it is the right thing to do. The problem is that Gove comes across as supremely arrogant and is almost universally disliked by those in education.

Gove, as ever, is bullish and hell-bent on forcing this through, but one good thing about the coalition is that it won't come in until 2015, meaning that if the Conservatives lose the next election, this can be reversed.

Teachers and Students: Inversely Proportional

Teachers, teaching and perhaps more specifically, Michael Gove, have been in the news a lot in recent months and years. It is now the summer holidays (hooray!), although few teachers can afford to go away due to the considerate travel companies increasing prices dramatically during this period (boo!). But this is also the lead up to the publication of exam results and therefore those all important league table positions for each educational establishment.

The pressure on schools, and therefore teachers to get results has become enormous, with pay linked to performance through the UPS (Upper Pay Spine) scheme in schools, where if the head's particularly under the pump regarding the finances, all they have to do is set targets too high and then refuse to allow pay progression for staff based upon failure to reach targets. It happens people, and is doing so more and more in the current economic climate. Some teachers have given up even applying for progression (it doesn't happen automatically, you have to ask nicely) because they know that it will be turned down on results/financial grounds.

The result of increased pressure to get results from their classes has meant that most teaching staff have upped their game considerably in the last 20 years or so through better planning and more hours being put in to aid and individualise the learning of every pupil in their class. Websites such as the TES (www.tes.co.uk) exist where people share resources that worked for them, meaning that teachers have a wealth of information out there and most use it to the best of their ability in a desperate bid to squeeze the best results out of their charges.

The only problem with this, and don't get me wrong, the upping of teaching standards is a great thing, is that students have now realised that they don't have to make much effort at all to get a "pass" or C grade in whatever subject they are doing because the teacher will put the effort in for them. It's sometimes known as "spoon-feeding" and is the main reason why the business sector are moaning constantly about the quality of student being passed through the education system.

Now I'm not saying that we should return to the days of teachers arriving in class, handing out the text books and writing a page number on the board, but there almost needs to be an element of this to force the young people in schools to become more independent. The problem is that in order for independence to be instilled in pupils, the every school will be forced to take a hit on their results for a year. In order to keep the playing field level, every school and every teacher will have to embrace this new policy (and all teachers should welcome it with open arms!), but this will never happen. The thing is that when given some independence the students will generally try to learn. I know of a teacher who so hacked off will a particularly lazy and chatty class just upped sticks and went to the staffroom to make themselves a cup of tea. Upon their return one of the kids who's actually been listening was at the board explaining to those who hadn't in absolute silence. It's sad that a teacher has to resort to that before the students can be bothered to put in some effort at times.

Due to government meddling therefore, the school system is partly redundant because the children haven't been allowed to fend for themselves, meaning that exams have to be dumbed down in order for the students to be able to have a go at them and government targets on the number of people gaining "quality" qualifications can be met to be shouted about during the next election campaign. Due to the exam system not really testing the children, they are not prepared for the outside world or the workplace and employers moan about teachers not preparing students for the workplace.

No-one can win here purely because of interferring politicians and their made up targets, which is why I would encourage people to avoid the teaching profession unless you are into S&M, for teachers are the current whipping boys/girls for MPs. Where's Guy Fawkes when you need him?

Academies Aren't Doing As Well As They Claim - Duh!

A report has just been released by "School Improvement Expert", Dr Terry Wrigley claiming that most academies have appeared to raise their results/achievement by essentially cooking the books and relying on vocational qualifications.

A link to the news story is here: Click here!

This a yet another non-story if you are a teacher and therefore have some clue about the education system in the UK. Academies up to this point have been failing schools forced into a change of status to raise standards. The problem being that the same students wander through the million pound doors, and even with the best teachers in the country, these academies are going to struggle to raise standards at the rate that they claim to have done. The children that have come on "leaps and bounds" have just been placed onto courses that require 100% coursework and therefore can essentially be completed by the staff themselves. The only issue that they have is getting these children a C grade at English and Maths, and credit where credit is due, they do a very good job at that.

Now, if you don't know, many vocational courses have been worth 4 GCSE C grades up until recently, when the government decided to "downgrade" these qualifications. You can almost sense the wave of panic going through much of secondary education, but especially academy headteachers who are paid silly money, sitting in masive offices whilst playing Angry Birds on their complimentary ipad2s. As soon as their "true" results appear in August, they will all be making a beeline for the Job Centre in a blind panic.

There are a few positives though:

• Since these qualifications have been "downgraded", employers will be able to make better judgements about who to employ as the playing field has now been levelled. Undeserving children will not feel that they have achieved by putting in zero effort and stillwalking out of school with 10 "GCSE" grades.
• The "fat cat" headteachers deserve pretty much everything they get. The good ones will stay because the results will have genuinely improved; the frauds will be unemployed, as they should be.
• The current government, who have been lauding academy status, will end up with not just egg on their face, but a whole battery farm that will hopefully lead to the sacking of the idiotic Michael Gove. Around 70% of academies will see a massive fall in their results to somewhere near where they should be. One can dream, but I won't be purchasing a "Sorry You're Leaving" card for Michael.

The whole thing only goes to prove that the current regime is purely out for headlines, not for the good of anyone other than themselves.

High Youth Unemployment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ofsted went to see, see, see...

I went in to school the other day to do various things, but partly to look at our GCSE results. I was amazed at some of our results, for various reasons.

Last Saturday a popular broadsheet had an article quoting the headmaster of the school with the best A Level results in England. You won't be surprised to hear that he is head of a private school, but may be surprised to hear that around half of his school's A Level candidates achieved an A*. This is obviously the mark of some excellent teaching and some excellent learners, but when you compare the percentages of those in private and state education of how many candidates gain A* grades, the difference is pretty stark:

Private: 19% achieve an A* grade
State: 8% achieve an A* grade

Now don't be fooled by the myth that all private school students are more intelligent than state school students because that is simply not true, and at A Level class sizes are about the same. The teachers in state education are equally as qualified and talented, in some cases more so than their private counterparts, and the myth that private schools pay more than state schools should also be dispelled, because it's simply not true.

So why do private school candidates get consistently higher grades?

I think that there are a few reasons:

1. The fact that parents are forking out thousands of pounds to send their child to school, when a free option is available to them means that they are supportive of their child's education. Although you could argue that the fact that a state school pupil has stayed on to study A Levels rather than contribute to the household earnings would also show parental support for their child's education.
2. The work ethic at private schools is higher and those who don't toe the line get removed with a"we don't need your fees, go and find someone who does" attitude. This is true, private schools  can just get rid of a disruptive pupil almost on a whim, whereas any state school teacher will tell you the chain of paperwork to do the same thing in state education is growing ever longer. But at A Level the children have chosen their subject and presumably want to take them, so disruption should be at a minimum you'd suppose.
3. This is the reason the headteacher in the article states, and I think the most important and significant one: State schools are fixated on the C grade, regarding that as a pass and anything higher being a bonus. Teachers are being told by the government (Ofsted) via their senior management to ensure that as many as possible gain a C grade. All this does is leave those who are capable of gaining A*, A or B grades to fend for themselves. There is a large amount of truth in this at both A Level, and actually more so at GCSE.

Since I saw our school's results the other day and recalled the newspaper article I can't seem to shake this song out of my head:

Ofsted went to see, see, see...
A school's GCSE, E, Es...
But all that it could see, see, see...
Was the pupils with a C. C, C.

We gained a massive amount of C grades for our school this summer, with almost all students achieving 5 A*- C grades (not including English and Maths). It was a rise over over 20% on the previous year. How did we manage? I'll tell you:

1. The teaching stayed roughly the same.
2. Staff were "forced" (you could refuse but felt it was probably more trouble than it was worth to do so) to teach extra lessons after school, although they weren't compulsory for the students so only a handfull turned up in many cases, and they tended to be the ones who didn;t really need to.
3. We entered lots of our "less academic" students for BTECs and Diplomas - this is the key. Those who would previously have got one or no GCSEs above C grade now found themselves with the "equivalent" of 8 by taking 2 BTECs. It's known in the trade as "playing the game", and are essentially what makes our new academies (previously struggling schools on the whole) appear to be making progress.

Now, I'm not knocking the BTEC qualification or the schools who offer it, because not everyone is academically minded and they need to have something to show for their time at school, but are they really worth 4 GCSEs? The BTEC qualifications generally no exams but are coursework based and are assessed in schools, although the marks are verified by external examiners. Students write this coursework under the supervision of their teacher, but exams can't be taken under the same supervision. This means that in coursework based qualifications, students have to opportunity to improve their grade after a quick chat with their teacher, something that also can't be done in an exam. We have a number of students who have done just this and therefore pushed the overall percentage up significantly.

When people ask me nowadays whether exams have got easier, my reply is always this:

"At the top end no because it's still just as tough to get the top grades, but a C grade has certainly become easier to achieve."

This is purely a result of these "new" qualifications, but it is deceptive and ultimately devalues the C grade someone got in a GCSE exam since it appears relatively easy to achieve an "Ofsted pass" or a C grade equivalent in a BTEC.

Ultimately it's all a political game and a system designed to please Ofsted/the government, which is a bit sad really.