Teachers' Standards

Usually I get nervous when I receive an email from the head, but this one appeared to be pretty safe as it contained an attachment of the latest document published by the Department of Education entitled "Teachers' Standards".

What an interesting read it is too, albeit most of it fairly obvious and what you'd expect to be honest. It has probably taken a huge amount of time and money to produce when there was a similar thing around before called the Core Standards.

There are a couple of interesting bullet points mind, and I shall review them below.

The very first bullet point says the teacher should "establish a safe and stimulating environment for pupils, rooted in mutual respect". The first bit is fine, if a little rose-tinted as not everything on the curriculum (a curriculum that the government wrote, or their minnions did at least), The final bit does make me laugh a little. I presume that the children will all be informed of this mutual respect thing. Respect is a two-way thing after all.

It reminds me of a time when I taught one of a set of triplets who liked to disrupt every lesson he was in and that meant me (as well as his other teachers) constantly trying to chivvy him along, asking him not to disturb the rest of the class and inform him that he lacked respect for his classmates who were trying to learn and was therefore quite selfish. It resulted in him standing up in the middle of the class and shouting "I hate you", to which I replied "I reckon I'll sleep tonight". At that point everyone (bar me, I hasten to add) laughed at him and he ran out, never to be seen again. It meant everyone else having a chance of actually passing. There's no way that you can convince me that he would ever show respect to anyone, let alone any of his teachers, to whom he clearly felt some sort of pre-conceived revulsion, for no apparent reason.

That point could be interesting to enforce.

The other part of the Teachers' Standards document that made be laugh/despair was the bullet point that says teachers should "be accountable for pupils' attainment, progress and outcomes". I've always struggled with this accountability thing that politicians go on about. The one major issue I have with it is that the outcome isn't entirely down to the teacher; the children have quite a lot to do with their final results through paying attention, making an effort, revising, and many other things that would contribute to their eventual success. Strangely enough the pupils' role in this isn't mentioned. This appears to be a fairly common theme in the public sector at the moment.

The rest of the document is the usual standard, wishy-washy tripe so often spewed from Whitehall, of the "act decisively when necessary" ilk. The document itself is yet another stick to clobber a teacher with when they have fallen out of management's favour and once again fails to give youngsters any responsibility for actions, choosing to blame teachers for things out of their control.

I eagerly await the publication of the "Parents and Childrens' Standards" document. It should be an entertaining read.

Turning To The Dark Side

Excellent, that's my sister's Christmas present next year sorted: a red light sabre. All those in the Star Wars films who have turned to the Dark Side own a red light sabre.

My sister, who is also a teacher has turned to The Dark Side by accepting a job that starts in September at a private school on higher wages and what has to be better working conditions than she currently endures. After a few years teaching at an academy she has finally had enough.

She has been called every name under the sun by students, regularly has boys pulling each others trousers down in class, trashing the classroom/equipment, found subjects on her timetable that she has no desire to teach and had requests for assistance to the leadership team ignored, or even worse, told "what you need to do is...". Having got into her car and bursting into tears one Friday, a quick polish of the CV and a first class stamp later she was at interview being offered a job, which she took with no hesitation at all. The academy now has to replace a hard working and good teacher, spending hundreds, if not thousands advertising a wholly undesirable post in an academy that is arguably going to the dogs due to overpaid leadership being reluctant to get their hands dirty in any way, shape or form.

Can you blame her?

The simple answer is "No", and I nearly did the same thing a couple of years ago, but with the increased travel coupled with a similar wage as I was already on, I decided not to take the post I was offered.

What are the benefits of teaching in a private or public school (there is a difference, but both essentially involve parents paying money for their child's education)?

1. The term are shorter, although more intensive for the teaching staff as the days are longer and the running of extra-curricular activities tends to be an expectation. The holidays are longer though, which means that staff can take of advantage of cheaper holiday prices as they can go outside of state school holidays.
2. Discipline is far stricter due to the fact that private schools can just get rid of those students who feel that it's beyond them to be able to behave. If you are too much hassle as a student (behaviourally that is) you can leave - the school can live without your fees, thank you very much. In a state school evidence has to be gathered in the form of statements from all witnesses, staff and students, and even then the governors might just let the child back or the local authority will rule that your school has gone over its quota of exclusions this year, meaning that the student can continue to cause havoc without fear of recrimination. All, that drivel in Channel 4's "Educating Essex" about not excluding permenantly just doesn't teach kids how the world works - if you mess up you face consequences. Not in state education people!
3. Resources don't tend to be as good in private schools as they are in state schools, purely because the school has to buy the stuff itself rather than get it all funded by the local authority. The upside in private school is that because the discipline is good, you can use what you've got effectively, whereas many resources in state schools are just abused by children who don't realise how lucky they are. The state-of-the-art equipment is rarely used to its full potential because the teacher is constanty trying to discipline the class or stop them breaking the stuff.
4. Extra-curricular activities are allowed to flourish at independent schools in general - the facilities are excellent and it is made clear that you are privileged to be allowed to use them. Time is given for students to reach their potential outside of the classroom, which can have a positive effect in the classroom; whereas in state schools, depending on the make-up of the top brass at individual schools, extra-curricula activities often get sidelined due to pressure on achieving results to gain a decent league table position.

Many teachers and people in general may feel a little intimidated by the independent school system, not knowing how they really work. Some have a moral objection to their existance, but you have to remember that not every student in private education is going to be or act like a front bench politician (fortunately), most are just like the children in state schools - decent and hard working if given the opportunity to be so.

I must admit that I did start looking at local independent schools again after a recent incident at school where I was told that I was an "F****** C***" by a child in class. I told the boy to "Stop acting like a prat and sit down" as he was just showing off to his mates. I was told shortly afterwards that I had made the deputy head's job almost impossible with my comment and the child dutifully received a day in internal exclusion and an hour's detention. The child not only swore at me, he then used his mobile phone (which he shouldn't have in school) to phone his father to accuse me of all sorts of things that I hadn't done (my story was backed up by the "statements" of all the other students in the class) and the father abused the deputy head down the phone. The deputy duly folded to parental pressure and relented from excluding the child for a few days. How supported I felt - not!

I will be checking online for any upcoming jobs, as well as finding a red light sabre. I might even get one myself.

Cricket Is The Key - Apparently

I was browsing the BBC News website the other day and found the following articles about cricket/sport and schools:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-15675694

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10086915

Ok, so the second one is not directly linked to cricket other than a bloke from the Cricket Foundation (Wasim Khan - a journeyman opening bastman) is quoted at the end, but the first one is interesting and most definitely about the game.

The first article says something along the lines of "cricket teaches people a sense of sportsmanship and calms everyone down". It's something they tried in the USA, encouraging gang members to partake in a spot of leather upon willow as a way to get along and steer them away from gang related activities. And it's worked to some extent, by all accounts. Cricket is a great game for camaraderie, mainly because it lasts what seems like an eternity, so you are forced to get along or you're in for hours of friction, which is a waste of useful energy. The England Cricket Board (ECB) has a programme called Chance To Shine where coaches go into schools and coach cricket. If a child is really interested in playing a little more seriously, a club is suggested by the coaches. The game is riddled with sportsmanship, with the main calming influence when it comes to grievances being the shaking of hands - the traditional version rather than some rehearsed sequence of hand touching - and clapping the opposition. Schools who are involved in the programme have noticed an improvement in behaviour in those who take part. Surely this must be encouraged.

The second article explains how school sport has become unhealthily competitive, whereupon children copy their heroes from the professional game. I used to coach a football team but gave up for the following reasons:

1. I couldn't really give up the time to run it properly, although I will help out if I can. The increased pressures on classroom teachers mean that those members of staff who could offer some expertise in certain areas can't afford to give up the time to share it like they would in the past. This is a real loss to school sport in general.
2. The attitude of the children became unbearable, with them refusing to come to training but still expecting to play in the matches (if they were dropped I'd get an irate phone call from a parent) and when you tried to work on the basics (which they were invariably incapable of doing) they just ignored you and challenged each other to a "keepy-ups" competition. I lost count of the number of times I said "If you were actually capable of that 70 yard pass or footballing trick, you'd be playing for Barcelona or Chelsea, not St Cuthberts' U14s".

Part of the problem, and it is taken into classrooms, is that the children and their parents all think they know all there is to know about football (football is the main protagonist here) because they see it on the TV all the time. They also see their heroes repeated petulance and take a similar attitude into the classroom. Rugby and cricket (as well as many other sports) don't really have this, and if it does occur it is dealt with swiftly and harshly to discourage others from doing the same. Football cannot say the same thing. Fining someone who gets paid £250,000 per week 2 weeks wages (the maximum fine allowed in professional football is 2 weeks wages) is pointless. If these people can be financially successful but seemingly not have to adhere to any rules, then why should our young people?

I can't wait until the money falls out of football - the world will be a better place