"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.

Longer Day Anyone?

They're all at it now, even Labour's Shadow Education Secretary has started to make stupid comments, to go with his coalition counterpart. He reckons that the school day should be extended for the following reasons:

1. It will help stop kids from joining gangs - presumably gangs don't happen in schools.
2. It will offer kids a "haven from chaotic homes".
3. It will prepare kids for the hours they will have to work when they leave school/education.
4. It will raise standards, or should I say, grades as the kids will do nothing but school work.

All these are viable and decent points I suppose, although not all are applicable to some schools in the gang or "chaotic home" senses. In fact most, if not all teachers would welcome the opportunity for their students to practise what they've been taught in class more. I also agree that school currently does not prepare young people for the workplace, but will this really work? Is hoemwork still going to be a requirement? Kids have got to have time to actually be kids at some point.

How's it going to work?

This hasn't been explained of course, it smacks of a potential vote winning statement to me, the trouble being that Schools Minister Nick Gibb seems to agree, which means that it's a very real possibility. To be fair if Gibb said it was a bad idea he may as well say to the general public "please don't vote for us in the next election".

Are teachers going to be paid for the extra hours they do. Currently a teacher can have no more than 1265 hours over the year of "contact time", and that is spread over the 195 days spent in school. "Contact time" is the educational term for "kids in your class". This would have to be rethought unless new staff would be brought in the supervise the extra time required by the politicians. In which case these people would need payment, but we keep being told that there's no more money left in the pot. So something has to give.

There's also the fact that teachers use the time they have before and after school to plan those "outstanding" lessons that the government and Ofsted desire. If that time is taken away standards will actually drop, because teachers will either not have the time to plan the lessons or will have to work every evening in order to plan them. This will lead to burnout, stress-related illness and absence and this isn't good for anyone, teachers or students. Anyone fancy working from 7.30am to about 9pm every weekday? Nor do I.

This is yet another example of political idiocy, but I can't say that I'm surprised. Every day seems to bring a new example.

Read the article here!

So We're Lacklustre Now

"There are too many lacklustre schools in England which are not pushing children to reach their potential, says the annual report from Ofsted."

This is the opening paragraph from this article: BBC News Article

My immediate reaction is "Well they would say that, wouldn't they".

I can't wait for the press release from Ofsted that says "All schools are doing really well; our job is done." It will never happen of course as they'd effectively be putting themselves out of a job. You don't get too many turkeys writing glowing reports about Christmas after all.

The article says that 40% of schools inspected this year have been found to offer a "satisfactory" education to their students. To the uninitiated that sounds fine, what with the dictionary definition of "satisfactory" being "fulfilling all demands and requirements". But in education "satisfactory" means "not doing enough".

What the report fails to mention is that the goal posts have changed for Ofsted inspections, essentially meaning that everything the inspectors required last time they visited is no longer of any importance (I'm exaggerating a little here, but only a little) and so schools have been downgraded in almost all cases because they don't really know what is required of them.

Is it any wonder the public are at a bit of a loss as to how they judge a school if schools don't know themselves?

The whole article/report is Ofsted's justification for why it should continue to exist, what with a "big name" assuming its headship in the new year - Sir Michael "We're Not Worthy" Wilshaw.

Nick Gibb, the Schools Minister is quoted as saying "There are still far too many under-performing schools making painfully slow improvements." I think I may have the reason, or reasons why:

• Schools are facing budget cuts, meaning that they can't afford to adequately staff or resource schools (unless they are academies of course, where they get more money and can do what they want with it). It's the nature of the current economic climate, but you can't give anyone less and expect significantly more, whatever business you are in.
• A teachers' priority is no longer teaching, it's administration. It's marking books with "formative" comments significantly more (despite the fact that the students don't read them or seem to care that much); it's testing the students to provide data for use in planning; it's reporting home every half term so that the parents know how their child is performing (although many appear not to be bothered); it's writing detailed lesson plans containing every last bit of information on every child in that class, plus deciding what particular questions could push each individula child to progress and actually writing it down rather than allowing teachers to have any sort of spontaneity in class (planning has always been part of teaching, but nowadays the expected process is unhelpful). The list goes on, but who is all this extra work for? It's not the students, it's Ofsted. Everything I've just mentioned just uses up time that teachers could be using to actually come up with good ideas to make their students progress and hopefully enjoy learning.
• Pensions and pay freezes - no matter what job you are employed in, if your wages are frozen for years (and therefore, in real terms, your wages are cut) and you are being asked to work longer for less, you are not going to be overly motivated. Lack of motivation is disastrous for teachers, as it's a profession that relies on enthusiastic delivery to enthuse students.

Maybe I'm being a little melodramatic, but all these factors make a difference, and when you get some jumped up, data reliant, pompous idiot, who hasn't actually done the job for years (if ever) telling that you're doing it all wrong, how do you think the teaching profession will react?

What's even more worrying is that politicians actually believe every word they say.
What chance have we got?