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.

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.

Performance Related Pay - A Heads' Bully Charter

The "Heads' Bully Charter" is a comment I read by author Michael Rosen (follow him on Twitter, he's a genius on @MichaelRosenYes" and he's absolutely correct.

All those who work in the private sector will be sitting there wondering what the problem is - they've been doing it for years after all. The difference is that they work on sales, teachers work on attitudes and aptitude/willingness for pubescent teenagers to learn. Gove, in his wisdom, says that this will encourage hardworking young, good teachers to join the profession and encourage poor teachers, whose pay will stagnate, to leave the profession. Once again it's the talk of porr teachers that is amusing, because you will never find anyone argue that poor practioners should not leave the profession (if it 's still considered that) but those "poor" teachers are the best of those who applied. Get rid of all the "poor" teachers and there won't be enough people to teach. Plus, "poor" teaching is generally an opinion of a headteacher.

What you have to remember is that headteachers often don't teach at all nowadays and haven't done so regularly for years. Those wishing to become a headteacher are weird in the sense that they have entered teaching and then opted to do as little as possible, if any at all. I have been the victim of a headteacher who has prejudged my lessons based on the fact that they don't like me or don't understand the banter that occurs in a healthy classroom. The very same headteacher also told a new head of department that they would see an inadequate lesson when they observed me despite having no idea what I was doing. This same headteacher will control my pay soon. How is that fair?

Now I would never describe myself as a brilliant teacher, but I have had enough decent feedback from parents, students and colleagues to know that I'm not rubbish, but Gove's plans will allow a headteacher who isn't keen on me as a person to freeze my pay indefinitely unless I move, which I may be forced to do.

Once again the unions are objecting, but due to the various policies Gove have introduced since he came to office, the unions just seem like moaners. It's been a very clever campaign from Gove as he essentially outlaws unions and isolates teachers more and more.

The bloke has been and will be a disaster for education in this country, mark my words.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

Performance Related Pay

Michael Gove announced that the DfE would be pushing for teachers to be paid in line with their students' results, as suggested by the Education Select Committee.

Head of Department: "Who wants to teach the bottom set?"
Try to avoid the crush as the entire department rush for that one!

This is the latest in a line of policies that will drive teachers out of the profession. There will be numerous people who work in the private sector who will say "I can't see the problem - that's what we have". I can understand that things could be seen like this, but there's one vital factor that is being ignored: "children".

Now the drive behind this is to improve standards of teaching and encourage the better teachers by paying them more, at the same time getting rid of poor teachers. Again I have no problem with this theory, the trouble is that a good, even outstanding teacher could appear to be inadequate depending on the class sat in front of them. Some children are simply unteachable, whatever you do, and somebody has to teach them because they have to be somewhere. This could affect that teacher's pay through no fault of the teacher, which I think you'd agree is unfair.

The government want all children to aspire to great things, but what they fail to grasp is that not all have or will ever have any aspirations beyond their state provided home, sofa, satellite TV and any other vices they may take a shine to. It's like trying to force a car to go at 100mph when it has no petrol in it; it ain't gonna happen.

Politicians seem fixated on getting everyone "above average" (I know that's impossible by the way, if only the politicians did), and squeezing teachers in order to do this. The lack of aspiration in the country, due to being able to live relatively well on benefits is the issue, as children learn these attitudes from their parents. But millions of voters being slated by politicians isn't the way to win elections; destroying a profession annoys far less people; a no-brainer.

Unions are up-in-arms of course, but cleverly the government are getting all these unpopular policies out at the same time to make it appear that the unions are whinging constantly which goes on to erode any public support they may have.

No wonder election turnouts are so low: they are all pathetic excuses for human beings with no idea what goes on outside of their publicly funded mansions, and therefore not worth the effort of voting for.

My dream: we have an election that no-one actually votes in. It might actually send a message, although no doubt there will be someone paid a lot of money to put a positive spin on it.

Playing Them At Their Own Game

So all the teaching unions conferences have finished and surprisingly its been the NASUWT rather the NUT who have been making all the headlines. There has been a lot of whinging that won't win much public support, despite the fact that many of the points raised have been legitimate, the public will generally just wish that teachers would stop moaning. Hot classrooms are not going to extract much sympathy I'm afraid.

Arguably the best bit of conference season was Chris Keates' (General Secretary of NASUWT) closing speech. Having taken a leaf out of Gove's book she used the gimmick of having a cadboard cut out of the Secretary of State for Education to symbolise the fact that not a single Minister has attended any part of any conference. Keates described Gove as a teaching union's poster boy as his reign in office has led to a huge increase in membership for all three teaching unions. This is worrying for two reasons: government policy has made more teachers feel threatened but also because there are a lot of teachers who aren't union members, which is naive at best.

Keates used the opportunity to accuse Gove and his cronies (yes Wilshaw, you are one of those) of "eroding the professional status of teachers", and she is absolutely correct. Gove seems hell-bent on demoralising the profession in what he claims is a bid to raise standards. An army general doesn't instil courage and fight in their troops by telling them repeatedly that they are sub-standard and should be worked into the ground. All the Department for Education ever say is that teachers have been given more power to rid classrooms of disruptive influences and that academies offer schools and staff greater freedom to teach children without government interference.

Anyone who has had any recent experience of schools will tell you that it is still nigh-on impossible to exclude pupils, and is arguably even more difficult now since the excluding school has to pay for the excluded student's future provision from an increasingly shrinking budget. Academies, it is claimed by unions, are a step towards privatisation of education and an invitation to privateers to make a profit from schools. I think that it may be a little dramatic to suggest that private companies want to take over schools to gain profit but there is very little evidence that academy status raises standards at all, especially considering that the new academy has the same under-achieving students wandering through the doors, probably late. Academies offer most teachers worse money, worse benefits regarding sick, maternity and paternity pay as well as longer hours. Are the government really surprised that teachers are opposed to the move? Turkeys don't queue up to vote for Christmas.

The fact that no-one from the Department for Education has attended any conference shows the contempt for the unions who represent the profession, and in my view, the cowardice of politiians. Ministers are happy to sit in press conferences or typing up press releases in their comfy, air-conditioned offices that slate teachers, but are extremely reluctant to actually face them.

Strikes seem imminent - bring on the revolution!

Michael "Braveheart" Gove

I was on duty on our school field recently when there was a small commotion by some gates overlooking the road that runs past the school. Around 4 kids who should have been in school were requesting an audience with a well-known fool on our role. The fool's mates all came over and started shouting abuse at these 4 "undesirables" safe in the knowledge that they were going to be in no trouble whatsoever due to the 3 metre high metal fence and a bunch of adults (us teachers) there to protect them. I said to one student "Ooh, aren't you brave calling the boy some nasty names when he can't get you. Now go away and stop being pathetic."

Had I been a member of the Association of School and College Leaders and attended their conference I would have said pretty much the same thing to Michael Gove. He gave a speech at the conference in Birmingham which is reported on the BBC News website (click here to read it) where we saw the man's true colours. Gove is trying to paint a picture of himself as a reformer. In fact he could do a passable impression (pun intended) of Van Gogh had the Dutchman cut both ears off rather than just 50% due to Gove's lack of listening skills. He, the Secretary of State rather than the painter, promised the conference that reforms were to keep coming thick and fast, which was quite brave I suppose as almost everyone in education is in agreement that he's rushing policy through without due care and attention. So a home run for Michael.

He then went on to back-track about no notice Ofsted inspections, saying that there may be a bit of notice, but palmed that decision off onto the "independent" Sir Michael of Wilshaw - which got a laugh. Not very brave from the Secretary of State - strike one Michael, and don't forget that you are out on the third strike.

Now if you're reading this blog, you are almost certainly involved in education in some way, and would have read or heard the constant slating of the teaching profession in the UK, headteachers, classroom practitioners - you name it, they've all felt the sharp end of the Gove tongue, metaphorically fortunately. But I quote from Gove's speech, and see if you can hear the distant sound of the reversing beeps: "We have the best generation of young teachers ever in our schools. We have the best generation of heads ever in our schools. And our whole school system is good, with many outstanding features." That's a huge turnaround from what we've been reading in the newspapers and hearing on the news bulletins where there's been rarely a good word said about educators and many of us could be facing the sack for being rubbish. Ironic that it was said in front a large audience of educators, don't you think? Not very brave Michael - strike two.

The speech finished only for the Secretary of State to be caught in the lobby by a group of handily placed reporters, whereupon he is quoted as saying: "If people say 'It's all just a bit too much', my view is 'man up!'". Michael, that's strike three I'm afraid - you're out.

Pathetic - I can kind of accept it from a 14 year old, but from a fully grown and well-educated man, it's frankly sad. I wonder what he'd say if I threatened him with a Chinese burn? I'd probably get all his dinner money.

Headteachers To Leave The Profession

The Association of School and College Leaders, the union of many haedteachers in the UK, claims that over half of headteachers want to leave the profession having surveyed a number of its members. The union cites the fact that morale is at an "all time low" due to the constant criticism from government and ever-increasing responsibility as parents choose to palm off parenting on schools.

A headteacher's job has become more complex, it is claimed, with the skills required being "moral leaders, risk takers, media experts, creative accountants, prophets and networkers". And I'd agree with most of those, whether those traits are good for the school or the individual headteacher is more of a moot point.

A headteacher's job has certainly changed immensely in recent years, as they become further removed from day-to-day school life, becoming pen-pushers, rarely seeing children whilst holed up in offices, meetings and "training courses". Ultimately the buck stops with the headteacher when it comes to school performance, but with so much of the groundwork delegated, headteachers can seemingly do as much or as little as they want as the only people they answer to are the governors. Governors are volunteers, headteachers are paid enormous sums of money - I've never been sure why that has worked, or perhaps it hasn't depending on the nature of those governors.

The fact that so many headteachers are thinking of leaving - the news report says that one third are making preparations to actually leave - is actually quite worrying. Not that I believe that the profession would miss some headteachers, but because the case will be similar, if not worse with teaching staff. Schools can live without heads for a while (a couple of schools local to where I am actually thrived without a head), but schools cannot survive without teaching staff.

The difference is that headteachers can make preparations for leaving the profession - I imagine that it's easier to put some money aside on a monthly income of £5000 than it is with a classroom teacher's monthly income of around £2000. Teachers' morale is also at an all-time low, a fact that will come to light as the union conference season continues, but "ordinary" teachers don't have the disposible income to put some aside and leave, so what the young of the UK are currently getting is a demoralised workforce, which can't be healthy for anyone.

Ofsted, Gove, Wilshaw, Twigg and any other politicians who have anything to do with education policy or diatribe have a lot to answer for. Ignore the rosette as they are all as bad as each other. We are living in a time where education is seen as a major vote winner so successive politicians given power over education in Britain try desperately to make a mark and in the process end up criticising and confusing teachers through slating previous government policy and constantly changing school policy to shout about (or not, depending on its success) at the next general election. And these policies are based on what knowledge of the profession? None.

Is it any surprise that teachers are demoralised? Bossed by ambitious toffs with no idea.

I saw that a non-teaching friend of mine on a well-known social networking site had "liked" the "Get Into Teaching" page. I thought I'd click on it (not the "Like" button, I hasten to add) and see what people are saying about getting into teaching - the naivity was amazing and worrying. I so nearly posted to the young people being conned into teaching by promises of fulfilment not the bother, but thought better of it. They may well have to learn by their own mistakes.

Secretary of State for Education Michael Mugabe-Gove

Ok, so people aren't being starved or murdered by our Right "Honourable" leader, but the way he deals with people who disagree with him is certainly similar.

Remember Downhills Primary School in Haringey? That's the one where everyone except for Ofsted, including parents, staff and pupils were quite happy with things, but because Orville, sorry Ofsted said that they were failing and ought to be an academy, Keith Harris, I mean Michael Gove insisted they become an academy. I'm being harsh of course, as Gove did allow the school to be reinspected in the name of "fairness", and surprise of all surprises, Ofsted backed their original assessment. The headteacher resigned, against many people actually involved with the school's wishes, but still the governors resisted.

So now Gove has sacked the governors and put in place an interim governing body who will decide on whether the school will become an academy. The new Chair of Governors is a certain Les Walton. Heard of him? Didn't think so, but guess what, he's in charge of the Young People's Learning Agency - the academies' funding body. He's going to be dead impartial, what a wise choice Mr Gove. The school will become an academy as soon as is humanly possible one suspects, and with it educational choice in the UK essentially dies.

Schools who aren't yet academies are essentially being forced into becoming them as funding is squeezed. The only schools that can generate extra funding from government are academies. Guess what my headteacher is currently investigating in that case, although you could be excused for thinking that it's an albino elephant that has gripped their attention. Very recent data suggests that academy status makes little or no difference to school performance, which is hardly surprising since the same failing students are still wandering through the gates with their ties at half-mast and their trousers arguably lower whilst rolling their next cigarette. Some academies have even gone into special measures - those academies don't tend to be championed by the current regime in Whitehall.

Also in the news is the fact that literacy progress has stalled meaning that we are falling behind other, similar countries - naughty, lazy teachers, resting on their laurels; goalposts have moved you know, onto the next fad or target.

Maths needs to be taught in more contextual ways apparently - unimaginative, lazy teachers, still teaching the stuff that has seen society through perfectly well for the previous 200 years or so, you really ought to spend lots of time and money reinventing the wheel only to be told by 30 spotty teenagers that they won't ever use this stuff when they leave; they already know exactly what every jobs entails of course, and will walk into their number one choice.

Language teachers required urgently, loads of people want to take your subject now, which is almost as quick a U-turn as many a front-bencher in Westminster will undertake as only a few years ago language teachers were being told that they were no longer required and to seek employment elsewhere; please return to a grotty, smelly classroom from your better paid and relatively hassle-free jobs outside of teaching, all is forgiven.

Could it be that the last paragraph is the key to all this - perhaps it's not all teachers' fault. Maybe, and I'm throwing this one out there, it's the constant interference from people in Whitehall that is part of the problem, as they try desperately to make their mark before moving up the government pecking order. And maybe, careful now, it's the general public's opinion of teachers, schools and education in general, fuelled by a corrosive British media (on the whole) that means that school children and their parents have little/no respect for teachers, education or learning, choosing to question the word of a school and argue their child's innocence until they are blue in the face, even though they know that the school is right; it's a point of principal for them to prove that schools and their staff are below them.

Ok, so I'm ranting a bit, but the constant criticism by ministers and their puppets (that's you Wilshaw) is not helpful. Yes, there are some rubbish teachers and headteachers out there, but not all are below standard. If you want people to listen to what you want them to do then you need a smattering of praise in there occasionally, and not being politically caned at every given opportunity.

I was talking to my father the other day and he said "do you think education is the UK is perfect?". I replied that I didn't think it was, and he came back with something that made me think "Gove is trying to change something that you say needs change", which I suppose is a fair point. I'm not saying that he's doing things right, but education is the UK does need a change. Academies aren't the answer however, despite what Gove seems to think.

Homework

Michael Gove has announced that headteachers can decide upon their own school's homework policy based upon their clientele rather than being set guidelines from Whitehall. My initial reaction: that's good of him, to allow schools to make some decisions. My second reaction: what use is homework anyway?

Homework is arguably the most time-consuming part of a teacher's job. Teachers rarely like setting it and students rarely like doing it, so why does it exist? There are a number of reasons:

1. The most important one: parents expect it. It makes no difference what is set, but if a school had a policy of not setting the stuff, and there are good reasons for having such a policy which I will cover later, many parents would moan and the school's numbers would begin to fall, with the end result being its closure. Parental perception of homework is that it shows them what their child is learning in class, despite the fact that the parents themselves spend hours doing the stuff to dig their offspring put of a potential detention.
2. It should reinforce what a child has learnt in school, but many homeworks are set for the sake of it, which is ultimately a waste of time. Current guidelines suggest that a 14 to 16 year old should have around 2-3 hours per night of homework. This is ridiculous - homeworks should be around 10 minutes long if a child fully understands what to do, and a little longer if they have to learn it again because they weren't paying attention in class.
3. It gives the teacher some results and evidence (it's that word "data" again) to track a child's progress and performance over a year and possibly identify weaknesses in their knowledge. This is useful for the teacher and child, assuming that the child has the gumption to actually make an effort to fill these holes in their learning. Tests in class can also do this.

Why should homework be scrapped?

1. There's not a student or teacher who "loves", or dare I say even "likes" homework. It worsens the work/life balance for both parties and is generally a pain in the rear end to do and mark.
2. The amount of time teachers spend chasing up missing homework could be far better utilised planning "outstanding" lessons.
3. It prevents school children from having a childhood, like running around the park or playing sport apparently, or so the report on the BBC website said. I would possibly swap the two activities mentioned with "drinking cheap cider and smoking at the park" and "playing XBox", but I know what they mean. Children ought to be allowed to have a childhood is the point.

My solution:

Teachers should set homework, when it's relevent, but no more than once per week and it shouldn't be very time consuming. Children can do the homework if they want to, and if they do, it will get marked. If a child chooses not to do the homework, even on time, then that's their loss. The same should go for coursework.

Thank you Michael for allowing schools this opportunity. Let's see who's brave enough to make use of it.

Hitler, Stalin, The Secretary of State for Education?

I was on a popular social networking site recently where someone was commenting that the teaching fraternity shouldn't waste too much energy trying to get rid of Michael Gove as he's actually better than a previous one, namely Ed Balls. And this got me thinking.

I've been teaching for over ten years now and in my experience we haven't had a decent or supportive Secretary of State for Education in my entire career. There have been numerous changes in the curriculum, which costs money and energy in stress/replanning and this ultimately helps no-one: teachers or children. We have had numerous new (and again expensive) initiatives, none of which have lasted very long.

In my time as a teacher I have never felt appreciated or valued by either politicians or the public in general - small violins please. The public's attitude has a lot to do with the politicians and their press releases. The job of Secretary of State for Education is fairly small fry in the grand scheme of politics and the job is seen as a stepping stone to greater things meaning that those in the educational seat are looking to make an impact and move on up the ladder.

So lets look at the candidates from the last 15 years:

David Blunkett - lasted about 4 years and was generally disliked by teachers but I can't remember him doing anything too drastic, but maybe that's because I was wet behind the ears and too busy panicking about the next day's lessons. According to the internet he took on the unions and increased the number of teachers by tens of thousands. He spent a lot more on education than anyone else had done before, so job's a good'un it appears. The worse thing during his time was that Chris Woodhead was the Chief Inspector of Schools.

Estelle Morris - a former teacher if I'm not much mistaken and therefore had the potential to show a bit of empathy and understanding. She was hounded out about 18 months later by the press. Did essentially nothing in her time.

Charles Clarke - a funny looking individual at the best of times, who actually visited a school I was teaching in, but was introduced only to top set kids and the head (I was hidden away in the dark recesses of the building). He lasted a couple of years before moving on to better things. Most of his policies were university based.

Ruth Kelly - a non- descript type who only lasted 18 months or so. Made schools stay open longer and have to provide child care. She did reject the scrapping of the A Level for a four-tier diploma, which was probably a good thing.

Allan Johnson - lasted about a year before moving up the food chain. Actually tried (unsuccessfully) to get teachers a better deal on pay and said that children shouldn't use the excuse of separated parents to blame their bad behaviour on.

Ed Balls - an odious character who is hell-bent on becoming prime minister, no matter who he tramples on. Look out for him changing his rosette depending upon election forecasts. He lasted about 3 years. He did get rid of SATs, so he's not all bad, just mostly.

Michael Gove - I must stop before I vomit. Oh, ok, he's just trying to annoy the teaching profession intensely with every breath.

What most of these people have in common is that they have no experience of schools other than they had once attended one. When looking at them, most are using the job as a way to get noticed.

The other common denominator is that none of them has ever asked a practising teacher what they think - former headteachers are not worth asking, I hasten to add. When are politicians going to swallow their pride and actually admit that they could do with advice? I disagree that Michael Gove is better than the previous incumbents of the job, but he's not much worse than any of the others.

Is Ofsted Capable Of Doing Its Job?

Ofsted was designed to offer an objective view of the performance and provision that a school provides, free of politics and just going on the evidence acquired by the inspectors. But is the inspectorate still capable of doing this?

All those in and around education realise that Ofsted is necessary to stop schools and teachers being allowed to drift along without fear of reproach. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that schools and their staff would drift into laziness if Ofsted were disbanded, as you will rarely find a teacher who isn't prepared to improve their practise when the need arises, but there will always be a few who take full advantage. Ofsted in itself was originally set up as a positive thing, there to offer support to teachers and make constructive suggestions to improve performance.

The problem is that Ofsted's remit has changed considerably over its 20 year life. Ofsted now wields far more power than it originally was afforded and essentially has the power to make or break a school, teacher or even Secretary of State for Education. As a result the chief inspector is now appointed by the Secretary of State and therefore will almost certainly be sympathic to government policy. Ofsted has therefore become a political machine, in existence to ensure that that national education policy is imposed and government targets achieved, whether they are good for education or not.

As a result of the increased power attributed to Ofsted their judgements are keenly felt by individual schools and teachers. When inspections first occured they lasted for around a week so that the inspectors could get a proper feel for the school; whole lessons would be observed and various meetings set up with different members of staff as they gathered evidence for their judgement. They now last a couple of days and rely heavily upon comparisons to similar schools using data, the school's own self-evaluaton and something called the Fisher Family Trust. Lesson observations no longer last a whole lesson as the norm, although occasionally do, but an inspector will be in a classroom for 20 minutes or so in which time the teacher has to attempt to tick as many boxes as possible.

Ofsted has always worked on a four point scale of "Outstanding", "Good", "Satisfactory" and "Inadequate", or words to that effect. A school's overall judgement is heavily publicised and can have a effect on applications and enrolments of staff and students respectively. Since 2009 Ofsted shouldn't have been allowed by law to use this scale due to something called the Hampton Review, but they still continue to use it, backed by the government who know full well that the quango aren't supposed to use it but choose to ignore the fact, mainly because the gradings are used to show how well a particular policy has worked in an election manifesto.

Also as a result of the increased power of Ofsted, lesson observations whether conducted internally or by the inspectorate are no longer about support and aiding a teacher to improve their teaching but all about what grade has been achieved, which is anything but an exact science. Observers often have a pre-conceived idea of what they want to see, and unless they see those things will mark a teacher down. There is no concrete descrpition of what gives lessons certain grades, teachers and senior staff are left with little idea of how to improve. The new wording for an "outstanding" lesson contains the phrase "rapid and sustained progress of all pupils", but no-one, even Ofsted, can explain what "rapid and sustained progress" actually is or looks like. Judgements are therefore based upon the whim of the observer. It leaves teachers and sometimes schools with the feeling that they can't really win whatever they do and the judgement was made before the lesson/inspection actually begun.

The really worrying thing though is that the new Chief Inspector of Schools, Sir Michael Wilshaw and his boss, Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove seem intent on demoralising the profession with their new policies. Wilshaw has been quoted as saying "They tell me that moral in the profession is at an all time low, which must mean that we are doing something right". They say that they want to improve education in the UK but a demoralised workforce is incapable of doing this, whereas a supported, positive and motivated workforce would be.

They don't help themselves with comments like "all schools need to be above average" - not only is this a mathematical impossibility but also as schools improve, the average will rise, meaning that the bottom 50% will still be the bottom 50%, no matter what results they get. Unless all students in every school get A* grades in every subject they take, there will always be a percentage of schools in special measures, and that can't be right can it? Is that really what Ofsted was sey up to do?

The answer is clearly "No", which brings me back to my original question of "Is Ofsted capable of doing its job?"

The answer is "No".

Bullies Win In The End

So sure enough the primary school in London, Downhill Primary in Haringey, that Michael Gove wanted to force into academy status but fought back has been re-inspected and put into "special measures" meaning that they have to accept Gove's judgements.

This seems to be a modern tactic in education from government level all the way down to individual school level. Gove clearly had his nose put out of joint when Downhill decided to fight back - he's not used to the minions actually having an opinion after all. It is something he may have to get used to though as I am convinced that more an more of this kind of rebellion will happen as the Secretary of State attempts to force through new, ill-advised policy.

What did for Downhill initially was an Ofsted report claiming that the school was giving its children inadequate provision for education. The re-inspection was, and I quote Gove here, to "provide an indepedent assessment of the school's position". It is a well known fact in education that Ofsted inspectors will support each other through thick and thin (mainly thin), and with the previous judgement being so public, "independent" was the last thing that this inspection could claim to be.

Current pupils were reportedly distraught as their headteacher resigned having received the new judgement, and despite parental support for the school, their pleas has fallen on deaf ears. Like so much in education nowadays, Gove and his cronies clearly have targets to meet regarding the conversion of local authority schools to academies. I still don't really understand the motivation for this policy as the government ultimately still pays the money but has little say in how it runs anymore. If you held the purse strings, surely you'd want some kind of say in how the money's spent? Obviously not.

Gove's bully boy tactics have won the day, and his "best pal" Wilshaw seems to enjoy using the same tactic. In his short tenure as Chief Inspector of Schools he has managed to alienate and worry almost the entire profession. He consistently talks only to Ofsted "outstanding" headteachers at conferences, although that judgement is all relative. Surely if he wants to make a difference to schools he should talk to all the other "non-outstanding" people and try to to indoctrinate them. Maybe because he knows he will get lynched by others (the "outstanding" heads are all his mates, I should add), such is the vitriol from the teaching proffesion aimed his way. His budget is supposed to be cut this year but he's been quoted as saying that his mate Gove should sort that out. Makes you want to vomit, doesn't it?

Sir Michael (of Mouse?) has been on the television a lot recently trying to justify his appointment, enormous pay packet and the existence of Ofsted that many experts are currently claiming is too big for its boots, lacking any real accuracy or consistency in its judgements. Wilshaw is a wholly unimpressive man when interviewed; he can barely speak and looks uncomfortable. That's not to say that professionally he hasn't worked wonders in some schools; his bullying tactics of forcing his staff to work above and beyond what is healthy or sociable clearly works on a small scale (in one school at a time),as he can easily replace the few staff who refuse to sell their soul to devil, I mean Sir Michael. Nationwide there just aren't the numbers of staff in reserve to do that, and the fact that the staff in tenure of the jobs currently, beat the "reserve staff" at interview would suggest that those in reserve aren't always better. He will no doubt try though and at the same time alienate an entire profession.

No-one in education can argue with both Gove and Wilshaw's apparent philosophy of improvement of education and raising of standards, but the way they are going about it leaves a lot to be desired. Their bullying policy is a common one in schools though as teachers who dare to question their leadership (whether constructively or not) or simply fall out of favour for whatever reason, find their progression up the pay scale blocked and life made very uncomfortable indeed (mainly through aggressive and demoralising lesson observations/judgements - a headteacher's trump card over their staff) purely down to the judgement of one or two at the top.

If you are thinking of becoming a teacher, you'd better think long and hard about it, as it really isn't all it's cracked up to be. Although, on the plus side, there will be plenty of vacancies soon as current classroom practitioners race for the door, whether through retirement or career change. This coalition government has obviously set its stall out to completely ruin education in this country, and they are doing a remarkle job of it.

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.

Gove Reports To The Education Select Committee

Get Rid Of Michael Gove E-Petition

Here's your chance people:

Click Here!

It's a parliamentary e-petition that needs to be signed by 15th February, 2012.

Don't miss out!