To Set Or Not To Set, That Is The Question

There has been a lot of debate on social media recently, particularly from mathematics teachers, about the pros and cons of setting classes by ability for their subject. I have weighed in a little but thought I'd get my thoughts down in writing, from the point of view of someone who has almost exclusively taught in schools that set, but has some experience of mixed ability.

Self-Esteem Issues With Setting
There's no denying that setting can have a negative (for those in bottom sets) or positive (for those in top sets) impact on self-esteem. This is certainly not desirable and however a school, department or whatever dress up sets, the students invariably work out where they stand in the ability "league table", which is ultimately what setting is doing, and this can affect their self-esteem. However, in a mixed ability class there will be some who understand the work very quickly and some who don't; surely this also has an affect on self-esteem too. To be the one or ones who always need extra help whilst seeing classmates race ahead must be equally as demoralising as being in the bottom set.

Perceptions of Setting
"Being in the bottom set means that you only cover certain stuff and can only achieve certain exam grades." Whilst this doesn't have to be true, it is the common belief of many students, parents and teachers. This, in my view, is the most damning thing about setting, but it is entirely down to perceptions, not the setting itself. The key to successful (if you can call it that) is that the sets are fluid and can change every half term on the basis of an assessment. This should ensure that the set are all starting at approximately the same point and can progress accordingly, allowing the teacher to target the learning and progression more accurately. Parents often like setting, especially when their child is in the top set, although possibly not so much when their child is in the bottom set. What people (students and parents) don't like about sets is that they can often be stuck for a relatively long time in an inappropriate set; this is why regular assessment and fluidity between sets is crucial. The other thing that is key is that there should be no ceiling on the learning and material on offer to any set. The bottom set should be able to access the same material as the top set if they can manage it. This is not to say that one should introduce differential calculus to bottom set Year 7 but don't write it off if their progress merits it! You will often hear the slightly cheesy phrase "glass ceiling" and for want of a better term, this should be the aim for everyone. Scaffolding "trickier" topics is the job of the teacher to enable all to reach a similar point by the end.

Perceptions of Mixed Ability
Those who believe in mixed ability are, in my experience, pretty vociferous about it. My experience of it was reasonably painful in the early part of my teaching career. At that stage of my career I did exactly what I was told as I knew no better or were yet to form an opinion, but I had to essentially produce three lesson for one to challenge all students in the class. With experience I wouldn't do it this way again but the issue remains similar if not the same: some students will fly with the work whilst some will not go quite so quickly. Keeping everyone challenged is the main issue. Parents also don't understand mixed ability so well, wondering why their "genius" is in a class with "non-geniuses". This can be explained and ultimately the parents should accept the school/teachers' judgement but increasingly parents are becoming bolder and are being encouraged to question that judgement by media/politicians. The positive is that everyone is exposed to every part of the curriculum, without fail, which is great as long as everyone understands it and doesn't feel left behind.

So Which Is Better?
Neither is the short answer to that question. Every system of placing children into classes will have a positive effect on some and a negative effect on others. There are classroom resources that cater for all systems but none are perfect. The key is that in whichever system is employed there shouldn't be a limit on progress imposed; the teacher's job is to ensure that all students reach their potential (before anyone says anything, no-one can reach beyond their potential).

The Problem With Top Graduates...

The government has been on about attracting more top graduates into teaching for a while now. They've offered bursaries (see here), expanded the remit of the teaching recruitment charity Teach First to allow it to recruit greater numbers (see here), and made various announcements that have been lapped up by the media of varying quality (Telegraph, Independent, Mirror, Daily Mail to link just a few). A simple search online will unearth hundreds more articles I have no doubt, if you can be bothered that is.

The requirement to actually have a qualification to teach in the state schools of England has been relaxed in the most favoured types of school for the Department for Education, namely academies and free schools. The qualification requirement has never been compulsory in private/public schools, the type of school that a high proportion of MPs attended, or in the case of my local MP, wish they'd attended. Now you may say that if it's worked in private and public schools, what's the problem? They get great results that state schools could get after all. It's a question of intake, student motivation and support from home that is a major difference my friends. Anyway, that's a separate point; what I wanted to cover is the myth regarding top graduates.

There are a few subjects that have been highlighted by DfE ministers and other MPs on programmes like Question Time that really ought to have top graduates teaching the youth of today; namely mathematics and science. You could throw "new subject" computer science into that mix too, as you are either very good at it and therefore probably did it at university; there is no middle ground with computer science: either you're brilliant or you're crap. I'm the latter.

At A Level and Degree I couldn't agree more that maths and science could do with being taught by top graduates, although they need not be the be all and end all. Teaching of those courses is to children who have chosen to take those subjects and already have an deep-seated interest in the subject. They not only want to know how to do something, they want to know why it works that way; something that a top graduate can explain with ease, whilst others would possibly have to do a little research. So, dear DfE and those in expensive suits in Westminster, feel free to attract top graduates for those posts, but don't disregard others. You will have to dangle numerous carrots in front of these high flyers to divert their attention from the lucrative careers that top mathematicians and scientists have traditionally entered. It might help if DfE press releases and various Ofsted employees didn't consistently criticise teachers in the media too. I digress again...

My main query is whether a top graduate really is the best type of person to teach maths and science to disinterested children who have no choice but to be there and just want to get the minimum grade in order to never have to sit through a lesson again? Unfortunately with a total lack of interest in the subject, the likelihood of achieving that grade is minimal. These students need to be taught in a different way. Empathy with the inability to understand a concept first time around is hugely helpful. A top graduate in their subject will invariably have found most, if not all of their subject pretty straightforward. The trouble is this means that our much lauded top graduates will get increasingly frustrated as their charges fail to grasp covalent bonds or simultaneous equations. A teacher who was not a top graduate probably won't have found everything easy, and can therefore understand the frustrations.

If you couple this lack of empathy for a  student's woes with a lack of any teacher training or qualification then the recipe is potentially disastrous. If there's one thing that my PGCE did teach me it was different strategies for dealing with classes, mainly through teaching placements admittedly, but without it I would have floundered even more than I actually did in my NQT year.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that top graduates couldn't empathise, they are just less likely to understand. So Mr Gove, DfE, Sir Michael and the various other political types who drone on and on about top graduates, they may not actually be the answer to all your problems!

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.

Has Michael Wilshaw Lost It?

I read with interest the Chief Inspector of Schools, Sir Michael Wilshaw's speech to the Westminster Education Forum on 7th November this year.

You can read it for yourself HERE.

Now I don't know about you but I've not been Sir Michael's biggest fan. The reasons for this are listed below:

• From the evidence I've seen and experienced via Ofsted, I think his methods of leadership are tantamount to bullying.
• His Ofsted regime has led to a climate of fear in education in England that could be disastrous for young people for many years to come.
• He is phenomenally arrogant (although people who know me may see that as the pot calling the kettle black!).

His "raising of the bar" regarding education has been unreasonable in the sense that schools and teachers have absolutely no idea of what is now required of them. What was once graded "outstanding" is now far from being that and schools don't know why. I have no problem with bars being raised but when you've no idea what you've been doing "wrong" for years, it's difficult to put it right.

However, recently he's been saying things that I've found it difficult to argue against, namely that Ofsted should not be looking for one particular style of lesson (specifically those with group work integrated) but the lesson must exhibit good or outstanding learning no matter how it's delivered. I don't think that any educator would argue with this point of view - learning is the ultimate goal after all. The problem is that his inspectors don't appear to have got the message, as @oldandrewuk talks about in his blog "Scenes From The Battleground" repeatedly.

He seems to be trying to quash the rumour that his quango is the DfE's lapdog, by sending letters to a whole load of academies that they need to up their game and judging free schools as "inadequate", something that can only embarrass the Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove, which is no bad thing. Wilshaw still has work to do in this area, as his pro-academy leanings are well documented.

The speech on Thursday undid all the positives and gains he'd made though. As I read it my blood pressure rose. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but from classroom teacher's point of view I got the following messages from it:

1. Great teachers don't exist without great leaders.
2. Headteachers should consult with staff, but then do their own thing anyway.
3. Teachers should put up and shut up.

I'd like to deal with each point in turn:

1. Surely educational "greatness" it's a symbiotic relationship between classroom practitioner and leadership; you can't have one without the other. To dismiss the efforts of classroom teachers and place them firmly at the feet of management is frankly insulting as a classroom practitioner. What Wilshaw is saying is that "inadequate" schools must have 100% "inadequate" teachers, which simply can't be true; the school is only inadequate in the eyes of some inspectors whose judgement is potentially questionable (although not by MPs), but that's another story. But simply, on inspection, I can't believe that an "inadequate" school had 100% "inadequate" teaching.
2. Here's where Wilshaw's true colours shine through. Classroom teachers clearly aren't valued by the Chief Inspector, but he forgets that without them, schools couldn't function, or could only function if those "great leaders" went back into the classroom. He bemoans the fact that too few are being groomed for leadership in education, but when the expectation upon leaders is to be a tyrant, you can understand why few are champing at the bit to do the job. And as an aside, those who do want to do the job are probably the last people you'd want with that sort of power and attitude.
3. How to motivate an already demotivated workforce; or perhaps not. Teaching has been advertised as a short-term career for would-be city highflyers for a number of years now. Workload has become almost unmanageable for teachers and of those entering the profession from the various pathways available, only around 40% survive beyond 5 years, with some subjects facing a major shortage of staff. How helpful is Wilshaw's rhetoric? Not at all is the answer.

And I haven't even mentioned this part of the speech:

"There is absolutely nothing wrong in my view in saying to youngsters ‘do as I ask, because I am the adult, I am older than you, I know more than you and, by the way, I am in authority over you.’"

Would you want your child taught by a man who thinks this? Nor would I. Respect for authority is a good thing, but respect should be earned.

I was starting to warm Ofsted's great leader, but forget that now. Teachers will always dislike the Chief Inspector of Schools, but when I see parents slating him on social media, surely the man's position is now untenable. Fingers crossed...

Performance Related Pay - Smoke and Mirrors

We got an email recently telling us that we had to complete our Performance Management so that they can be approved by the wise and worldly at the top of the food chain. It's the usual fayre:

1. Grade related - 100% have to meet their given target.
2. Department related - how can to assist the department's move forward?
3. Professional development related - something you need to work one.
4. To do with TLR payment, if you receive one.

Now I have no problem with any of these types of target in essence - every teacher has to do them and in my experience, they are the same school in, school out. The only difference this year is that a teacher's success in achieving those targets will form the basis of the judgement upon whether they should receive a pay rise or not.

So as a result, I have a problem with one of them - the most important one as far as Ofsted, league tables and ultimately job security are concerned: target 1. The targets at our school were described by Ofsted as being extremely challenging, but teachers are expected to drag, in some cases kicking and screaming, all their charges up to those grades.

Just to explain how targets are generated, for those who don't know: in short, by various computer programmes that analyse the children's previous exam results, what they eat, and various other stuff and come up with a number of targets along the lines of:

• Target 1 - the child would get this in their sleep.
• Target 2 - what the child would get if they progress at the "normal" rate.
• Target 3 - what a child would get if absolutely everything went right, luck was on their side and the examiner inexplicably awarded you an extra 20%. Ok so not the last bit, but in order for the child to achieve this target, something special needs to happen and the child makes well above average progress.

Guess which one we use...

As a motivator, the message "your targets are almost impossible, but you still have to achieve them" is not a great one. Perhaps that's why schools are haemorrhaging staff - just a thought.

So after a rant about targets being "achievable", 100% being unreasonable when Ofsted didn't expect the wholeschool to get 100% and that some of my class don't even turn up to school, I was told exactly how I should word my targets in order to achieve without achieving them. As long as I tick a set of, frankly meaningless, boxes, it makes absolutely no difference what grades my classes get, in theory of course, because if my class' results were that bad I would fail, but as long as I get close-ish, I'll be fine.

My next thought was that this makes the entire process pointless, which hasn't changed, and I doubt ever will. The entire process is about your ability to word your targets and manipulate data in such a way that you can con your way to a tick in each box.

Of course, if you manage to word your targets correctly, you then lay yourself at the mercy of the whim of your headteacher and whether there's enough money in the pot for the school to afford your pay rise.

The brave new education world - it's rubbish.

Regrets, I've Had A Few...

It's that time of the year again, just after the resignation deadline has passed, that I wonder whether I should have tried a bit harder to find a new job. Plenty of my colleagues, in fact more than normal, have decided to move onto pastures new (both in and out of teaching), but I am not one of those. The place will be very different next year, but my classroom will be the same, at least initially.

I must admit that I've sent out a record number of applications this year, but only to jobs that are possibly beyond me on paper. This you may think that naïve and a waste of my time, but I've always lived by the philosophy "if you don't ask, you don't get". Now I don't appear to have "got" so far, but that hasn't left me hugely downhearted, for the reasons below.

I know that teachers in my subject, at least competent ones (which I, perhaps incorrectly, consider myself to be), are fairly few and far between; they have been for years and this situation is unlikely to change in the near future, if at all. Not even the gleaming and government lauded TeachFirst will rectify the shortage of staff or potential staff as there are just too many spaces to fill. Whatever your feelings regarding TeachFirst (and I'm sure other, similar "charities" will spring up with government backing in the near future), people who enrol are filling vacancies that would otherwise be very difficult to fill, and no matter how long these people remain in the profession, some at the very least must do a good job, and some must continue to work in education.

My qualifications aren't great. I am the first to admit that I took a relatively easy option regarding my degree (a degree I genuinely enjoyed, I hasten to add, despite lacking sufficient talent to really excel in it), and I had to spend extra time at university to bring myself up to speed in my current teaching subject in which I had decnt A Levels, but I now have over a decade of teaching experience and many other positives on my CV. I have held posts of responsibility, but they didn't really "float my boat" if I'm honest. It wasn't that I did them badly, in fact far from it (I'm not boasting at this point). I was given a Head of Department job temporarily which was offered to me permanently but I didn't accept. The reason for this is that I actually quite like teaching, and the further up the food chain you go, the less teaching you do. The problem is that I am applying for positions with no management and potential employers wonder why. The current obsession with promotion is held against those who don't necessarily want it; I look at the TeachFirst logo at this point.

 

 

Some people might not want to get out of the classroom - ever thought of that? However weird you may think that is, there are some of us out there. It's not that I think I couldn't do a decent job higher up the food chain, I just have no ambition to be there. Is it really a crime not to want to be a manager? Perhaps not, but rightly or wrongly, potential employers are suspicious.

 

There's also the fact that I see no point moving for the sake of do so; my experience is that most schools are essentially the same. Starting a new school is stressful and it takes a while to establish yourself and learn new ropes, so I will only move to a "better" school. These schools get many more applicants, many of whom look far better on paper than I do, so I fully expect knock backs.

 

The problem is that in the current climate if I don't move I will be forced to leave teaching. It's not that I don't enjoy it (not all the time, admittedly), but it is becoming unbearable in certain sectors. You need a good department head, which, fortunately I have, but no leader can't shield everyone from all the faeces being dropped on educators from various heights at present.

 

I know that I'm not alone in this feeling either. People, even in the current economic climate are leaving the profession in their droves. Although, with the rise in demand for private tutors due to increasing exam pressure on students, and decreasing attention paid in classrooms by them too, maybe this is what these ex-teachers are now doing.

 

Ultimately it boils down to the fact that if I don't find something else to do or a different place in which to teach soon, I can't be held accountable for my actions. I think the main regret I have is that I'm beginning to think that becoming a teacher in the first place was a mistake.







Conference Season

I really don't like Easter. It's not the holidays because after all, that is one of the few benefits of being a teacher. It's because the three major teaching unions (NUT, NASUWT and ATL) have their conferences.

Now I like unions, and I think that they have an important part to play in the life if any teacher (those who aren't members of a union are fools I'm afraid). They provide support for any teacher who finds themselves in a bit of a jam whilst at work. They will, if the case warrants it, provide legal support whose cost would be prohibitive otherwise.

So if I actually like unions, why do I dislike their conferences?

The problem is that anyone who is a member can make a speech in theory. Now I might sound undemocratic at this stage, but some people need to be prevented from talking in public. All unions have militant members, many of whom probably have a reasonable point, but the fact is that they just sound a bit pathetic and ranting.

Currently teaching has a few issues of which these are the main two:

1. Ofsted - the fear of senior management in schools is almost unbearable and the Chief Inspector, Sir Michael Wilshaw comes across as a bully and an idealist living in a fantasy world. The workload his rhetoric has produced is unsustainable and is driving people out of the profession.
2. Michael Gove - Secretary of State for Education. He is in the process (presumably because he knows that his party won't get voted back in at the next election) of radically changing the way schools work and teach the youth of the country at a frightening pace. Some of it is sensible and needs doing but much of it is lamentable, and this has been stated to him repeatedly by "experts". He ploughs on regardless.

There are others: pensions, pay freezes, attitude to learning and pupil/parental behaviour being among them.

The problem is that rather than focusing on pointing out the flaws in Wilshaw and Gove's policies, members if the various unions have cried "strike" at every given opportunity. There's a reason that this is a stupid and frankly annoying way to go from those speaking at the various conferences. The votes of no confidence are fair enough however - Gove and Wilshaw need to know just how unpopular and unwanted they are.

In the public's eyes teachers are doing a job that few would choose; on a par with the police if truth be told. Teachers do get 13 weeks of holiday each year (something the police don't get), and it's an accusation regularly levelled at teachers. So when the NUT are reported to have asked for teaching time to be limited to 20 hours per week this doesn't go down well with Joe Public as our Joe doesn't realise that classroom time is the least of a teacher's worries. The general public have no idea what goes into a lesson, and why would they? They just assume that teachers turn up and whitter on about stuff then mark a few books - end of.

What teaching currently needs is public support before a series of strikes over pay and pensions from the NUT and NASUWT who represent around 90% of teachers. By asking for what the public will perceive as less work is frankly idiotic. The fact that most teachers have little more than 20 hours per week of teaching time makes the request even more idiotic.

Teaching unions must get their act together. Most of the country find politicians abomnible, but by making silly requests they are playing into these people's hands. I have no idea if the unions have a PR department, but if they do they need replacing. It's inviting the press and public to label teachers as lazy, whinging freeloaders with too much holiday.

That's why I hate Easter.

What "Special Measures " Means To Me

It has been well reported that Ofsted inspections are getting tougher, or more rigorous if you want to use the political speak. This should therefore mean that more schools are going to be graded in the new "Requires Improvement" category or worse, "Special Measures".

But what does "Special Measures" actually mean?

This is what Ofsted themselves say:

Monitoring inspections for maintained schools

Schools that are subject to special measures

The Education Act 2005 states that a school requires special measures if it is failing to give its pupils an acceptable standard of education, and the persons responsible for leading, managing or governing the school are not demonstrating the capacity to secure the necessary improvement in the school.
For further information for schools that were judged to require special measures, and which have had at least one monitoring inspection prior to September 2012, go to Monitoring inspections of schools that are subject to special measures (January 2012).
For further information for schools which were judged to require special measures but have not had a monitoring inspection prior to September 2012, go to Monitoring inspections of schools that are subject to special measures (September 2012).

What does mean in practise though?

It seems to me that it means the following:

• Everyone panics, especially leadership and governors. CPD becomes compulsory and exceptionally regular for those deemed not to be up to scratch. Teachers feel inadequate (the choice of word was intentional), whether they are or aren't. New systems of "support" are put in place and many teachers are subject to action plans where they could lose their job if targets are not met. Some teachers will deserve to lose their job, but many won't.
• Added pressure on staff means the deterioration of life outside of school. Work pressure takes over and the families of teachers suffer hugely, some with irreversible consequences. Formerly good (or better) teachers become insecure and disappear within themselves which is no good for anyone. Everyone has a cloud hanging over them whether they deserve it or not.
• Governors all of a sudden take an interest in the school. I have never worked in a school where the governors take an active part in the day-to-day running of the place, and with their often limited teaching experience, that's generally a good thing. A poor Ofsted means that these people, who generally have the best intentions of the school at heart, try to make "helpful" suggestions and like to be seen in and around the place more often. Often this is unhelpful, despite their best efforts.
• Parents now have an excuse for why their child is essentially lazy, not going to get good grades, lacks motivation etc. It has to be the school because Ofsted said it was rubbish. Would those who are slating the school after a bad Ofsted be singing its praises had Ofsted found that it was "Good" or "Outstanding"? No, they would still whinge, but their argument would appear to have less weight.
• Schools face termly inspections, each time expecting to be torn apart. It's not good for the mental or physical health of anyone from staff to student.
• The cover budget goes through the roof as stressed staff feel the strain. Students have unfamiliar teachers in front of them, who aren't necessarily an expert in the subject they are supervising, which can't be good.

Ofsted hold a phenomenal amount of power in education at present and appear to make judgements on a whim at times. Schools are graded on results alone (they are, face it) and due to the subjectiveness of interpretation of data as well as lesson judgements, one inspection team could give a school one grade, whereas a different group of parasites, sorry inspectors, could grade a school totally differently. How can this be a "robust" system?

Don't get me wrong, "Special Measures" can be a good thing. It can bring in extra money for resources, it can focus a school on its weaknesses rather than allowing it to drift along, but it takes a talented, trusted and strong leader to do that. If staff have to be moved on, it can be tough to replace them; who wants to move to a school in "Special Measures" after all? There will be some who want a challenge (these people don't generally hang around for long and can be very destructive), but recruitment becomes increasingly difficult, especially in subjects that have a shortage of decent practitioners in the first place.

Ultimately all schools are in the hands of a bunch of people who haven't been at the front of a classroom for years. They may have lots of training under their belts, but there is no substitute for actually doing the job.

Ofsted Don't Want A Show

Sir Michael is out of his hibernation period and greets schools with this: Click here!

This interview only goes to show how out of touch the Chief Inspector of Schools is. I have a number of issues with this:

1. Not for one minute does he consider why teachers "put on a show" for Ofsted inspectors.
2. He claims that Ofsted don't have a preconceived idea of the ingredients that make a good lesson.
3. Schools should just carry on as normal when Ofsted are in.

Ofsted holds all the cards in education at present - they have outgrown their remit. Their judgements go unquestioned and unchallenged in the main. When someone does dare challenge an Ofsted judgement they are accused of not being forward thinking, happy with mediocrity and various other politically barbed comments from various parts of Whitehall.

Ofsted has the power to make or break careers in education with one of their judgements. Many teachers firmly believe that inspectors judge a school before they have actually arrived based upon exam results, value-added etc. As any half-competent mathematician will tell you, data can be made to show what you want it to show without too much effort. Lesson observations and conversations with management are also subjective. Observations can go a number of ways that are generally out of the control of the teacher. A really bad lesson is obvious to both inspector and teacher, but otherwise it's harder to call unless you literally tick off bulletpoints in a list of things inspectors want to see. So Wilshaw's claim that there isn't a particular type of teaching expected has to be at least partly rubbish, or the message hasn't filtered down to the Ofsted minions.

Wilshaw claims to want to see children engaged in their learning, but his inspectors seem to regard this as meaning "the teacher says as little as possible" and the students "discover" what they would have been "taught" is bygone eras. There are some things that are very difficult to "discover" and need to be "taught", although this is frowned upon by Ofsted as the learning is deemed "passive", whereas Ofsted want to see "active learning". If you are playing Education Buzz Word Bingo you may be close to shouting "HOUSE" at this stage.

A teacher should be allowed to decide whether their charges can "discover" something new or need to be "taught" it. Teachers are (still) professionals, for the time being at least. The trouble is that this decision is taken out of their hands. Thousands, if not millions of pounds are spent by schools every year on speakers who tell staff that Ofsted want to see teachers leading less from the front, "playing the Ofsted game". This money could be used to resource faculties fully rather than giving tips on Ofsted hoop-jumping. The fact is that these (presumably rich) people are employed by many schools each year, and must know what they are talking about in order to keep getting invited. So Wilshaw claiming that there is no game is frankly wrong and the fact that there is a market for Ofsted inspectors to charge £600 per day to "help" schools get through an inspection only proves this (see this article from The Independent: Click here!).

The main thing is that teachers are rarely sure of what Ofsted actually wants and their "show" for the inspectors is just like a pet trying to impress its owner, which many appear to get panned for. With Ofsted regularly changing the goalposts since Sir Michael's ascension to the "throne", teachers have no idea what to do.

Eventually teachers will just give up in a number of ways. They could leave the profession as many are doing, to be replaced by fresh faced top graduates through scheme like Teach First, but these schemes are a mixed blessing for the future of education as many of these graduates leave teaching after just a few years. How teachers should give up is by not caring what Ofsted say, and they can do this in a number of ways:

• Don't get lesson feedback - by getting feedback you are showing the inspectors that you actually value what they think, and let's face it, no teachers really do. So don't bother.
• Only be civil to them, never go out of your way to smile at them, even if they smile at you. Let them know that they are unwelcome because they are. Some inspectors delude themselves into thinking that they are doing schools and teachers a favour (I have had an interesting conversation with the partner of an inspector who was brave enough to call themselves "Anonymous"). They are not, they are an expensive political animal that no-one wants or likes except other inspectors, their partners or narcisistic politicians.
• Get them involved in a lesson by asking them questions. Embarrass them; put them on the spot; after all that is what they are doing to you and your colleagues so why shouldn't they taste their own medicine? If they make a stupid comment, make it very clear that you think it's a stupid comment; I once replied to an inspector who observed a challenging class and said "They seem like a nice bunch" with the following: "How would you know? You've seen them for half an hour and just looked at books and folders, not talking to a single one of them." He left with his tail between his legs after he asked if I wanted feedback and I replied "There is nothing you could possibly tell me that would be of any benefit to my teaching practise".

Wilshaw can make all the noises he likes from his ivory tower in Whitehall, with his direct line to his mucker Gove. Ofsted is now a political vehicle, used unapologetically to drive through ill-conceived government policy without question. Wilshaw may appear to disagree with Gove on some issues but his inspectors don't appear to.

Ofsted has outgrown it's own remit and really should be abolished for the future of education in England. If this doesn't happen the exodus of staff will continue and there won't be enough teachers left.

A Week In The Life Of A Bog Standard Teacher

Now is the time of year that those who are thinking of doing a PGCE next September are spending a fortnight in a school observing things as part of the preparation for the course. We have a few in our school, and I pity them. I've therefore decided to write a week-long diary so that if they search for "Typical Week For A Teacher" in a well-known, or even not very well-known search engine, this might appear to warn them off. Please remember that I don't teach in an inner city school, I teach is a pretty well-to-do town in a leafy county. I am also not making any of this up!

Sunday:
I've got some planning to do today which should take a couple of hours, plus I want to spend some time with the family (wife, children etc.). They will probably have to wait because I don't want to get caught on the hop with a "drop-in" from senior management, which is bound to happen if I put this planning off.

I did the planning and spent the rest of the day barking at my daughter and wife because I know I have to go back to school tomorrow and try to get "above average" progress out of a load of pupils who genuinely care for little other than gossip, where their next cigarette is coming from, and social networking sites. All my planning since I got my current timetable has been to try and create interest in my subject with kids who have no interest themselves and are supported fully in this attitude by their parents.

Monday:
I have 4 lessons today, two with Year 11 who have mocks starting soon and are currently fairly keen, although having said that during one of the lessons the guy sat in front of me talked all lesson about computer games various other irrelevant stuff despite my attempting to persuade him that perhaps those conversations weren't the most productive. He's a nice lad too, intelligent, nice parents who should do fairly well in the summer but won't get what he should do because he will leave everything to the last minute, which rarely works.

My other two lessons are with bottom sets, one in key stage 3 and one in key stage 4. These will be constant battles to stop them talking, essentially playing musical chairs until we find a seating arrangement that is quietest. In fact the musical chairs in key stage 3 lasted longer than normal and my classroom isn't a hexagon, so all the people I wanted to sit in corners (ie. as far away from the people they wanted to talk to), I couldn't. The key stage 4 lesson was actually worse where they all think that qualifications are irrelevant because they have "work experience", to the tune of pot washing in a cafe, selling weed in the local park etc. You ask them to get on with some work and they look at you as though you've just torn them away from a close relative's funeral. The teaching assistant was equally baffled as to what to attempt, so I said she could go and help some people who actually wanted it.

Meeting after school to discuss all the students in my house who has "cause for concern", The list was lengthy, although I know that we actually get off quite lightly. Nine of the names that cropped up were from my tutor group, and that doesn't include my Year 11s, many of whom are being mentored separately. It all boils down to the same thing: "the kids mess about in lessons (not just mine), and when their teachers ask them to do some work they turn on them". The meeting was not a happy one and consensus seems to be that behaviour is on a very slippery and steep slope at present.

I arrived at about 7.45am this morning and am now leaving at 5.15pm. I still have a bit to do when I get home.

Tuesday:
I woke up at 2.30am and eventually got up at 4.15am having attempted to get back to sleep but my mind distracted by various work issues, mainly centred around a boy in my tutor group who I also teach. He can be unpleasant, but hasn't really been recently. I did get a snotty email from the school's head of special needs the other week regarding him though, and I need to feedback to her on his recent performance in my lessons, which include attempting to talk to seagulls in the playground, annoying/distracting as many people as he possibly can, and shouting at a bloke walking past the school. A far as I can see the only thing that's wrong with him his that he's a sociopath, but I've not doubt that he's been diagnosed with some form of special need as his parents try to excuse their inadequate parenting with medical certificates.

Not many lessons today due to Year 11 mock exams, which is great. I do have reports to write though, and various other things to get my teeth into, so it won't be a tea and chat day, I will be sat at my desk for almost all of it. I may even have a look through some exercise books and write a formative comment along the lines of "Well done Johnny, your method for doing this is excellent, but next time, to push you on to the next level, why not attempt a question like this...". The kids won't read my comments, but Ofsted will think it's wonderful, and that's the main thing I'm told, as we are expecting them soon.

Quite a nice day actually due to the mock exams and even the student who ruin every one of one particular class' lessons wasn't in today, so superb. Spent about 3 hours marking, but it's out of the way now so I don't have to worry about it any more. Tomorrow will be worse, so I made the most of today! I still arrived at 7.45am and left at 4.45pm plus did a couple of hours in th

Wednesday:
I teach every lesson on a Wednesday and it's hard work! II woke up but as most teachers will tell you, being away is more hassle than going in when you rubbish. What many don't realise is that a sick teacher still has to get up and plan all their lessons, which isn't easy when you know that the person covering is unlikely to be a specialist in your subject.

I made it anyway, and got a bonus free due to mock exams. Only got sworn at once and had a massive struggle trying to get a couple of classes to do something was like extracting blood from a stone, mainly due to a couple of snowflakes coning down early on.

I got in as usual at 7.45am and left at 4.45pm but have marking to do when I get home which will take a good hour and a half. I will probably cook dinner for the family and then settle down to it after that.

Thursday:
Four lessons today, but two tests thanks to the fact that we have to track every student and therefore they do an exam paper every half term. This is so that we knbow how each child is progressing, but puts pressure on teachers to fit the entire curriculum in, but on the other hand at least the kids get used to exams and the types of questions that are asked. It does add marking pressure on to teachers, but we can get the class to mark their own for some of it - in a different coloured pen of course, to avoid cheating!

What is the main thrust of this though? You guessed it, Ofsted. As time has gone on it does appear that everything that schools and teachers do is geared to what Ofsted would think rather than what's best for the children. In general Ofsted are trying to do the right thing, with little success, and seem not to have grasped the fact that there are only 24 hours in a day and a teacher has to have a bit of time for sleeping and eating. Take, for example, out new marking policy, all based on what Ofsted expect to see. We have to mark every book fortnightly, which doesn't sound too bad, but not when each book has to be checked and the3n around half a page covered with some praise, a tip on how to move onto the next level, plus a challenge question for the kids to have a go at. Marking a set of books takes between an hour and 90 minutes, and at my school each teacher has around 6 classes. That's 9 hours per fortnight, which is all your free time at school. Add to that the lesson planning as well as other paperwork a teacher has to do, meaning that in order to get by you have to work at least a 9 or 10 hour day during the week, plus a bit at weekends.

Started at 7.45pm and left at 5.15pm, plus did a couple of hours in the evening. I forgot to mention that I had duty (unpaid) before school, during break and after school.

Friday:
Five lessons and lunch duty on the playground. Ok, so I get paid for the duty but I didn't choose to have it on a day when I have no free periods - I was stitiched up a bit by the guy who organises it and isn't a teacher. There you go.

The day went as usual with a mixture of apathy and abuse, and that was just from the staff! In all seriousness it was a pretty miserable day where one student, who has already been told that they should think about applying for another school before he forcibly has to find another school told me to "F Off" and was generally vile. As well as that I got a volley of abuse from one of my tutor group who had a detention, not set by me, but another subject area. I was just the messenger, but had to take it as that's just how it seems to work with students from a certain background who are essentially untouchable discipline-wise.

This time of year as we near the end of the longest term of the school year, the children are tired as are the staff. It's dark and cold and thoroughly miserable. One comes to accept the fact that the students will get a bit tetchy and so will the staff.

Started at 7.45am and left at 5.15pm. I've decided to leave the work I need to do for the weekend. A couple of hours should do it.

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.

Why Teaching Isn't For You

Or at the very least, shouldn't be!

I regularly check the BBC News website for education stories, which currently there are plenty. Every now and then they allow people to comment on the news stories and hundreds of people do so. They mainly fall into two, admittedly broad, categories:

1. Teachers, former teachers or people who are related/in a relationship with a teacher who claim that they are working every hour God sends in a desperate bid to keep on top of things.
2. General members of the public who despise schools and all those who work in them, considering the "profession", if you can call it that, work shy, overpaid, having too many holidays and all union activists.

Now everyone is entitled to their opinion and that's fine, don't get me wrong, but why the BBC continues with these opinions is beyond me as the ground is well trodden to say the least, and invariably ends in each side abusing the other. I would like to comment on both groups however.

Group 1:
I have been a teacher for over a decade and apart from my first year or so where I was attempting to find a routine that worked for me, I have rarely taken work home. I get in early (around 7.30am) and leave late (around 5pm) and aim to get all my work done in that time. It's not always possible, but in general I manage. The teachers who post on the BBC who say that they arrive at 7am, leave at 6pm (or when kicked out by the caretaker who understandably also has a home to go to) and then continue to work until 10pm or later every evening, plus at least one day over the weekend I have always considered to be doing too much or lacking in organisational skills. It has been known for me to use the phrase "It's all about time management". In the last year however, I have been doing much the same thing. It has meant that I rarely talk to my partner in the evenings (I'm sure they won't grumble too much about that!) and I struggle to sleep because I'm thinking about all the stuff I am yet to complete. Now I consider myself pretty organised, but I genuinely can't avoid this and still certain things have to be put on the back burner until I can find the time to complete them. Why is this? Three things: government initiatives, Ofsted and apathy of the young people of the UK. It's not a healthy state to be in, whatever way you look at it and will surely lead to burnout and leaving the profession.

Which brings me onto my next point and that is that if teachers are genuinely working this hard, and I genuinely believe that they are now, then people will leave for jobs that pay similar or less wages, but offer a better quality of life and that begs the question "Who will replace those people?". Government of all colours, but recently blue/yellow, have been saying how we really need to get rid of poor teachers, and they are correct, but who is going to replace them? Attempts to encourage top graduates are the current trend, but as a mentor of trainee teachers, I can categorically say that "there ain't a lot coming through", both in numbers or quality of teacher, which is different from "highly qualified teacher". This is not a healthy situation.

Children nowadays expect everything to be plated up for them nowadays, and I suspect that this is the reason why many teachers are working such long hours. I call it the X Factor generation where success can literally land in your lap with minimal effort being spent. The problem is, and many children don't realise this, that for every success on this route, there are thousands, if not millions of failures, I remember teaching a PSHE lesson where we were discussing possible careers and I had one conversation along these lines (the names have been changed to protect the idiot):
Me: So Tracey, what do you want to do for a job?
Tracey: I want to be famous.
Me: Ok, for doing what?
Tracey: Just being famous.
Me: But you have to do something in the first place in order to be famous.
Tracey: I'll go on Big Brother or something.

I know I sound really old when I say that "there's no substitute for hard work", but the number of ex-pupils who say to me "I wish I'd tried harder at school" is astounding. Pupil apathy is often backed up my parental stubbornness where their attitude is instilled into their offspring: can't do it, won't do it. Maths is a prime example of this. Many parents will say at some point in a parents evening appointment, usually at the start: "I am useless at maths" or "Don't expect me to be able to help" and then wonder why their child has a similar attitude.

It's what's known as a losing battle.

Group 2:
These people clearly had a bad experience at school. Presumably they were bullied by other children or even the odd teacher and are understandably scarred by their experience. They assume that teachers arrive at 8.30am and leave at 3.30pm, do nothing at home and jet off around the world in their 50-odd weeks holiday that they get every year.

The trouble is that these opinions aren't entirely their fault. Politicians over the last 15 years or so, and possibly longer, have taken every opportunity to bash teachers with large sticks. The people of Group 2 are only believing what politicians are telling them, and why wouldn't you? Politicians have been very clever in setting up a situation where they can now cut teachers' wages and pensions with the majority of public support. The only option left to the teaching profession being strike action or work-to-rule which just compounds the view that teachers are lazy, work shy and left wings union people.

It's what's known as a losing battle. Deja-vu!

So all in all, don't bother teaching, it really isn't worth the grief. Those moments when a child's eyes light up and they say "I get it" are now far outweighed by all the negatives, an you can't even go on a decent holidays in the umpteen weeks we get off because travel agents hike up the prices so much that they are unaffordable on the wages that teachers now receive. Brilliant!

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.

Longer Hours and Summer School

Money is being pumped into providing summer schools for "disadvantaged" children. What a great idea! Whose going to staff it though? Those with a full-time teaching job might want to do a week or two, but not the whole summer surely, and who will plug the gaps? Those who aren't full-time teachers? And there's probably a reason why they haven't got a job...

The argument above could be irrelevant though as if teachers want to improve their pay packet then they will have to work longer hours, and maybe working in a summer school could be an expectation rather than a choice.

Wilshaw is a vile and "outstandingly" arrogant individual in my opinion, and has an uncanny knack of winding up the people he oversees. But actually his latest comments are fair enough I think. All he's saying is that if you want a pay rise, you have to earn it - no problem there. The trouble is that he's has wound up the teaching profession so that they now automatically jump up and down every time he opens his mouth. To be honest the only thing he has really done wrong is give the anti-teacher group a bone to gnaw on about teachers leaving at 3pm, which rarely happens nowadays, and he really ought to be chastised for it and forced to apologise. He won't.

He made his statements in an interview with The Times on Saturday where the interviewer asked if he was a "control freak". He left the interview asking himself "Am I a control freak?" and I can answer that for you Mike: Yes you are. His arrogance oozes out of every pore as the interviewer suggests that his views on teacher development were "unbending", upon which he stated that everyone should share his views. Having a vision is great, but being so convinced that you have got it right is not healthy, and suggests that you believe that you are superior to everyone else, a trait that could be placed at the door of many a tyrant throughout history.

All in all, teaching has become an undesirable profession, and I fear that in 10 years time there'll be a huge shortage of people willing to enter the profession purely due to the behaviour of today's politicians. Well done folks.

One question I would ask is whether the Head of Ofsted is really worth £180,000 of public money per year? Especially when the person receiving that paycheck thinks of himself as a teaching Clint Eastwood. What an arse!

Olympic Legacy? Good Luck!

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

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

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

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

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

Teachers and Students: Inversely Proportional

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is it worth paying for education?

I've been a bit busy recently, but a conversation with a parent the other day got me thinking.

Their child is very good at sport and has been offered a place at a decent public school, which would normally cost in the region £9k per term. The family is very close knit and asked my advice on what the benefits would be, bearing in mind that you couldn't describe the child as particularly academic, by the family's own admission. The child currently attends the local state comprehensive.

My advice was that they should seriously think about it for the following reasons:

1. The facilities and coaching for sport will be much better. This is due to money and time being invested in sport at public schools, money and time that simply isn't available in state education.
2. The child will almost certainly get better exam results. The parents worry that all the others would be more intelligent and that would add increased pressure on their child, but I pointed out that they were offered the place for sport and that because the teachers could just concentrate on teaching rather than disciplining other members of the class, as they do in state schools, the child would learn far more. The teachers in public schools are no better or worse than their counterparts in state schools, there's just not the behavioural issues to deal with so that they can actually do their job.
3. Even though the child would have to board, a major worry for the parents, that child would almost certainly enjoy it hugely. It's not ideal for everyone, but this child, I have no doubt, would thrive in the environment. It builds a sense of community and that can't be a bad thing.
4. It opens doors in the future. Like it or not, a private education and the old school tie still hold weight and open more doors than would otherwise present themselves. In an ideal world this shouldn't happen, but the fact is that it does, so if you are offered that for nothing, take it with both hands so that you have the choice in the future.

The parents said that I really shouldn't be suggesting that public schools are better than state schools, but in general they are due purely to the ill-discipline of too many children in comprehensives. Private schools just get rid of these troublemakers who disrupt others' learning, but state schools, because of government policy on "inclusion" means that state schools have to try to cope, often to the detriment of those who are well behaved.

State education is broken for many reasons, but the fact that there are no consequences for poor behaviour because these poorly disciplined children at home ruin the futures of those who toe the line.

Not that the politicians would notice - as long as money is being saved.

The Word Slippery Springs To Mind

Maths Teachers Are Rubbish

In his latest assault on the teaching profession, the Chief Inspector of Schools, Sir Michael Wilshaw claims that maths teachers are letting all children down. The school system is so focused on the C grade that the best mathematicians are not being stretched, those who fall behind early in their educational career are just left to flounder, and exams are getting easier.

As a maths teacher I would like to try to justify, maybe defend, the maths teacher's predicament.

1. C grade being a Holy Grail - whose fault is this? Ofsted's, the very body Sir Michael heads. Schools are judged on their A* to C grade percentage, and for some reason the government and public seem to think that Ofsted know what they are talking about. Smell the coffee people, Ofsted don't have a clue what they are on about. The quango is made up of failed and ex-teachers who have little idea how modern classrooms work. Wilshaw himself has had success at a local level, but that's because he got rid of people who didn't toe his line. That's the path the Children's Minister told me our school should go down, and is easy to do on a local level, but what they all forget is that the children have to go somewhere. They can't be left to roam the streets surely.
2. Those children who fall behind are always going to flounder, because if they struggle with the basics, they are going to struggle with the tougher stuff - obvious, no? Not everyone can get a C grade (a pass in real terms), or the pass mark would have to be raised. This government, and in that breath I include Ofsted, who although apparently independent, are just a government vehicle, are fixated on getting everyone a C grade or higher. It's not going to happen I'm afraid - some people just aren't very good at maths. Fact! Not the teachers' fault.
3. Exams are easier - not the teachers' fault either.Government have allowed exam boards to be privatised, which has led to exam boards trying to attract customers. The more A* to C grades candidates achieve, the more customers you have, the more money you make. Simples.

The "celebrity" mathematician Alex Bellos was on BBC Breakfast this morning and hit the nail firmly on the head when he said something along the lines of:

The problem with maths in this country is cultural. People are happy to say that they are rubbish at maths, but they would never admit to not being able to read.

Spot on Alex - not teachers' fault! Wilshaw - shut up you idiot!

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.