"Segregated Schools"

It's union conference season at the moment and the ATL (Association of Teachers and lecturers) have just completed theirs in Manchester with a summing up speech from their leader Mary Bousted. She has always come across well on television but does get paid a lot of money to do so at well over £100,000 per year. I struggle, as a teacher on around £30,000 per year to take union leaders seriously as champions of teachers' causes, but they are the only people we have, so I suppose I don't have any choice.

Bousted's speech hit the now regular union buttons of having a go at politicians and Ofsted, and three cheers for that, but her speech was ultimately useless and designed to win applause rather than bring to light real issues facing teachers. [Click here to see the article]

Her speech centred around the fact that schools and classes are "segregated" on the basis of class. She went on to say that teachers are regularly blamed for the failure of children from poorer backgrounds failing to achieve their potential academically, and with this she has a point, but is it really news? This situation is frankly always going to happen for the following reasons:

1. There may be more choice when it comes to choosing a secondary school for your child, but most will choose the closest if at all possible, purely for convenience. If the closest school to you performs poorly then you will only go elsewhere if you have academic aspirations for your children, otherwise you don't really care, as long as your children attend and therefore the authorities keep off your back.
2. As a result of the above, it therefore depends upon the situation of the school and what sort of housing is in the vicinity. Teachers can't help that, no matter what statistics you throw at it as a politician. Ok, Wilshaw turned around his academy in Hackney, but only by reducing the life expectancy of his staff by forcing them to work longer hours and deal with increased stress by offering the children a safe environment compared to the estate they inhabited. That's his vision for the future of teaching though, which doesn't bode too well.
3. Those that Bousted was going on about have no aspirations at all, and haven't needed them as the state has paid their way through life by providing them with cheap housing and spending money through benefits. Again, this is not teachers' fault, but teachers bear the brunt of the criticism as students from these backgrounds enter the "family business" after their compulsory education ends. If you have the means and the will to give your children the greatest opportunity to succeed then you will travel to get your children into a supposedly better school. You regularly hear of people moving home to get into a certain catchment area, and catchment areas can add thousands on to property prices.
4. As I said in my previous post, with few jobs available and being brought up in an environment where work is not part of the equation doesn't encourage children to perform to their academic ability.

I would like to say that not all children from a certain class, the class Bousted was talking about, have zero academic aspirations, but with the lack of opportunity in the market for young people, there seems little incentive to break the social mould.

Bousted has highlighted a valid point, but this is hardly news to anyone, despite it being rarely mentioned by politicians. - I suppose that's why she spoke about the issue After all it's far easier to blame a profession who have a history of moaning but doing little of substance. The trouble is that those who are left in the profession are beginning to do something about it, with the ATL actually striking for the first time in decades towards the end of last year over pensions. The best news from the conference was that Schools Minister Nick Gibb was heckled so badly that he had to pause during his speech, three times whilst the heckles died down. I hope he felt as small as the teaching profession does every time he and his colleagues in Whitehall open their mouths.

Interesting times ahead, but please teaching unions, stop stating the obvious.

Next year's topic for debate: the exodus of teachers from the profession due to government and Ofsted policy.

"Societal Problems"

Schools minister Nick Gibb at the ATL conference:
"The societal problems that these schools have to face are much greater today... but the best way to tackle this is to make sure children are leaving well educated."

How do you suppose schools educate these children Mr Gibb, whilst they abuse each other, the staff and any equipment that is within arm's reach? Politicians are consistently asking the teaching profession to perform the impossible, and that is to educate those who have absolutely no interest in being educated. And let's be honest, why should the youngsters of the UK bother with education?

• There are very few jobs for them to go into, so the government wants young people to go to university, at a cost of up to £9000 per year. Do the maths if a regular course at university lasts 3 years - if you want to be a teacher (4 years minimum) and other professions like medicine far longer. That's no incentive, certainly not on the wages that are going to be offered when wage changes proposed by the government come into force. Teachers pensions all over again: pay more to get less.
• Their parents have managed perfectly well without a job all their adult life, living off benefits and essentially doing what they want, when they want to without much fear of repercussion. Threats from politicians to remove benefits from those who refuse work or training haven't materialised, although I'm sure that some statistics can be manipulated to show that actually this policy has been enforced. There are plenty of jobs out there, but perhaps not the kinds of jobs desired by those who require them.

And so it's down to teachers to essentially bring up these children, be their parents and instill the ambition to achieve through education.

We have two hopes people, and Bob Hope's on the golf course in the sky.

Every week I have at least one child tell me that they aren't ever going to use what I am teaching them, and every week I respond with "How do you know?".

Have they already got a job lined up? No. So why are they writing that off? Because they can't be bothered to try, that's why.

The last occasion I had this was when we were doing algebra and one nice lad stated that he didn't see the point of it. The conversation went like this from that point onwards:
Me: You don't use Excel then.
Student: Only in school.
Me: You're never going to work in an office I suppose.
Student: No.
Me: What are you going to do for work then?
Student: Don't know.
Me: Anyone else think that they are never going to use algebra in work.

Over half the class' hands go up.

Me: You have all just written off about half the job market by saying that you won't do anything with formulae in your work life.
Students: So.

I give up. These are genuinely nice kids too, I shudder to think what it's like in tougher educational environments.

What will happen? Teachers will get told to try harder or face a lowering of wages and increasing hours in order to give them more time to fail to inspire those uninspirable children. The only way that some children can be inspired to achieve educational success is to totally remove them from the toxic environment that is their home/background in some cases. All children will be forced to board at school, making teachers their actual guardians 24 hours per day - you heard it here first people.

Although, due to the prohibitive cost of beoming a teacher, there won't be enough in the profession to make this plan viable. Classes of 60 anyone?

Politicians really are clueless.