I'm back tommorrow. Kid's Health has provided me with some soothing advice for coping with my general depression about this. I am going to try and get a good night's sleep, I have already packed my bag and I am going to wear a great t-shirt that I got on vacation.
Good luck to everyone else as you face The Return. Eyes down till Christmas.
Monday, August 28, 2006
Sunday, August 20, 2006
Decline in A-level computing
My parents have recently become readers (of IYTYWNM. They haven't just achieved literacy...) and rang me this morning to tell me about an article in The Independent (who said that old and new media can't work together?) Nestling in one of the articles in the online education section is this bombshell...
What? Why? I have been expecting a demise of ICT as a subject at A-level and in schools, but I thought that computing was here to stay. The only thing I can think of is that there has been a corresponding rise in the status of, and number of students on, post-16 vocational computing courses. This would not be a disaster as many of the hardcore vocational courses (such as the BTEC National Diploma for IT Practitioners) are very rigourous. However, if schools are phasing out Computing in favour of more insipid courses such as Applied ICT, I am concerned. The more modern ICT post-sixteen qualifications vere towards graphics and web design, but do not include the artistic theory content of a graphics course. However, they are easier to market. (The same is true of the new Level 3 DiDa qualification, which removes a lot of the spreadsheet and database content in favour of web editing.)
Another thought may be that gifted future programmers might choose to take Maths, Further Maths and Physics, deciding that they could easily teach themselves to program at the weekend.
On the other hand, they may all have decided to become TV presenters instead. Or 'software developers and models', like Big Brother's Mikey.
The biggest decrease in [A-level] candidates came in computing - down 13.9 per cent.
What? Why? I have been expecting a demise of ICT as a subject at A-level and in schools, but I thought that computing was here to stay. The only thing I can think of is that there has been a corresponding rise in the status of, and number of students on, post-16 vocational computing courses. This would not be a disaster as many of the hardcore vocational courses (such as the BTEC National Diploma for IT Practitioners) are very rigourous. However, if schools are phasing out Computing in favour of more insipid courses such as Applied ICT, I am concerned. The more modern ICT post-sixteen qualifications vere towards graphics and web design, but do not include the artistic theory content of a graphics course. However, they are easier to market. (The same is true of the new Level 3 DiDa qualification, which removes a lot of the spreadsheet and database content in favour of web editing.)
Another thought may be that gifted future programmers might choose to take Maths, Further Maths and Physics, deciding that they could easily teach themselves to program at the weekend.
On the other hand, they may all have decided to become TV presenters instead. Or 'software developers and models', like Big Brother's Mikey.
When you wander into the blogsphere...
...you always come back with souveniers
An excellent post from Receding Hairline which is the very readable blog of Christopher Phin, an IT journalist living in London.
Because ultimately, society has to decide – very abstract phrase, I know – whether they want to equip its next-generation leaders with a bunch of facts, or with the tools and mental models which allow them to tease problems out.
An excellent post from Receding Hairline which is the very readable blog of Christopher Phin, an IT journalist living in London.
Saturday, August 19, 2006
'The street finds it's own use for things'
Remember those high pitched teenager repelling noise devices on the news sixth months ago?
I'm probably behind the times, but the repelled teenagers have bitten back.
http://easyfreeringtones.com/2w56knmwm/
I'm probably behind the times, but the repelled teenagers have bitten back.
http://easyfreeringtones.com/2w56knmwm/
Friday, August 18, 2006
Driving up standards (another A-level ouroboros)
I meant to post a summary of the A-level results reporting, however I got distracted by my previous post. However, now I have found this :
This is causing an outcry - and it's obvious why - as most people instinctively feel if it is 'impossible to fail', the result is meaningless. However, we must not confuse the factors which are internal to the exam boards and the factors which come from schools and colleges.
Here is an anecdote - it didn't happen to me, it happened to a teacher friend. She had an OFSTED observation of a post-sixteen lesson which was severely disrupted by a young man faking illness. Obviously, the quality of teaching and learning was affected as my friend had to stop what she was doing so she could deal with the 'crisis.' However, the observer criticised her and penalised the lesson. My friend argued that she had dealt with it well, minimised disruption and made the most of it. The observer's judgement was that any student who misbehaved in a post-sixteen context was obviously on the wrong course. This was a failure of the institution in signing him up for the subject that he was not motivated to study. Therefore it was a justifiable criticism of the lesson.
Anecdotes are not data. However, I think anyone in education will agree that in the current climate we are constantly called to account for student 'failure' - did we teach them badly, did we give them enough support, were they on the right course etc. etc. This comes from the management of schools and colleges, but they are simply reflecting the agenda set by OFSTED etc. The implication is that we should strive towards a situation where we can absolutely guarantee a successful outcome for all students. The student is not really seen to be an active part of the process.
Ergo, we are tacitly being encouraged to aim for a situation where no child fails. We should take no risks, expect no miracles, make no demands from our students for which we cannot act as guarantors. If a child is going to fail, we should be able to work this out in advance. Young people will only be on courses they can pass, because if they don't pass they were on the wrong course...
Ouroboros...
The awful fallout from this trend scarcely needs spelling out but I'm going to (very blogpompous.) If students are only in situations where they will pass, then it must mean they will pass even if they are dis-engaged from the learning process. This is effectively the death of the educational process. Because if we can contrive that they can get by without us taking any risks on them, we will. And so farewell to the risk-taking ethos of widening participation and raising aspiration which is so important for students from backgrounds where no-one has gone on to further or higher education.
But exam chiefs insist standards are being maintained. They talk of "driving failure out of the system" - and are predicting a 100% pass rate within a few years.(BBC news)
This is causing an outcry - and it's obvious why - as most people instinctively feel if it is 'impossible to fail', the result is meaningless. However, we must not confuse the factors which are internal to the exam boards and the factors which come from schools and colleges.
Here is an anecdote - it didn't happen to me, it happened to a teacher friend. She had an OFSTED observation of a post-sixteen lesson which was severely disrupted by a young man faking illness. Obviously, the quality of teaching and learning was affected as my friend had to stop what she was doing so she could deal with the 'crisis.' However, the observer criticised her and penalised the lesson. My friend argued that she had dealt with it well, minimised disruption and made the most of it. The observer's judgement was that any student who misbehaved in a post-sixteen context was obviously on the wrong course. This was a failure of the institution in signing him up for the subject that he was not motivated to study. Therefore it was a justifiable criticism of the lesson.
Anecdotes are not data. However, I think anyone in education will agree that in the current climate we are constantly called to account for student 'failure' - did we teach them badly, did we give them enough support, were they on the right course etc. etc. This comes from the management of schools and colleges, but they are simply reflecting the agenda set by OFSTED etc. The implication is that we should strive towards a situation where we can absolutely guarantee a successful outcome for all students. The student is not really seen to be an active part of the process.
Ergo, we are tacitly being encouraged to aim for a situation where no child fails. We should take no risks, expect no miracles, make no demands from our students for which we cannot act as guarantors. If a child is going to fail, we should be able to work this out in advance. Young people will only be on courses they can pass, because if they don't pass they were on the wrong course...
Ouroboros...
The awful fallout from this trend scarcely needs spelling out but I'm going to (very blogpompous.) If students are only in situations where they will pass, then it must mean they will pass even if they are dis-engaged from the learning process. This is effectively the death of the educational process. Because if we can contrive that they can get by without us taking any risks on them, we will. And so farewell to the risk-taking ethos of widening participation and raising aspiration which is so important for students from backgrounds where no-one has gone on to further or higher education.
10 A's
Well, is it me or is the slavering furore a bit dulled this year? In the light of the situation in the Lebanon and the ongoing terrorism alert here in the UK, there hasn't been nearly as much A-level related brouhaha in the news as we have come to expect. However, the odd thing has jumped out at me. The Guardian has a jovial round up - many congratulations to the triplets, the Big Brother finalist, the grandmother and to the amazing Jan Sramek who gained 10 grade A's. It's Jan's story that has got me in a bit of a slather. Well done to him, he's obviously a brilliant and hard working person and I wish him the very best at Cambridge. But to be critical, as someone who will sit down in a fortnight and counsel dozens of young people enrolling on A-level courses, I think this story raises the question of whether accumulating all those subjects was a wise use of his time. Look at the subjects...
Then we add economics, business studies and 'economics and business studies combined' - surely a blatant case of sitting exams for the sake of it? The amount of overlapping content must have been laughable. I think it's actually a forbidden combination. (see page 13 of this specification which is the one that Bootham School do)
ICT is a huge amount of work, but maybe not a significant challenge for him, especially if Jan is a hobbiest computer fan - which he may well be, with his strong flair for maths.
Then German - he's from the Czech Republic - can we assume a head start?
And finally General Studies.
My question is this - what on earth were the school thinking of? This young man is obviously very gifted indeed. Surely it would have been better to do far fewer A-levels and then look to other ways of filling his time and stretching him academically. I've put gifted students in for OU modules before now. Or maybe he could have been advised to study less subjects but ones that stretched him and took him beyond an obvious flair for maths and economics. What about Politics or History? Both are key areas of understanding for a future economist - both require a different skill set to the mathematical based subjects. Maybe his spare time would have been better used in extra-curricular activities. Did he initiate this frenzy of A-level grabbing or did his school?
(P.S. To non A-level hacks, don't be confused by stories like this. The 'nine A's' refer to the papers, not to the A-levels.)
He gained A grades in maths, further maths, additional further maths, economics, business, German, physics, ICT, economics and business studies combined and general studiesSo that's 3 maths subjects plus physics - so obviously a very bright young man. If someone is mathematically gifted it has always been possible (and beneficial) to do extra maths subjects with significantly less burden than, say, doing an extra humanities subject with its additional reading burden. So not really a scandal there.
Then we add economics, business studies and 'economics and business studies combined' - surely a blatant case of sitting exams for the sake of it? The amount of overlapping content must have been laughable. I think it's actually a forbidden combination. (see page 13 of this specification which is the one that Bootham School do)
ICT is a huge amount of work, but maybe not a significant challenge for him, especially if Jan is a hobbiest computer fan - which he may well be, with his strong flair for maths.
Then German - he's from the Czech Republic - can we assume a head start?
And finally General Studies.
My question is this - what on earth were the school thinking of? This young man is obviously very gifted indeed. Surely it would have been better to do far fewer A-levels and then look to other ways of filling his time and stretching him academically. I've put gifted students in for OU modules before now. Or maybe he could have been advised to study less subjects but ones that stretched him and took him beyond an obvious flair for maths and economics. What about Politics or History? Both are key areas of understanding for a future economist - both require a different skill set to the mathematical based subjects. Maybe his spare time would have been better used in extra-curricular activities. Did he initiate this frenzy of A-level grabbing or did his school?
Jan said: "Although I was more attracted by the challenge of taking so many exams in a short period of time than the results themselves, I am, of course, delighted."Hum.
(P.S. To non A-level hacks, don't be confused by stories like this. The 'nine A's' refer to the papers, not to the A-levels.)
Thursday, August 17, 2006
The day of reckoning
Well, congratulations to my students for getting a really good crop of results. I am delighted and relieved that the grades you got largely reflected your skills and efforts and I am very happy for you all. Not just those of you who got A's but you guys and girls who arrived with borderline GCSE grades and who worked your socks off for two years to turn that into E's, D's and C's. While doing part-time jobs, looking after siblings, and in many cases fulfilling your responsibilities to your family business or even looking after sick parents. You're great. Some of you are amazing young men and women and I am very impressed with you.
[sarcasm] Due to the phenomenon of grade deflation, you of course need realise that your grades are worth fractionally less than they would have done if you had sat the exam last year. As the overall pass rate went up by 1.3%, obviously any exam was 1.3% easier than it was last year. Just remember that. If you are tempted to forget it, just listen to the news. [/sarcasm]
The A-levels taken today are not the same as the exams I took as an 18 year old. We have completely changed and re-defined A-levels and you cannot compare like with like. But why does this translate into such depressingly predictable bitterness? And why are there not more intelligent analyses of the facts?
My A-levels (in 1988) were done over two years with no exams until the last term of the upper sixth. I think I did two papers for each subject plus practicals. A modern A-level is done over two years and each consists of six papers, the first of which will often be sat at the end of the first term. Any of the papers can be re-taken as many times as necessary. In the first year, most students now sit four subjects in the time they would traditionally have taken three so obviously there must be less content included. It's not the same. Please get over it.
The critics seem to divide into different groups... there are the ones who lament the day when 'an A-grade meant something', who seem to resent the fact that the achievements of their children are not as exclusive as they want them to be. Hum. Well, maybe if the A grade was harder to get, your children would have got B's and C's. Maybe you could console yourself by correcting your child whenever s/he claims to have got four A grades.
Then there are the ones who lament the continual rise of standards, witnessed by the statistics. We can't deny the numbers. Perhaps they should look a bit deeper into the whole phenomenon of the statistical engine that drives modern education. Schools and colleges are forced to focus more and more on the headline statistics produced and so most of the effort in an institution revolves around improving these numbers (including the pass rates and the 'higher grade' rates.) Exam preparation, choice of exam boards, timing of modules, teaching methodology, advice to students on subject choices - all are influenced by the need to work the numbers. So the year-on-year rise in numbers is no surprise. It seems the pass rate is stabilising, as exhausted teachers finally reach a point where they have done everything they can in the service of the numbers and it is solely down to whether the pupils step up and do the work or not.
Finally, there are the complaints from universities that they cannot differentiate between the best students. Here I am very sympathetic. One factor there is that most universities can no longer afford to interview candidates, which is not mentioned but certainly closes off a whole way of assessing students' suitability, passion, commitment, thinking skills and depth of knowledge. Something should be done - certainly, universities should see module results and the number of times students have re-sat a paper. The greater use of additional entrance exams is also a possibility - or maybe universities should actually be allowed to read scripts. I write this with a heavy heart, because this will inevitably translate into more work for me. It won't be long before the machine finds a way of measuring this, another statistic which I will need to address ('Hum, your A grade rate is stable, but the number of students getting into top universities from your subject area is still low. What are you going to do about it?')
Anyway, I'm off to college now to see my students. I am hugely proud of them and they deserve a day of rejoicing.
The A-levels taken today are not the same as the exams I took as an 18 year old. We have completely changed and re-defined A-levels and you cannot compare like with like. But why does this translate into such depressingly predictable bitterness? And why are there not more intelligent analyses of the facts?
My A-levels (in 1988) were done over two years with no exams until the last term of the upper sixth. I think I did two papers for each subject plus practicals. A modern A-level is done over two years and each consists of six papers, the first of which will often be sat at the end of the first term. Any of the papers can be re-taken as many times as necessary. In the first year, most students now sit four subjects in the time they would traditionally have taken three so obviously there must be less content included. It's not the same. Please get over it.
The critics seem to divide into different groups... there are the ones who lament the day when 'an A-grade meant something', who seem to resent the fact that the achievements of their children are not as exclusive as they want them to be. Hum. Well, maybe if the A grade was harder to get, your children would have got B's and C's. Maybe you could console yourself by correcting your child whenever s/he claims to have got four A grades.
Then there are the ones who lament the continual rise of standards, witnessed by the statistics. We can't deny the numbers. Perhaps they should look a bit deeper into the whole phenomenon of the statistical engine that drives modern education. Schools and colleges are forced to focus more and more on the headline statistics produced and so most of the effort in an institution revolves around improving these numbers (including the pass rates and the 'higher grade' rates.) Exam preparation, choice of exam boards, timing of modules, teaching methodology, advice to students on subject choices - all are influenced by the need to work the numbers. So the year-on-year rise in numbers is no surprise. It seems the pass rate is stabilising, as exhausted teachers finally reach a point where they have done everything they can in the service of the numbers and it is solely down to whether the pupils step up and do the work or not.
Finally, there are the complaints from universities that they cannot differentiate between the best students. Here I am very sympathetic. One factor there is that most universities can no longer afford to interview candidates, which is not mentioned but certainly closes off a whole way of assessing students' suitability, passion, commitment, thinking skills and depth of knowledge. Something should be done - certainly, universities should see module results and the number of times students have re-sat a paper. The greater use of additional entrance exams is also a possibility - or maybe universities should actually be allowed to read scripts. I write this with a heavy heart, because this will inevitably translate into more work for me. It won't be long before the machine finds a way of measuring this, another statistic which I will need to address ('Hum, your A grade rate is stable, but the number of students getting into top universities from your subject area is still low. What are you going to do about it?')
Anyway, I'm off to college now to see my students. I am hugely proud of them and they deserve a day of rejoicing.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Back from the beyond
Well, I apologise for my absence. I can bring a note from my Mum so it's OK.
This particular week for me is spent, as usual, in a state of insomnia waiting for A-level results to come through. I am more worried than usual as it is a truth universally acknowledged that a school or college who have recently been inspected will suffer a dip in results. I am worried about the pass rate, I am worried about the coursework moderation (which is playfully inconsistent from year to year despite us following identical working practices), I am worried about my retention rate because of the students who figured out that we couldn't actually stop them from absenting themselves from exam... I am pretty sure I am more worried than most of my students.
Anyway, here are a couple of pre-emptive A-level headlines. Pick one.
"As A-level results reach a record level of passes, there are calls for change as standards of assessment continue to be eroded."
"As A-levels results dip for the first time in 5 years, there are calls for change as the quality of teaching in schools and colleges comes under fire."
There is a phenomenon in the sociology of scientific knowledge known as 'The Experimenter's Regress'. This is the inability to agree on a test to decide on the truth or otherwise of a controversial hypothesis, as any two competing scientists can argue that the other has a flawed experiment.
Prof A 'Look at my whizzy wave detector, it proves the existence of whizzy waves'.
Prof B 'No, your machine is faulty. My machine shows there are no such things as whizzy waves.'
Prof A 'Ha ha, Prof B, it is your machine that is faulty, not mine!'
Repeat ad infinitum.
Sometimes it seems that the whole of education is in danger of spiraling into itself in the same way. When more students pass, we say that we have taught them better, but our critics say that obviously standards have dropped. When less students pass, our critics say that we have not taught them well, but we could equally say that standards have risen. The problem is that even in these enlightened times of measuring absolutely everything we possibly can, we have no consensus about how we measure either pupils' achievement or institutions' performance. The figures thus become pseudo-scientific garnishes to endlessly cyclical and cynical arguments.
The final word, however, must go to the defense of our students. Yes, there are dozens of them who are over-dependent, lazy, or manipulative. However, I think it's true to say that in my institution at least, the majority of young men and women who get large numbers of high grades have worked very hard indeed and deserve a sense of pride and security in their qualification. And the same is true of many of the students who will emerge with a clutch of C and D grades and take up places at universities with long names.
This particular week for me is spent, as usual, in a state of insomnia waiting for A-level results to come through. I am more worried than usual as it is a truth universally acknowledged that a school or college who have recently been inspected will suffer a dip in results. I am worried about the pass rate, I am worried about the coursework moderation (which is playfully inconsistent from year to year despite us following identical working practices), I am worried about my retention rate because of the students who figured out that we couldn't actually stop them from absenting themselves from exam... I am pretty sure I am more worried than most of my students.
Anyway, here are a couple of pre-emptive A-level headlines. Pick one.
"As A-level results reach a record level of passes, there are calls for change as standards of assessment continue to be eroded."
"As A-levels results dip for the first time in 5 years, there are calls for change as the quality of teaching in schools and colleges comes under fire."
There is a phenomenon in the sociology of scientific knowledge known as 'The Experimenter's Regress'. This is the inability to agree on a test to decide on the truth or otherwise of a controversial hypothesis, as any two competing scientists can argue that the other has a flawed experiment.
Prof A 'Look at my whizzy wave detector, it proves the existence of whizzy waves'.
Prof B 'No, your machine is faulty. My machine shows there are no such things as whizzy waves.'
Prof A 'Ha ha, Prof B, it is your machine that is faulty, not mine!'
Repeat ad infinitum.
Sometimes it seems that the whole of education is in danger of spiraling into itself in the same way. When more students pass, we say that we have taught them better, but our critics say that obviously standards have dropped. When less students pass, our critics say that we have not taught them well, but we could equally say that standards have risen. The problem is that even in these enlightened times of measuring absolutely everything we possibly can, we have no consensus about how we measure either pupils' achievement or institutions' performance. The figures thus become pseudo-scientific garnishes to endlessly cyclical and cynical arguments.
The final word, however, must go to the defense of our students. Yes, there are dozens of them who are over-dependent, lazy, or manipulative. However, I think it's true to say that in my institution at least, the majority of young men and women who get large numbers of high grades have worked very hard indeed and deserve a sense of pride and security in their qualification. And the same is true of many of the students who will emerge with a clutch of C and D grades and take up places at universities with long names.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Pupil put-downs you wish you'd thought of...
# 287 [for students sending text messages under their desks] ' There only two things you could be doing with your hand under that desk and neither of them are appropriate for my lesson'
Death by PowerPoint
I have recently delivered 9 hours of in-house PowerPoint training. And it was very, very satisfying...
Since projectors arrived in classrooms, all teachers have been forced to consider whether to let PowerPoint into their lessons. And like some creature from an alien dimension, it can take over a lesson and convert everything it touches into bullet points. Some students now waft between lessons, watching endless identical presentations using that funky design template (you know, the one with the fireworks at the top. Yes, that one. The one that your boss used at her last INSET to tell you how we needed a five point action plan to implement the post-inspection strategy.)
PowerPoint is a poor master. My favourite PowerPoint bashing site is the Gettysburg PowerPoint Presentation; the beginning of Absolute PowerPoint is also very funny.
However, if you see PowerPoint as a tool for producing animated teaching aids, it is very, very powerful indeed. It was delightful watching teachers get excited about the possibility of making animated maps of the Berlin Airlift, interactive quizzes for MLD kids on life skills and flow charts that appeared one arrow at a time. Think of PowerPoint as a replacement for all those irritating drawings you always do year after year, the ones that you think are amusing and the students think are sad...
Since projectors arrived in classrooms, all teachers have been forced to consider whether to let PowerPoint into their lessons. And like some creature from an alien dimension, it can take over a lesson and convert everything it touches into bullet points. Some students now waft between lessons, watching endless identical presentations using that funky design template (you know, the one with the fireworks at the top. Yes, that one. The one that your boss used at her last INSET to tell you how we needed a five point action plan to implement the post-inspection strategy.)
PowerPoint is a poor master. My favourite PowerPoint bashing site is the Gettysburg PowerPoint Presentation; the beginning of Absolute PowerPoint is also very funny.
However, if you see PowerPoint as a tool for producing animated teaching aids, it is very, very powerful indeed. It was delightful watching teachers get excited about the possibility of making animated maps of the Berlin Airlift, interactive quizzes for MLD kids on life skills and flow charts that appeared one arrow at a time. Think of PowerPoint as a replacement for all those irritating drawings you always do year after year, the ones that you think are amusing and the students think are sad...
Thursday, June 15, 2006
The offside rule
OK, this is doing the rounds of my girlfriends' inboxes at the moment. And this is so obviously a girl's explanation of the offside rule, and it really helped me understand.
Explaining the offside rule to women
You're in a shoe shop, second in the queue for the till. Behind the shop assistant on the till is a pair of shoes which you have seen and which you must have.
The female shopper in front of you has seen them also and is eyeing them with desire.
Both of you have forgotten your purses.
It would be totally rude to push in front of the first woman if you had no money to pay for the shoes.
The shop assistant remains at the till waiting.
Your friend is trying on another pair of shoes at the back of the shop and sees your dilemma.
She prepares to throw her purse to you.
If she does so, you can catch the purse, then walk round the other shopper and buy the shoes.
At a pinch she could throw the purse ahead of the other shopper and, whilst it is in flight you could nip around the other shopper, catch the purse and buy the shoes.
Always remembering that until the purse had actually been thrown it would be plain wrong to be forward of the other shopper.
I've horrified you, haven't I...charmed by a faintly patronising whimsy involving shoes. Before you think I am a complete idiot, obviously I understand the offside rule! I'm not stupid, you know! It's very straightforward. Read it! None of the words are difficult!
However, the bit I don't understand is why it's there. What's the point? I don't understand the offside rule; I've never played football and only been to four matches in my life, I can't see why you need a complex rule to allow and disallow goals in what is, up to that point, a brilliantly simple game. Therefore the whole business remains completely opaque to me. But whenever I ask a man to explain the offside rule, they always do the same thing... they grab the nearest collection of small objects and start to act out the positions of the players.
[In fact, listen to this week's 'Heresy' on BBC Radio 4 from about 13 minutes in ... my favourite quote 'I've tried for a long time to explain the offside rule to my wife ...now she thinks the offside rule is when a man puts a tomato sauce bottle between a salt and a pepper pot' ]
The point of all this is that what I need from an explanation is so different from what I get. This is a fascinating exercise in teaching and learning. An explanation given in terms of physical positions as opposed to one given in terms of purpose and meaning - due to differences in gender, in experiences, in motivation and so on.
Explaining the offside rule to women
You're in a shoe shop, second in the queue for the till. Behind the shop assistant on the till is a pair of shoes which you have seen and which you must have.
The female shopper in front of you has seen them also and is eyeing them with desire.
Both of you have forgotten your purses.
It would be totally rude to push in front of the first woman if you had no money to pay for the shoes.
The shop assistant remains at the till waiting.
Your friend is trying on another pair of shoes at the back of the shop and sees your dilemma.
She prepares to throw her purse to you.
If she does so, you can catch the purse, then walk round the other shopper and buy the shoes.
At a pinch she could throw the purse ahead of the other shopper and, whilst it is in flight you could nip around the other shopper, catch the purse and buy the shoes.
Always remembering that until the purse had actually been thrown it would be plain wrong to be forward of the other shopper.
I've horrified you, haven't I...charmed by a faintly patronising whimsy involving shoes. Before you think I am a complete idiot, obviously I understand the offside rule! I'm not stupid, you know! It's very straightforward. Read it! None of the words are difficult!
However, the bit I don't understand is why it's there. What's the point? I don't understand the offside rule; I've never played football and only been to four matches in my life, I can't see why you need a complex rule to allow and disallow goals in what is, up to that point, a brilliantly simple game. Therefore the whole business remains completely opaque to me. But whenever I ask a man to explain the offside rule, they always do the same thing... they grab the nearest collection of small objects and start to act out the positions of the players.
[In fact, listen to this week's 'Heresy' on BBC Radio 4 from about 13 minutes in ... my favourite quote 'I've tried for a long time to explain the offside rule to my wife ...now she thinks the offside rule is when a man puts a tomato sauce bottle between a salt and a pepper pot' ]
The point of all this is that what I need from an explanation is so different from what I get. This is a fascinating exercise in teaching and learning. An explanation given in terms of physical positions as opposed to one given in terms of purpose and meaning - due to differences in gender, in experiences, in motivation and so on.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Coursework - it's over at last
The final OMR sheet is with the exams officer. It's really over.
It's been a completely awful year for coursework. The combined effect of The Visitors (like The Kindly Ones, best not name them) the date of Easter this year and a new specification meant that this year's coursework ordeal was extra, extra special. I know I should blog - either something witty, or something insightful about the inherent weaknesses of coursework, but actually I am too tired and angry with the students.
I was reading Blog Standard, and a comment posted which said 'A bitter teacher leads to bitter students' and I was really pulled up short. So much stress, anger, bitterness - it's not good. How can we keep our compassion intact when we are being used? How can we remember how hard it is for some of our students to even make it to college at all... when so many well-looked after and well-resourced students seem determined to abuse us as if we were resources to be spent not people with whom they have a relationship?
Answers on a postcard please.
It's been a completely awful year for coursework. The combined effect of The Visitors (like The Kindly Ones, best not name them) the date of Easter this year and a new specification meant that this year's coursework ordeal was extra, extra special. I know I should blog - either something witty, or something insightful about the inherent weaknesses of coursework, but actually I am too tired and angry with the students.
I was reading Blog Standard, and a comment posted which said 'A bitter teacher leads to bitter students' and I was really pulled up short. So much stress, anger, bitterness - it's not good. How can we keep our compassion intact when we are being used? How can we remember how hard it is for some of our students to even make it to college at all... when so many well-looked after and well-resourced students seem determined to abuse us as if we were resources to be spent not people with whom they have a relationship?
Answers on a postcard please.
Monday, May 15, 2006
A new blog of note!
I've found a new blog via the TES. Mr Ken's Blog Standard is absolutely brilliant. As a sample, see his Manifesto #1.
I warmly commend him to my 5 readers.
I warmly commend him to my 5 readers.
Sunday, May 07, 2006
Welcome, Alan Johnson!
Such was the reshuffle kerfuffle over Charles Clarke and John Prescott, I only realised this morning that we have yet another Secretary of State for Education and Skills. Welcome. Did you know, Alan, that a young person in the current Year 13 (or upper sixth) has had no less than eight Secretary of States looking after his or her education since they started school?
Anyway, according to your website, Alan, you went to Sloane Grammar School in Chelsea, and according to the New Statesman you left school with no O-levels. According to the amazing TheyWorkForYou.com website, you are 'very strongly for' top-up fees, the Iraq war and 'quite strongly for' equal gay rights.
Also, interestingly, you have used a three-word alliterative phrase (e.g. "she sells seashells") 356 times in debates — 31st out of 645 MPs.
From my perspective right now, these are the issues that I think you need to be thinking about as you arrange your mascots on your desk and work out where the coffee machine is:
1) The future of league tables.
League tables are the most corrosive force in UK education today, and they effectively corrupt all attempts at positive change in the curriculum by making any institution's top priority the manipulation and maintenance of one or two, highly deceptive, statistics.
2) The future of assessment.
SATs reducing little children's lives to misery. GCSE and A-level coursework producing a generation of young people who don't believe in deadlines. Endless resits. All driven by the aforementioned league tables so that any poor result is perceived as a problem for the teacher to solve, rather than a reflection back to the student of their efforts and abilities.
3) Bringing back bog standard comprehensive education.
Trust Schools and Academies; Specialist Schools; Technology, Language and Sports Colleges; Arts Marks. Do families really want all this 'choice' and specialism? Or do they want good local schools offering an all-round education so that their children can find out in good time what they are best at and what they enjoy, whilst also experiencing a balanced exposure to the skills and knowledge they need to live in the world today?
4) Sharing the blame around a bit.
When a child fails to flourish, it's not all down to his or her teachers. Parents, the media, local government, and tellingly the child him or herself are all partly responsible. How do we get everyone to step up to the mark and accept their share of the responsibility for the successes and failures of young people today?
5) Wake up and smell the plumbing.
We got rid of metalwork, woodwork and domestic science. We introduced vocational education which revolved around acres of coursework which was mostly copied and pasted off the Internet. We got rid of all our polytechnics and turned them into universities with long names. And now we have a chronic shortage of plumbers, electricians, builders, silversmiths and other craftspeople. Not to mention no new industry. Can someone please do some joined up thinking here?
Finally, Alan, please don't do what David Blunkett did. I can actually remember the joy I felt in 1997 when your party won the election. And I read with delight the letter that David Blunkett sent to every school to say how keen he was to work with us and to thank us for our hard work as teachers. But he never said that to the press. All we ever heard from him in public was criticism and the perpetuation of the idea that bad teachers are responsible for all that is wrong with the world. If you are our friend, please make sure you don't turn your back on us in the playground.
Anyway, according to your website, Alan, you went to Sloane Grammar School in Chelsea, and according to the New Statesman you left school with no O-levels. According to the amazing TheyWorkForYou.com website, you are 'very strongly for' top-up fees, the Iraq war and 'quite strongly for' equal gay rights.
Also, interestingly, you have used a three-word alliterative phrase (e.g. "she sells seashells") 356 times in debates — 31st out of 645 MPs.
From my perspective right now, these are the issues that I think you need to be thinking about as you arrange your mascots on your desk and work out where the coffee machine is:
1) The future of league tables.
League tables are the most corrosive force in UK education today, and they effectively corrupt all attempts at positive change in the curriculum by making any institution's top priority the manipulation and maintenance of one or two, highly deceptive, statistics.
2) The future of assessment.
SATs reducing little children's lives to misery. GCSE and A-level coursework producing a generation of young people who don't believe in deadlines. Endless resits. All driven by the aforementioned league tables so that any poor result is perceived as a problem for the teacher to solve, rather than a reflection back to the student of their efforts and abilities.
3) Bringing back bog standard comprehensive education.
Trust Schools and Academies; Specialist Schools; Technology, Language and Sports Colleges; Arts Marks. Do families really want all this 'choice' and specialism? Or do they want good local schools offering an all-round education so that their children can find out in good time what they are best at and what they enjoy, whilst also experiencing a balanced exposure to the skills and knowledge they need to live in the world today?
4) Sharing the blame around a bit.
When a child fails to flourish, it's not all down to his or her teachers. Parents, the media, local government, and tellingly the child him or herself are all partly responsible. How do we get everyone to step up to the mark and accept their share of the responsibility for the successes and failures of young people today?
5) Wake up and smell the plumbing.
We got rid of metalwork, woodwork and domestic science. We introduced vocational education which revolved around acres of coursework which was mostly copied and pasted off the Internet. We got rid of all our polytechnics and turned them into universities with long names. And now we have a chronic shortage of plumbers, electricians, builders, silversmiths and other craftspeople. Not to mention no new industry. Can someone please do some joined up thinking here?
Finally, Alan, please don't do what David Blunkett did. I can actually remember the joy I felt in 1997 when your party won the election. And I read with delight the letter that David Blunkett sent to every school to say how keen he was to work with us and to thank us for our hard work as teachers. But he never said that to the press. All we ever heard from him in public was criticism and the perpetuation of the idea that bad teachers are responsible for all that is wrong with the world. If you are our friend, please make sure you don't turn your back on us in the playground.
Saturday, May 06, 2006
How to teach a perfect sample lesson
As interview season comes round again, I was thinking about how many 'sample lessons' I have seen over the last few years in my capacity as a middle-manager. And how many perfectly decent applicants have shipwrecked themselves in 20 short minutes by completely missing the mark in this brutal but necessary ordeal.
These sample lessons are a relatively recent phenomenom in teaching recruitment (I went looking for my first job in the early 90's and was never once asked to do one.) However, I can't believe how ill-equipped most newly qualified teachers are to deliver them. True, I have seen some very good examples and am in fact working with brilliant colleagues who taught those very lessons. But surely a half-decent teacher training institution should cover this?
As I have now been blogging for over four months, I have delusions of significance... so here is my handy guide to preparing a sample lesson, especially for all you newbies out there going through the interview mill for the first time.
As recruiting teachers, we sometimes feel a wave of whinging and wimpering coming off a candidate at the whole prospect of the lesson... 'But I don't know the students... [yes, we know that] and I don't know their prior learning [yep, we know that too]... and I only have 20 minutes' [uh, we know that too, we made this up after all] We know that what you are doing is highly unrealistic. We are not looking for a text-book OFTSED lesson plan with all the boxes ticked. Don't treat it as such. Want to know how to ace a sample lesson? Think about what we are looking for.
Broadly speaking, when I watch a sample lesson I am looking for the following things, in this order of priority:
1) Presence, charisma and empathy with the students. OK, you've never taught these kids in this room before, but you should look comfortable standing up and taking centre stage with a group of young people. You should be able to capture attention and keep it, and you should show warmth towards, and interest in the kids you're faced with.
(I don't actually need twenty minutes to see this - it's almost immediately recognisable.)
2) Planning. I expect you to have worked up a pretty impressive 20 minutes worth of stuff. I expect you to have good enough Internet skills to have tracked down the specification, past papers and so on. I expect you to have swotted up on what you're teaching. Come on, most interview panels will let you pick a topic or subject from a wide range of choices; if they haven't told you up front what exam board they use, get on the phone and ask. And then produce, at the very least, a good Powerpoint presention, handout/worksheet or activity. Ideally, all three. Make absolutely sure you have a good extension activity even if you are pretty sure you won't have time to use it.
Come on. It's not rocket science. This is a twenty minute, pull out all the stops, show-'em-what- you've-got opportunity. If you can't be bothered to make an effort for this, what does it say about your contribution to the life of the school/college?
3) Teaching craftsmanship. This is the tricky bit. You have a short amount of time to showcase your skills and also to model your priorities. For goodness sake, don't do the first 20 minutes of a 2 hour lesson. Or the first 20 minutes you would routinely do with any new class. Don't throw away time on your classroom 'rules' or an ice-breaker. [Ask for and use their names as you go along, or get them to write their names on pieces of card.] I would say, as a general rule, we are looking for some up-front teaching to prove you can be interesting, hold a class's attention and explain your subject. But also we need to see one or two good student activities to prove there's more to you than just chalk and talk. Activities also show us the quality of your interactions with students. (For goodness sakes go and talk to the students while they do the task you have set. Don't wander around tossing your chalk in the air and definitely don't go and chat with the observers!)
Also...
- state a clear aim at the beginning and recap/test understanding at the end
- make sure you interact with as many students as you can [if it's a small group, every single student]
- make sure you flag up at some point how the topic fits in with the specification or with other topics they might have studied or go on to study
- if it's a lesson for year 10 or above, a quick reference to an exam question or typical vocational assignment question never does any harm.
If that sounds like way too much to cope with in the time you have, you are probably being much too ambitious in the material you hope to cover. Do less better.
Finally 4) Content
We do notice if you don't know what your talking about - if you are unlucky enough to get given a lesson topic with no choice, for goodness sake mug up on it. And we do notice if you are pitching the lesson at the wrong age group. If you are a secondary trained teacher applying for an advanced level job, you are in a difficult position but it's not impossible to get it right. If you have time, grab an A-level text book or just spend an hour or so on some A-level revision sites.
One issue that can floor candidates - and it really shouldn't - is finding out that the group have already studied the topic, or (even worse) just taken part in another sample lesson on the same subject! Prepare a lesson which will serve either as a revision of a familiar topic or as an introduction for the first time. It's not hard. Make sure that any questions you are planning to ask have follow on questions that probe more deeply if the students can glibly rattle off the answers. Make sure all your activities are that little bit special, so that even if they have bashed through the subject before, you are giving them an interesting new take on the topic. A case study instead of a simple discussion. A matching exercise with challenging distractors instead of a simple fill-in-the-blanks.
Five worst sins I've seen in sample lessons:
Me 'Can you talk me through this handout, because I don't see how it fits in with what you taught?'
Applicant 'Oh, that's just something I found in the Internet last night.'
Applicant 'Please write your names on the cards and put them in front of you.'
After spending 3 minutes doing this, he taught for 20 minutes and never once referred to any of the students by name.
One applicant took up half her allotted time going through her 'classroom rules.' These included 'don't surf the Internet when you should be working'. The lesson was in a classroom without computers.
Another applicant had an error in the maths on her handout which had to be pointed out to her by one of the students.
And finally, the most astounding sample lesson I have ever seen went like this.
'My lesson today is on alpha testing and beta testing.'
'Does anyone know what alpha testing is?'
They did; they told him.
He wrote it on the board
'Does anyone know what beta testing is?'
They did; they told him
He wrote it on the board
That was the end of the lesson.
He did not get the job.
These sample lessons are a relatively recent phenomenom in teaching recruitment (I went looking for my first job in the early 90's and was never once asked to do one.) However, I can't believe how ill-equipped most newly qualified teachers are to deliver them. True, I have seen some very good examples and am in fact working with brilliant colleagues who taught those very lessons. But surely a half-decent teacher training institution should cover this?
As I have now been blogging for over four months, I have delusions of significance... so here is my handy guide to preparing a sample lesson, especially for all you newbies out there going through the interview mill for the first time.
As recruiting teachers, we sometimes feel a wave of whinging and wimpering coming off a candidate at the whole prospect of the lesson... 'But I don't know the students... [yes, we know that] and I don't know their prior learning [yep, we know that too]... and I only have 20 minutes' [uh, we know that too, we made this up after all] We know that what you are doing is highly unrealistic. We are not looking for a text-book OFTSED lesson plan with all the boxes ticked. Don't treat it as such. Want to know how to ace a sample lesson? Think about what we are looking for.
Broadly speaking, when I watch a sample lesson I am looking for the following things, in this order of priority:
1) Presence, charisma and empathy with the students. OK, you've never taught these kids in this room before, but you should look comfortable standing up and taking centre stage with a group of young people. You should be able to capture attention and keep it, and you should show warmth towards, and interest in the kids you're faced with.
(I don't actually need twenty minutes to see this - it's almost immediately recognisable.)
2) Planning. I expect you to have worked up a pretty impressive 20 minutes worth of stuff. I expect you to have good enough Internet skills to have tracked down the specification, past papers and so on. I expect you to have swotted up on what you're teaching. Come on, most interview panels will let you pick a topic or subject from a wide range of choices; if they haven't told you up front what exam board they use, get on the phone and ask. And then produce, at the very least, a good Powerpoint presention, handout/worksheet or activity. Ideally, all three. Make absolutely sure you have a good extension activity even if you are pretty sure you won't have time to use it.
Come on. It's not rocket science. This is a twenty minute, pull out all the stops, show-'em-what- you've-got opportunity. If you can't be bothered to make an effort for this, what does it say about your contribution to the life of the school/college?
3) Teaching craftsmanship. This is the tricky bit. You have a short amount of time to showcase your skills and also to model your priorities. For goodness sake, don't do the first 20 minutes of a 2 hour lesson. Or the first 20 minutes you would routinely do with any new class. Don't throw away time on your classroom 'rules' or an ice-breaker. [Ask for and use their names as you go along, or get them to write their names on pieces of card.] I would say, as a general rule, we are looking for some up-front teaching to prove you can be interesting, hold a class's attention and explain your subject. But also we need to see one or two good student activities to prove there's more to you than just chalk and talk. Activities also show us the quality of your interactions with students. (For goodness sakes go and talk to the students while they do the task you have set. Don't wander around tossing your chalk in the air and definitely don't go and chat with the observers!)
Also...
- state a clear aim at the beginning and recap/test understanding at the end
- make sure you interact with as many students as you can [if it's a small group, every single student]
- make sure you flag up at some point how the topic fits in with the specification or with other topics they might have studied or go on to study
- if it's a lesson for year 10 or above, a quick reference to an exam question or typical vocational assignment question never does any harm.
If that sounds like way too much to cope with in the time you have, you are probably being much too ambitious in the material you hope to cover. Do less better.
Finally 4) Content
We do notice if you don't know what your talking about - if you are unlucky enough to get given a lesson topic with no choice, for goodness sake mug up on it. And we do notice if you are pitching the lesson at the wrong age group. If you are a secondary trained teacher applying for an advanced level job, you are in a difficult position but it's not impossible to get it right. If you have time, grab an A-level text book or just spend an hour or so on some A-level revision sites.
One issue that can floor candidates - and it really shouldn't - is finding out that the group have already studied the topic, or (even worse) just taken part in another sample lesson on the same subject! Prepare a lesson which will serve either as a revision of a familiar topic or as an introduction for the first time. It's not hard. Make sure that any questions you are planning to ask have follow on questions that probe more deeply if the students can glibly rattle off the answers. Make sure all your activities are that little bit special, so that even if they have bashed through the subject before, you are giving them an interesting new take on the topic. A case study instead of a simple discussion. A matching exercise with challenging distractors instead of a simple fill-in-the-blanks.
Five worst sins I've seen in sample lessons:
Me 'Can you talk me through this handout, because I don't see how it fits in with what you taught?'
Applicant 'Oh, that's just something I found in the Internet last night.'
Applicant 'Please write your names on the cards and put them in front of you.'
After spending 3 minutes doing this, he taught for 20 minutes and never once referred to any of the students by name.
One applicant took up half her allotted time going through her 'classroom rules.' These included 'don't surf the Internet when you should be working'. The lesson was in a classroom without computers.
Another applicant had an error in the maths on her handout which had to be pointed out to her by one of the students.
And finally, the most astounding sample lesson I have ever seen went like this.
'My lesson today is on alpha testing and beta testing.'
'Does anyone know what alpha testing is?'
They did; they told him.
He wrote it on the board
'Does anyone know what beta testing is?'
They did; they told him
He wrote it on the board
That was the end of the lesson.
He did not get the job.
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Sweet sanity from the midst of the coursework mosh pit
I haven't posted much lately - though I have a few drafts lurking. It's coursework hand-in time, that terrible season of teacher exhaustion and prostitution as we chase them round and ring them at home at the weekend in a desperate attempt to drag the work out of them. If you want to see the corrosive effect of league tables on modern education, just visit a teacher over the May Day weekend.
I will post more on this topic. But for now...
...last night I saw the last ten minutes of 'That'll teach 'em' - a series I avoided like the plague. (Obviously I am completely qualified to judge the entire series on this basis.) But the last ten minutes seemed to be all you needed to see: a bunch of 16-year old kids who had, apparantly, failed O-levels after 30 days of 'old-fashioned' teaching. Then they received their genuine GCSE results and - all had A's, B's and C's.!
I am too tired to rant about this so fill in the rest around these key words and phrases (A cloze blog, if you will...)
-------------------- different syllabus------------different subjects----------content------------one month-----------------editors-------------manipulation---------naturally --------------proves bugger all-------------re-inforce prejudice
Anyway, I went to the web site and found a rather nice piece in defence of modern schools by Joan Clancy. It raises some excellent and refreshingly different points and at no time whinges. She's my new mate.
Back to coursework.
PS The teacher wot I live with has made me a poster for my office which says this:
Apparantly I was talking in my feverish sleep...
I will post more on this topic. But for now...
...last night I saw the last ten minutes of 'That'll teach 'em' - a series I avoided like the plague. (Obviously I am completely qualified to judge the entire series on this basis.) But the last ten minutes seemed to be all you needed to see: a bunch of 16-year old kids who had, apparantly, failed O-levels after 30 days of 'old-fashioned' teaching. Then they received their genuine GCSE results and - all had A's, B's and C's.!
I am too tired to rant about this so fill in the rest around these key words and phrases (A cloze blog, if you will...)
-------------------- different syllabus------------different subjects----------content------------one month-----------------editors-------------manipulation---------naturally --------------proves bugger all-------------re-inforce prejudice
Anyway, I went to the web site and found a rather nice piece in defence of modern schools by Joan Clancy. It raises some excellent and refreshingly different points and at no time whinges. She's my new mate.
Back to coursework.
PS The teacher wot I live with has made me a poster for my office which says this:
"You come to me all teary eyed and say 'why, oh why miss did I only get a grade E for this work' and I say 'You should have
RTFHO"
RTFHO"
Apparantly I was talking in my feverish sleep...
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Honours for cash for schools - and the '£2 million test'
Warning, long entry written in wroth!
OK, take a look at this news story: a Head from Barking who serves on the 'Specialist Schools and Academies Trust' which 'helps the government recruit education sponsors' told a journalist that if you donated money "the prime minister's office would recommend someone like [the donor] for an OBE, a CBE or a knighthood". And ... Downing Street said at the time it was "nonsense to suggest that honours are awarded for giving money to an academy". (And the Guardian have it here)
Whoa. Now for a short test, boys and girls. What is the real news story here?
1) That knighthoods can be bought be large donations of money, making a mockery of a system designed to recognise merit
2) That Downing Street can swat away the on-the-record comment of a respected person by labelling it nonsense, and presumably insist he resigns to try and neutralise the effect immediately
or
3) That we live in a society where a majority influence on the governing body of a state school can be bought for approximately £2 million by anyone who feels like it.
And the answers?
I don't know about you, but I think that it's point 3) that has always been, and continues to be, the real news story.
I am vaguely concerned about the whole cash for honours thing, as I would like to live in a meritocractic society, but hey, it's no biggie.
Yes, it does send a chill down my spine to be reminded of the blatant way that government can silence any critical comment by saying 'it is not so' and demanding resignations and public apologies as scalps.
But the really, really important thing is this: inner city schools are being sold to anyone with any agenda at all. For the sum of only 8% of total start-up costs!
For this bargain price you get...
- influence in the name, ethos and style of the institution
- controlling interest on the governing body (yes, I said that before but it bears repetition)
- And once you have this influence with the governors, you can use it employ anyone you want because you are exempt from the requirement to only employ teachers registered with the GTC!
- And then you can pay them anything you want because you can opt out of the national pay structure!
(Aside - I wrote a sci-fi short story about ten years ago set in a dystopian future school; I was rooting around for a brand name to give the school, such as the 'Ronald McDonald High School' or the 'Microsoft School'. So I honestly thought it was fiction when I first heard about the Dixons Academy - but it's not. It's a state school sponsored by a chain of electrical stores.)
What does the government really think it's doing?
If there was a huge amount of money going into these schools, say £20 million, and if the major obstacle in the way of improving inner city education was simply cash, and if the government had a serious shortfall, I could be persuaded that huge injections from philathropists or businesses was justifiable. And if in return the donor got their name above the door or the right to serve on the governors as a sort of sinecure or even a knighthood, well, hey, I can live with that. But does getting 8-10% of the cost paid really help that much? Surely you could just build one less academy instead.
You see, I don't think the Academy program is primarily about fund-raising. The government don't actually believe that money is all we need to solve the problem of inner city schooling. Tony B wants to demolish old schools and build new ones but with a new ethos. And here's where it goes bad for me - he believes the only way to get ethics, values, vision and character for his academies is to buy it.
£2 million does not represent a shortfall that needs to be filled, £2 million is a test, set to see how strong someone's (or some organisation's) commitment to leading a school is. So the logic must be - to have something serious to offer inner city education, you must a) be interested and b) pass the £2 million test to see if you are committed or just pissing around, writing blogs and generally just talking it up.
I don't like it one little bit (which doesn't mean that all academies are terrible institutions per se, not even the Dixon's Academy which I've never visited; please don't think I am getting at you or your leadership if you are toiling in an Academy, doing your best for inner city students and making a difference.) I don't like it because the underlying idea is that the problem of inner city education can be solved by finding people and groups of people who pass the £2 million test. Wheras I think that the best people to solve the problem of an inner city school are a group of committed teachers, well-led by an inspirational and pragmatic leadership team (and a body of parents who will work to support the school.) And hey, they don't usually have time to accumulate £2 million between them because they are too busy.
To conclude at last: the major obstacle in the way of improving inner city education is not simply cash; we need strong schools with teachers and leaders who share a profound, robust vision for education and who can create a new optimism, value-structure and vision in the place of what was previously perceived as a 'failing' school. Knocking down the old buildings and replacing them is one way of kick-starting this change, so in that respect the government is maybe doing a good thing by flipping difficult schools out of the rut they are in. However, into that shiny new building you need to put the best, the most energetic, the most gifted, the most committed teachers you can find. And then you need to put an experienced Head and school management team in there and let them get on with it. They will be able to create a new ethos without any need for a friendly electrical retailer on the board of governors to advise.
Thankyou.
PS I've never taught in an Academy. If any of my readers have, I sincerely invite you to rubbish all of the above.
OK, take a look at this news story: a Head from Barking who serves on the 'Specialist Schools and Academies Trust' which 'helps the government recruit education sponsors' told a journalist that if you donated money "the prime minister's office would recommend someone like [the donor] for an OBE, a CBE or a knighthood". And ... Downing Street said at the time it was "nonsense to suggest that honours are awarded for giving money to an academy". (And the Guardian have it here)
Whoa. Now for a short test, boys and girls. What is the real news story here?
1) That knighthoods can be bought be large donations of money, making a mockery of a system designed to recognise merit
2) That Downing Street can swat away the on-the-record comment of a respected person by labelling it nonsense, and presumably insist he resigns to try and neutralise the effect immediately
or
3) That we live in a society where a majority influence on the governing body of a state school can be bought for approximately £2 million by anyone who feels like it.
And the answers?
I don't know about you, but I think that it's point 3) that has always been, and continues to be, the real news story.
I am vaguely concerned about the whole cash for honours thing, as I would like to live in a meritocractic society, but hey, it's no biggie.
Yes, it does send a chill down my spine to be reminded of the blatant way that government can silence any critical comment by saying 'it is not so' and demanding resignations and public apologies as scalps.
But the really, really important thing is this: inner city schools are being sold to anyone with any agenda at all. For the sum of only 8% of total start-up costs!
For this bargain price you get...
- influence in the name, ethos and style of the institution
- controlling interest on the governing body (yes, I said that before but it bears repetition)
- And once you have this influence with the governors, you can use it employ anyone you want because you are exempt from the requirement to only employ teachers registered with the GTC!
- And then you can pay them anything you want because you can opt out of the national pay structure!
(Aside - I wrote a sci-fi short story about ten years ago set in a dystopian future school; I was rooting around for a brand name to give the school, such as the 'Ronald McDonald High School' or the 'Microsoft School'. So I honestly thought it was fiction when I first heard about the Dixons Academy - but it's not. It's a state school sponsored by a chain of electrical stores.)
What does the government really think it's doing?
If there was a huge amount of money going into these schools, say £20 million, and if the major obstacle in the way of improving inner city education was simply cash, and if the government had a serious shortfall, I could be persuaded that huge injections from philathropists or businesses was justifiable. And if in return the donor got their name above the door or the right to serve on the governors as a sort of sinecure or even a knighthood, well, hey, I can live with that. But does getting 8-10% of the cost paid really help that much? Surely you could just build one less academy instead.
You see, I don't think the Academy program is primarily about fund-raising. The government don't actually believe that money is all we need to solve the problem of inner city schooling. Tony B wants to demolish old schools and build new ones but with a new ethos. And here's where it goes bad for me - he believes the only way to get ethics, values, vision and character for his academies is to buy it.
£2 million does not represent a shortfall that needs to be filled, £2 million is a test, set to see how strong someone's (or some organisation's) commitment to leading a school is. So the logic must be - to have something serious to offer inner city education, you must a) be interested and b) pass the £2 million test to see if you are committed or just pissing around, writing blogs and generally just talking it up.
I don't like it one little bit (which doesn't mean that all academies are terrible institutions per se, not even the Dixon's Academy which I've never visited; please don't think I am getting at you or your leadership if you are toiling in an Academy, doing your best for inner city students and making a difference.) I don't like it because the underlying idea is that the problem of inner city education can be solved by finding people and groups of people who pass the £2 million test. Wheras I think that the best people to solve the problem of an inner city school are a group of committed teachers, well-led by an inspirational and pragmatic leadership team (and a body of parents who will work to support the school.) And hey, they don't usually have time to accumulate £2 million between them because they are too busy.
To conclude at last: the major obstacle in the way of improving inner city education is not simply cash; we need strong schools with teachers and leaders who share a profound, robust vision for education and who can create a new optimism, value-structure and vision in the place of what was previously perceived as a 'failing' school. Knocking down the old buildings and replacing them is one way of kick-starting this change, so in that respect the government is maybe doing a good thing by flipping difficult schools out of the rut they are in. However, into that shiny new building you need to put the best, the most energetic, the most gifted, the most committed teachers you can find. And then you need to put an experienced Head and school management team in there and let them get on with it. They will be able to create a new ethos without any need for a friendly electrical retailer on the board of governors to advise.
Thankyou.
PS I've never taught in an Academy. If any of my readers have, I sincerely invite you to rubbish all of the above.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Why boys don't read and girls don't take things apart
'In the beginning, boys don't do well at school because their verbal abilities are inferior to those of girls. As a result, they perform poorly in languages, English and the arts...In later years, girls fall behine in physics and sciences where spatial ability is vital. But while remedial language classes are full of boys whose worried parents hope and pray that their sons will eventually be able to read, write and speak properly, no such caveat is put on girls to brush up on their spatial reasoning. They simply end up changing subjects.'
Allan and Barbara Pease, 'Why men don't listen and women can't read maps'
Was reading this book again and came across the above quote, very striking in relation to yesterday's Purves ponderings. I always said that the most important thing you need to take away from your education is the ability to read so would have previously supported this verbal bias in education unthinkingly. I am a 'typical' woman - I can't parallel park, navigate judge spaces - but significantly, I wanted to be an engineer at various times in my childhood (well, a coal miner actually, but what I was expressing was a yearning fascination with heavy machinery, not a desire to be underground.) I did go on to do science A-levels but did not end up in physics or engineering. One reason was that expressed by my Mum as 'You can't be an engineer, people who end up as engineers take things apart and you don't do that'. Well, I did try and make up for this in later years but lacked the instinct and the chutzpah shown by (usually) men when they take your bike/computer apart with the blithe conviction that they will be able to put it together again. I always thought that my Mum was right and I would have been a rubbish engineer anyway.
But let's turn it around. Little boy wants to be a historian because of a fascination with the olden days. Would a parent say 'You can't be a historian, people who end up as historians read a lot and you don't do that'... Hum, maybe, maybe not. But as the Peases point out, there is a huge public concern about the fact that boys don't read enough... and when was the last time you read a newspaper story about how appalling it is that girls don't play with construction toys enough?
Allan and Barbara Pease, 'Why men don't listen and women can't read maps'
Was reading this book again and came across the above quote, very striking in relation to yesterday's Purves ponderings. I always said that the most important thing you need to take away from your education is the ability to read so would have previously supported this verbal bias in education unthinkingly. I am a 'typical' woman - I can't parallel park, navigate judge spaces - but significantly, I wanted to be an engineer at various times in my childhood (well, a coal miner actually, but what I was expressing was a yearning fascination with heavy machinery, not a desire to be underground.) I did go on to do science A-levels but did not end up in physics or engineering. One reason was that expressed by my Mum as 'You can't be an engineer, people who end up as engineers take things apart and you don't do that'. Well, I did try and make up for this in later years but lacked the instinct and the chutzpah shown by (usually) men when they take your bike/computer apart with the blithe conviction that they will be able to put it together again. I always thought that my Mum was right and I would have been a rubbish engineer anyway.
But let's turn it around. Little boy wants to be a historian because of a fascination with the olden days. Would a parent say 'You can't be a historian, people who end up as historians read a lot and you don't do that'... Hum, maybe, maybe not. But as the Peases point out, there is a huge public concern about the fact that boys don't read enough... and when was the last time you read a newspaper story about how appalling it is that girls don't play with construction toys enough?
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Forced to agree with Libby Purves
Less than 48 hours after her first mention on my blog, Ms Purves makes a re-appearance. This article in ATL report is all about the lack of practical content to the modern curriculum. I think she's on to something.
(I had a ruthlessly hands-off education at a girl's school where we didn't even do domestic science because the indomitable head had decreed that 'Any idiot can read a cook book'. Science did include practicals but there again we only did two sciences a term (chemistry and physics, then chemistry and biology, then biology and physics) to make way for the four - four - languages I was studying by the age of 14. I certainly never studied woodwork or metalwork, and my one attempt at pottery was a complete disaster, shattering in the kiln and leaving me with a long-standing animosity towards my art teacher. So I never had a chance to improve my lack of co-ordination through experimenting with my hands, which is certainly a shame.)
(I had a ruthlessly hands-off education at a girl's school where we didn't even do domestic science because the indomitable head had decreed that 'Any idiot can read a cook book'. Science did include practicals but there again we only did two sciences a term (chemistry and physics, then chemistry and biology, then biology and physics) to make way for the four - four - languages I was studying by the age of 14. I certainly never studied woodwork or metalwork, and my one attempt at pottery was a complete disaster, shattering in the kiln and leaving me with a long-standing animosity towards my art teacher. So I never had a chance to improve my lack of co-ordination through experimenting with my hands, which is certainly a shame.)
Saturday, April 08, 2006
Scientific illiteracy (via other blogs of note)
As it's now the Easter holidays I have time to mess around with my Blog template. Be not alarmed if it changes over the next few days.
It's also time to catch up with posts on my other favourite blogs, which in no particular order include
'The Teacher' for wit and misery from the chalkface
'Cornescast' for M's rants (which increasingly rival those of the rant-master himself, Dr Mark Kermode)- Cornes's tend to start out as hardcore computing and end up as tirades against life itself.
'The Dormitory Boys' because nothing sums up the banality and brilliance of the WWW like web cam footage of teenaged Chinese boys lipsynching while their dormitory mates get on with life in the background. (I pretend I'm trying to get inside the minds of my students but really... just watch 'Bu de bu ai')
Anyway, Mr Cornes has a very interesting entry about scientific illiteracy. I think the solution to the problem is teaching school kids the philosophy and sociology of science at school, along with how to deconstruct TV documentaries.
And the solution to getting more and better maths teachers is the same as the solution to many educational problems - make teaching a more enjoyable job by reducing beaurocracy, improving respect and sharing some of the blame for low standards around - it's not always our fault, it's also the fault of government, the media, parents and students themselves; so please step up and take some responsibility...
It's also time to catch up with posts on my other favourite blogs, which in no particular order include
'The Teacher' for wit and misery from the chalkface
'Cornescast' for M's rants (which increasingly rival those of the rant-master himself, Dr Mark Kermode)- Cornes's tend to start out as hardcore computing and end up as tirades against life itself.
'The Dormitory Boys' because nothing sums up the banality and brilliance of the WWW like web cam footage of teenaged Chinese boys lipsynching while their dormitory mates get on with life in the background. (I pretend I'm trying to get inside the minds of my students but really... just watch 'Bu de bu ai')
Anyway, Mr Cornes has a very interesting entry about scientific illiteracy. I think the solution to the problem is teaching school kids the philosophy and sociology of science at school, along with how to deconstruct TV documentaries.
And the solution to getting more and better maths teachers is the same as the solution to many educational problems - make teaching a more enjoyable job by reducing beaurocracy, improving respect and sharing some of the blame for low standards around - it's not always our fault, it's also the fault of government, the media, parents and students themselves; so please step up and take some responsibility...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
