In the preamble, the Tories make their usual jibes against ‘big government’ and the need to redistribute power. However, when you get into the detail they seem to be contradicting themselves. They talk about ‘more unannounced inspections’, the publication of all DCSF data and an even bigger rolling out of the Academies program, which will admittedly reduce the role of local authorities, but still I don’t think Labour or the Tories have got the right idea on interference with education. On the radio the other day a teacher with thirty years experience made an analogy with the health secretary – you wouldn’t get Andy Burnham going into an NHS hospital and telling consultants how to do their job. However, because nearly all of us have been through the state system there seems to be a constant desire to ‘tinker’ because experience gives them some sort of right. This goes all the way back to the creation of the National Curriculum by the Thatcher government in 1988. Since then the paperwork has come thick and fast; there is a constant need to be showing that you can ‘do the job’ by producing paper evidence. When I did my PGCE I handed in two ring binders worth of material at the end which probably had more of influence on whether I passed or failed than the actual classroom observations of my teaching. If someone sees you teaching properly you should be allowed to get on with it.
Cameron talks about using the Swedish model – in Sweden there is a much greater emphasis on letting the teacher get on with the job. The actual act of transmitting knowledge has been sidelined to such an extent by ‘bureaucracy’ that it’s seriously driving down the morale of teachers. The first thing that either party could do – but neither is committed as yet – is getting rid of Key Stage 2 SATs in Year 6. This would end the ‘teaching to the test’ culture that exists in Year 6 and actually allow the teachers to teach in the final year of primary school.
In Sweden, too, teachers are paid more and are held in much higher esteem. I think its something quite specific to the UK in that teachers are not considered to be as important or worthy as GPs, solicitors etc…which is surprising considering the vital role they play (how many Oxbridge graduates are teachers? Admittedly possibly more during a recession but there’s not the same ‘made it!’ success culture with teaching as there is in medicine and law). I like Cameron’s idea of making teaching ‘brazenly elitist’ but I’m sceptical, as are many teachers, that the brightest graduates make the best teachers. I think I’ve got good subject knowledge but that forms about 5% of the repertoire of a good teacher – something that I’m still learning. He also says that graduates on ITT programs will need at least a 2:2 in his government. I would be surprised if any university in the country accepts a student with a Third. Also, why is he offering to pay off the debts of maths and science graduates? Well, I suppose it’s because they’re core subjects but there’s no mention of the humanities. 70% of pupils quit history at 14 – surely that’s a problem if we’re trying to get kids thinking about ‘Britishness’, Citizenship, prejudice etc…
I support what he says about making it easier for teachers to use reasonable force to restrain pupils. The unions are in agreement that the law is currently on the side of the pupil – there have been countless careers ruined due to the false claims made by pupils of their teachers to the extent that many will refuse to take trips out of school or intervene in fights.
Finally, talking about education within the ‘theme’ of a broken society is extremely offensive to all those people who do brilliant work in schools. Any teacher reading this will be filled with doom and gloom. If the Tories want to extend Labour’s Academies surely they must have something good to say about them. Furthermore, they also claim that ‘safe classrooms, talented and specialist teachers, access to the best curriculum and exams’ are ‘currently only available to the well-off’ – what a load of bollocks! Now I admit that in poorer areas you tend to get poorer schools. That’s probably because the best teachers aren’t tempted by living in rough areas, I don’t know. However, my school is a comprehensive, some of the kids aren’t well off, some are in children’s homes, and they get a fantastic education from what is a ‘good’ school – according to Ofsted.
No comments:
Post a Comment