During the election both coalition parties promised less "top down" micro-management from the centre. Now, by introducing tests on phonics into the infant schools, they are trying to dictate how children are taught to read. This is in stark contrast to the 50s when I trained as a teacher. Then it was our proud boast that, unlike the regimented French teachers , who were clearly not trusted by their governments, our teachers were free to teach whatever and however was in the best interests of their pupils.
I do not claim to be an expert on teaching reading, but, unlike, I suspect, those ministers who claim to know best, I have actually and successfully taught a handful of "backward" readers to read.
It is hardly rocket science, but seems to have escaped these know-all ministers that:
*all children are different;,
*some are ready to read before others (my next-door neighbours younger son reached "reading readiness" very early because he was desperate to read the instructions on his video-games);
*forcing young children to learn things before they are ready is usually a waste of time and often counter-productive;
*different children respond in different ways to different methods of learning to read.
In my brief period as a junior schools teacher (with one hectic half-term taking the reception class in the infants) reading was taught by "look and say" and phonetics. The standard system was "Janet and John" and page five contained the word "aeroplane", after reaching which every long word was "aeroplane" to some children.I'm sure that fifty years later things have moved on a bit but, in education as in medicine and most other areas it is a nonsense for politicians to be dictating the minutiae of professional practices. The result inevitably leads to a "tick box" mentality and lower standards.
Showing posts with label Politics and education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics and education. Show all posts
Monday, 9 April 2012
Wednesday, 28 March 2012
Riots: blame the schools! (No change there then.)
A commission on the causes of last summer's riots has recommended that schools should be fined if they don't turn out suitably servile citizens. For all of my active career, which now spans over fifty years, it has been customary to blame the schools for any of the ills of society, from the young's alleged inability to manipulate the multiplication tables to their lack of moral fibre.
I treasure the remarks of Nigel de Gruchy, General Secretary of my union, (now called the NASUWT) which he made in 1996:
...morality is caught not taught. Example is the best teacher of all and it's no good expecting schools to save the nation from moral decline while there is so much sleaze at the top; while the media is obsessed with private lives; while company directors award themselves massive pay hikes as they make their employees redundant; and while tax concessions are handed to the rich and thousands are forced to live on the streets. In reality schools are often oases of morality in a desert of couldn't-care-less corruption.
How sad that so little has changed over 16 years, in spite of Labour rule during 13 of them.
For most of the 1980s I worked in an inner city comprehensive where I taught some lower-school maths. We were a 13 to 18 school and I liked to keep my third form (ie first year in that school) for the three years until they took their 16+ exams. Each year I welcomed a bunch of mostly bright and eager pupils and promised myself some good results in three years' time. This enthusiasm usually continued throughout the fourth year, but during the fifth and final one the pupils gradually stopped coming. This was particularly true after Christmas when it was common knowledge in the area the the attendance officers, successors of the "school bobbies" of my own childhood, didn't bother you in the final two terms. So although those who saw out the course usually performed creditably the over-all record was somewhat dismal.
The point of this personal reminiscence is that schools play only a part in engendering academic achievement, character building or whatever else you think is the purpose of education. I suppose some bright spark from OFSTED, who probably in private boasts gleefully of having escaped the classroom, would today incant that we should have made our lessons more stimulating so that the pupils wanted to come. We tried of course, but educational achievement in most subjects requires hard graft as well as enjoyment. And even professional stand-up comedians might find it difficult to hold their audiences for eight periods a day five days a week.
Unless the parents and, equally importantly, the community, are on side then the schools are batting on a losing wicket.
And (here's a message for today's government) however lofty the ideals of we teachers are in our quest for opening windows and revealing the exciting wonders of the world to the young, what the parents, community and pupils want is qualifications that lead to jobs. And if the qualifications are bogus and there are no jobs...
I treasure the remarks of Nigel de Gruchy, General Secretary of my union, (now called the NASUWT) which he made in 1996:
...morality is caught not taught. Example is the best teacher of all and it's no good expecting schools to save the nation from moral decline while there is so much sleaze at the top; while the media is obsessed with private lives; while company directors award themselves massive pay hikes as they make their employees redundant; and while tax concessions are handed to the rich and thousands are forced to live on the streets. In reality schools are often oases of morality in a desert of couldn't-care-less corruption.
How sad that so little has changed over 16 years, in spite of Labour rule during 13 of them.
For most of the 1980s I worked in an inner city comprehensive where I taught some lower-school maths. We were a 13 to 18 school and I liked to keep my third form (ie first year in that school) for the three years until they took their 16+ exams. Each year I welcomed a bunch of mostly bright and eager pupils and promised myself some good results in three years' time. This enthusiasm usually continued throughout the fourth year, but during the fifth and final one the pupils gradually stopped coming. This was particularly true after Christmas when it was common knowledge in the area the the attendance officers, successors of the "school bobbies" of my own childhood, didn't bother you in the final two terms. So although those who saw out the course usually performed creditably the over-all record was somewhat dismal.
The point of this personal reminiscence is that schools play only a part in engendering academic achievement, character building or whatever else you think is the purpose of education. I suppose some bright spark from OFSTED, who probably in private boasts gleefully of having escaped the classroom, would today incant that we should have made our lessons more stimulating so that the pupils wanted to come. We tried of course, but educational achievement in most subjects requires hard graft as well as enjoyment. And even professional stand-up comedians might find it difficult to hold their audiences for eight periods a day five days a week.
Unless the parents and, equally importantly, the community, are on side then the schools are batting on a losing wicket.
And (here's a message for today's government) however lofty the ideals of we teachers are in our quest for opening windows and revealing the exciting wonders of the world to the young, what the parents, community and pupils want is qualifications that lead to jobs. And if the qualifications are bogus and there are no jobs...
Thursday, 2 February 2012
Gove gets it wrong - again.
The government that promised less micromanaging from the centre has once again, in the form of Michael Gove's edict that schools may no longer count a long list of vocational qualifications in the calculation of their "league table" status, poked its nose in and caused further damage. What is needed is not the downgrading of vocational qualifications but the abolition of the league tables.
For years the second class if not third class status of vocational qualifications has been one of the major weaknesses of British education. We used to have perfectly good and highly respected qualifications, obtained mainly through work-based apprenticeships and "day release" to technical colleges, and validated by responsible bodies such as the "City and Guilds" and RSA. Young men and women with a "Full Tech" Certificate could hold their heads up high and employers could rely on their stickablity and ability to do the job.
Successive government have, through a series of "reforms" poked their noses in and introduced a confetti of qualifications incomprehensible to both the holders and employers. GNVQs were quickly dubbed in the staffrooms as "Going Nowhere Very Quiclky" and NVQs as "Not Very Qualified." Admitedly some of this derision arose from the snobbish attitudes of many academic teachers, but a system which produces embossed certificates with fancy signatures and seals of approval for anything from a three year course to a one day session on how to wash up hygienically could hardly gain respect.
Like, I suspect, most teachers, I should prefer to see the years of compulsory schooling devoted to genuine education and vocational training left to the further and higher education levels. However, it should be up to schools to decide at what age and for which pupils the educational mix should be leavened, where necessary, by some instruction which is more obviously vocational.
Given the existence of league tables it is not surprising that school leaders take their eyes off their main purpose, inspiring their pupils with a knowledge of the many wonders the world has to offer and a love of learning more about them, to how to achieve shabby improvements in their places on the government's marking scheme. It is this "tick box" mentality which damages our education and demeans the teaching profession. League tables should be abolished and teachers trusted to get on with their job.
For years the second class if not third class status of vocational qualifications has been one of the major weaknesses of British education. We used to have perfectly good and highly respected qualifications, obtained mainly through work-based apprenticeships and "day release" to technical colleges, and validated by responsible bodies such as the "City and Guilds" and RSA. Young men and women with a "Full Tech" Certificate could hold their heads up high and employers could rely on their stickablity and ability to do the job.
Successive government have, through a series of "reforms" poked their noses in and introduced a confetti of qualifications incomprehensible to both the holders and employers. GNVQs were quickly dubbed in the staffrooms as "Going Nowhere Very Quiclky" and NVQs as "Not Very Qualified." Admitedly some of this derision arose from the snobbish attitudes of many academic teachers, but a system which produces embossed certificates with fancy signatures and seals of approval for anything from a three year course to a one day session on how to wash up hygienically could hardly gain respect.
Like, I suspect, most teachers, I should prefer to see the years of compulsory schooling devoted to genuine education and vocational training left to the further and higher education levels. However, it should be up to schools to decide at what age and for which pupils the educational mix should be leavened, where necessary, by some instruction which is more obviously vocational.
Given the existence of league tables it is not surprising that school leaders take their eyes off their main purpose, inspiring their pupils with a knowledge of the many wonders the world has to offer and a love of learning more about them, to how to achieve shabby improvements in their places on the government's marking scheme. It is this "tick box" mentality which damages our education and demeans the teaching profession. League tables should be abolished and teachers trusted to get on with their job.
Tuesday, 6 September 2011
Another cheer for Nick
Nick Clegg spoke out strongly yesterday against the lazy idea that the recent riots are all the fault of the schools and all that is needed is for the teachers to be tougher (hence fast-track in some former soldiers), teach traditional subjects in the traditional manner and and make the kids behave.
"Teachers are not surrogate mothers and fathers," said Nick. "They cannot do it all."
Blaming the schools for perceived social ills, from bad spelling through teenage pregnancies to hooliganism and rioting, is nothing new: in fact it has been around throughout my career, and possibly longer. I well remember, in the 1960s, when I was a keen union representative for the NAS (now the more politicly correct NASUWT) our general secretary, the formidable Terry Casey, forcefully pointing out that schools are often oases of virtue amidst deserts of immorality. (Mr Casey put it rather better than that: he had a way with words.)
However it is put, the truth remains. With or without the statutory act of "broadly Christian" worship at the beginning of each day (and what other organisations other than parliament attempt that?) schools try to develop the concepts of integrity, modesty, honour, loyalty, endeavour, reliability, tolerance, respect for others, sportsmanship, teamwork, the pursuit of truth, justice and the appreciation of beauty in a world motivated principally by greed,sex and self-promotion.
A respected deputy head for whom I worked used to ague, in relation to length of hair, dangly earrings and other items with which deputies are required to concern themselves, that "the school cannot be too far in advance of society." The same applies to the more important aspects of life. If society expects the young to behave honourable and decently then it must adopt those values itself.
Nick deserves another cheer for trying to block the idea that free schools could become "for profit" businesses. A pity he didn't stick the Liberal Democrat neck out even further and try to block the largely self-serving free schools altogether.
"Teachers are not surrogate mothers and fathers," said Nick. "They cannot do it all."
Blaming the schools for perceived social ills, from bad spelling through teenage pregnancies to hooliganism and rioting, is nothing new: in fact it has been around throughout my career, and possibly longer. I well remember, in the 1960s, when I was a keen union representative for the NAS (now the more politicly correct NASUWT) our general secretary, the formidable Terry Casey, forcefully pointing out that schools are often oases of virtue amidst deserts of immorality. (Mr Casey put it rather better than that: he had a way with words.)
However it is put, the truth remains. With or without the statutory act of "broadly Christian" worship at the beginning of each day (and what other organisations other than parliament attempt that?) schools try to develop the concepts of integrity, modesty, honour, loyalty, endeavour, reliability, tolerance, respect for others, sportsmanship, teamwork, the pursuit of truth, justice and the appreciation of beauty in a world motivated principally by greed,sex and self-promotion.
A respected deputy head for whom I worked used to ague, in relation to length of hair, dangly earrings and other items with which deputies are required to concern themselves, that "the school cannot be too far in advance of society." The same applies to the more important aspects of life. If society expects the young to behave honourable and decently then it must adopt those values itself.
Nick deserves another cheer for trying to block the idea that free schools could become "for profit" businesses. A pity he didn't stick the Liberal Democrat neck out even further and try to block the largely self-serving free schools altogether.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)