Why is it only the right that gets angry about how state schools fail the poor?

[longfingernails]

A truly fantastic article.

blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/06/christine-blower-the-nut-and-the-bigotry-of-low-expectation/

My favourite snippet:
This is what separates British left and right now. The left, in their post-Blair phase, is no longer very worked up about the poor doing badly at school. (?It may matter or it may not,? Blower said about poor children not going to top universities). The standard left response is to talk philosophically about inequality in society, as if this has the slightest bearing on whether the concept of a sink school ought to be tolerated in this day and age.

By contrast, the right are hopping mad about educational inequality. When the subject is raised in front of Michael Gove, it?s like flicking a switch. He blows his top. When I last interviewed him and raised the subject about whether it poor kids should be expected to do as well as rich, he replied in a crescendo of anger.

Teachers are 'poorly trained and educated' and 'largely clueless'?

If this is the generally held view of the right, I am speechless. Really.

Teachers don't just stand in front of kids waffling. They plan schemes of work which develop knowledge, skills and understanding, they track progress of students and change their plans accordingly, they assess, come up with blisteringly unique ways of presenting otherwise tricky or dull concepts, they deal daily with numerous emotional and physical issues. None of this earns your respect. Not the degree in the subject they teach (Gove wants rid of this requirement) and not the PGCE, which is a rigorous and good qualification. It really is. As a teacher, I have trained in and delivered many, many different qualifications, some of which I think are really good and develop the learner and assess them well, some of which I think are less effective. This is my job. And I think PGCE is a good qualification, without going into the boring detail of why.

It's like the word 'teacher' brings out some kind of blind spot with people - you see an authoritative person standing up there at the front of the room, it's fun to tear them to shreds. Gove is enjoying it right now, reducing highly intelligent, passionate professionals to defending themselves and their very life work.

MrJudgey - you think teachers shouldn't plan curricula because they have vested interests? That politicians should do it because they don't?

Amazinggg. Well who is going to teach if ,all the teachers have left the profession. Certain uneducated people like to say things like"IF YOU CANT DO IT TEACH IT" this is the sort of nonsense that makes people believe they could do the job and that teachers are over paid and lazy. The vast majority of teachers are giving their very best everday and being derided every day by people ,who are using them as scapegoats has to why the country is in a mess.

I mean, I was recently a head of department. Part of that role was choosing which qualifications and courses to offer at 11, 14 and 16. Whether to offer the subject at all at A-level. I met with other HoDs across my borough to discuss borough-wide provision and progression routes. We looked at sharing resources. I run my departmental budget, choosing external providers to bring in services. I interview and employ assistants to work closely with particular student groups, prioritising as I see fit. I take students out on trips to widen their work view. I take them abroad sometimes. I follow my school's guidance for discipline and set punishments which make children cry sometimes. I have witnessed fights and abuse and had to make the right call. I help children choose the right course for them, I refuse to accept some on my subject if in my view they won't succeed and would be better suited elsewhere. I write references which determine how likely a student is to achieve future success.

It's a pretty powerful role in the scheme of your children's lives. That's why I love it. And why you are so scared of it and would rather politicians made our every decision for us. Middle managers in schools are your worst nightmare.

Aside from the odd poster on here, people do not think that teachers are lazy or over paid. If anything people hold my job in awe and seem to think that it is more difficult than it is.

Oh get off your high horse Amazing.
There are some great teachers out there (including, I am proud to say, many of my own family) and there is no doubt that the job is hugely important.
However your argument that all are top folk who 'come up with blisteringly unique ways of presenting otherwise tricky or dull concepts' is a nonsense. It's as ridiculous as those who would have us believe all nurses are 'angels' and all soldiers 'heroes'.
Teaching attracts many who drift into it by default. It shouldn't be like that.

I agree teachers, like any other sector of society come as good, bad and many shades in between.

I suppose I have drifted into teaching, it was not my first choice career and I went into teaching wanting more time with my children, that does not stop me from being a good teacher.

Not on any kind of a horse but sorry I I ranted. In my experience teachers are not how you described in your rather rude descriptions, and it does seem like that is how many in government perceive us - as downright ignorant and playing havoc. Not trained professionals in making decisions which affect children.

'trained professionals in making decisions which affect children.'

The phrase 'trained professionals' is the sort of meaningless guff spouted by public sector drones.
I always want to reply with a
'As opposed to what? An untrained professional?'

Gosh moondog, that is rather harsh.

You picked Amazingg up on a post, after she responded to your point that most teachers were uneducated, clueless and deserving of pity. Rather graciously, I thought, she apologised and then you throw public sector drone at her.

I think I will get back to my book.

She didn't have to apologise.
I was rather surprised that she did.
It's a discussion about Politics.
If you join in, you should be fighting your corner-as she has been.
Nothing achieved if we all agree with one another.

I'm a public sector drone myself. It takes one to know one.

Amazinggg you think teachers shouldn't plan curricula because they have vested interests? That politicians should do it because they don't?

If, by planning, you are referring to the day-to-day lesson planning, it would stupid to leave that in the hands of anyone other than the professionals who will be teaching the lesson.

Assuming you were referring to my earlier point about having one matriculation board rather than the patchwork quilt that we currently have, it makes sense that one examination board requires one syllabus.

As for who sets that syllabus, there should be input from teachers (as I said), but their opinion should be balanced against opinions from universities, employers, parents and even politicians too.

The important thing is to achieve a balance between the competing interests and to maintain the most rigorous of standards - something which I'm not sure that the current system delivers all that well.

Moondog - I stick with that description - because the point is that Gove et al are not trained professionals in children's education. It's terrifying to realise how little teachers' training and experience counts, how little we're trusted.

It's terrifying to realise how little teachers' training and experience counts, how little we're trusted.

That's because the results don't instil much faith.
People expect more than just good vibes and worksheets.
I do.

IMO the general public perception is that the NHS is tinkered with too much, that there are too many consultants and layers of management, and that money and time is wasted by endless new initiatives, and that staff are over-burdened with paperwork.

No-one blames nurses and doctors for any issues with standards in the NHS - there is a respect for the people doing the job. Teachers should be left to it. That is what would improve things.

There are some posts on here which show complete ignorance of the wide ranging role of a teacher. The more we are limited and told exactly what to teach, the more difficult our job becomes.

That was in response to Moondog's assumption that rubbish teachers are the cause of 'poor standards'

I don't feel the need to fight my corner or join a group and stick with it blindly.

I have seen people blame nurses for things, there have been accusations that nurses no longer care.

Can a teacher explain why so many school leavers are struggling to find employment? Are employers wrong to distrust qualifications such as GCSEs and A-Levels?

Can I add - I suspect the majority of teachers working in the most successful private schools were educated and trained within the state sector.

If state schools are awful because of their teachers, how is it that other teachers (mostly) trained and educated in the same system achieve such superior results with pupils from private schools?

Why do you think that, minifingers? I ask because my anecdotal data tells me the opposite - that teachers in the private sector were mostly privately educated themselves.

Amazingg, and thus we come full circle.
I suspect the reason most people like the idea of free schools is so that teachers can teach free from the constant interference of those who don't teach.
And yet (some) teachers rail against those who would set them free from this nightmare, or rather professional trouble makers like Christine Blower do. (No wonder union rates are plummeting. Their true purpose got sidelined years ago.)
As you say, certainly true of the NHS. If all those sitting in meetings, and tapping out countless emails actually got up and went out to help with the work instead of telling everyone else how to do it, things would improve vastly.
When I go into work, I feel physically ill when I open my email, such is the profusion of directives and information overload.

One more thing however. If teachers are all such heroes, how is it I have met and seen so many at work that I wouldn't trust with a hamster, let alone a child? Yet, they stay in post, year after year. We all know it is nigh impossible to get the sack in the public sector.
My husband (private sector) is incredulous at the tolerance of under performance in the public sector.)

Hopping mad about educational inequality? I don't think Johnson and Cameron are that bothered.

I think educational inequality comes from home, not school. The question has always been how do you give the benefits that some children receive at home to all children via school. Nobody has yet worked out how to do this on a large scale within the budget available.

I wouldn't argue that Labour were successful in doing this, and I agree that the obsession with everybody going away to study for 3 years was not very well thought out. (although the renaming of polytechnics, a good name for what they did, was a conservative policy).

However, much as I personally quite like learning poetry and am convinced of its educational benefits, I think social policy has a greater effect on educational outcome than changing a reading scheme or fiddling with the history syllabus.

As I understand it, currently, the number of poor people is increasing, and the only help being offered by the likes of IDS is a call for people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, which I don't think is helping teachers who have children in their class not getting enough food.

Interesting link about how much less time British kids spend on the three Rs than their counterparts in Europe

Reflects my own findings.
Want to spend an afternoon building a castle out of foam and 'thinking critically'? Go ahead!
An afternoon spent practicing handwriting and spelling? Booooooooring.

Is it accurate though?

It says the British curriculum focuses on non core subjects like sex education - does it?

It seems to concede lower down that the 14% spent on social studies includes history and geography - at secondary school this doesn't seem too alarming. I'm not sure how much of the 14% is made up of sex ed, but I am sure I spent atleast 14% of my school time studying humanities subjects, and I would be surprised if 'top public schools' and 'traditional grammar schools' do less.

I agree that teachers seem to be overly burdened with parenting their pupils given the available resources, and that this doesn't seem to be effectively helping the most disadvantaged children. However, what is the suggested alternative? The 'big society?'.

I don't know how accurate it is, but I thought interesting in light of discussion.
It's difficult isn't it? It seems either the home is filling in for what the child isn't learning at school, or the school is filling in for what the child isn't learning at home.
I was talking to a fantastic teacher yesterday and she said she felt that she is being asked to do too many things and as a result, cant; do any of them properly. She would rather focus on fewer and do them well.
I agree.