Michael Gove

[LadyBlaBlah]

Does anyone get the impression that the list detailing which school building projects were going to be axed wasn't given much thought?

Sounds like a bit of an arbitrary list done in a haphazard fashion.

Really, how could he make such a fundamental clerical error if the list had been given any thought at all?

Typical

It is all about finding money to fund their so called "Free" schools. If they abandon the crumbling buildings the middle classes will move to Free schools or go private - lining the pockets of business. They don't give a stuff about anyone else, so why would they care if those less financially comfortable children are left behind are in rotten buildings.

Why would learning Latin enable bright children to 'reach their potential'?

Everytime he opens his mouth, I hear Eminem rapping, 'Nowadays everybody wanna talk, like they all got something to say. But nothing comes out when they move they lips, just a bunch of gibberish . . . '

Tee hee!

Muminlondon - you have a point. According to this parliamentary report

"60% of modern language A grades come from in independent schools."

MissM - I didn't study Latin - so I'm no expert, but private, grammar and some of the most academically successful Comprehensive schools offer it. So I assume it has some merit. Tbh - the drop in the 'harder subjects' studied in state schools is the real issue - see my link above.

I think the main problem is actually not money, or buildings, or whether schools are 'free' or not, but the fact that shedloads of teachers in the UK have limited subject knowledge and are teaching out of their area, particularly in MFL, Maths, Science and the like.

Amongst primary school teachers the situation is even more dire, with hardly an A Level Maths in sight, let alone decent scientific knowledge. Even their spelling and proofreading skills can be variable. In addition to this, vast swathes of primary school teachers are monolingual (unlike so many of their pupils in urban areas) and forced to try to teach a bit of French or whatever very badly under duress. Their knowledge of music and art is extremely limited - it is a big deal if someone has grade 3 piano and can accompany in assembly (in fact that seems to be the requirement to be Music Co-Ordinator), or can get the kids to draw a few daffodils stuck in a jar. In short, many of the poorer teachers are lacking in creativity, lacking in culture, unintellectual and unscholarly and do our country a huge disservice, while the teachers that do bring more to the table seem to lurk in the shadows. To be a good teacher, particularly in primary schools, you need to be something of a Renaissance man or woman, but we seem to applaud and reward people who fill in forms well and comply to competency tick lists. I despair.

Boffinmum - I think John Abbott would agree with you.

In his book 'Over Schooled but Under educated'

He recommends we "....reverse the priority... for secondary education in favour of seeing the primary sector as the time and place where the essential foundations for learning are built."

But in 1996 a senior government advisor told him that, whilst he agreed with his theory "the system you are arguing for would require very good teachers....there will never be enough...so instead we are going for a teacher proof system of organising schools - that way we can get a uniform standard."

I completely disagree with you BoffinMum and with Jack Abbott's summary quoted by Jack (haven't read his book or heard of him). I was a teacher, still work in education, my husband is a teacher and I obviously know and work with a whole variety of teachers, primary and secondary.

Obviously there are poor teachers everywhere, just as there are poor doctors, poor solicitors, poor nurses, poor shop keepers... But I disagree that the good ones 'lurk in the shadows' - I think it's the poor ones who lurk, or how would they get away with being poor? The fact that teachers are required to teach French without even having a GCSE in a language is not their fault or responsibility. A good teacher isn't necessarily the one with the most A levels and highest degree. As for secondary schools being seen as the foundation for learning - what rubbish. If you look at the EYFS or even the curriculum at KS1 you will see just how crucial the early years are perceived as being. Primary teachers know that, are trained in that, and are absolutely clear that they are building the foundations for future learning. Why do you think so many resources go into special needs at that age?

Every week I see incredibly talented, committed and creative teachers. They may not be master of everything (and that is part of the problem - that everything is laid at their door), but they do a bloody good job of providing their classes with the best they can. DH for example speaks no French, yet every week he comes home with his French lesson for the week, goes over the vocabulary with me, talks about ways to make it fun and practices his accent. Ok, not ideal, but under the circumstances he's doing the absolute best he can.

Sorry for the rant - I get very annoyed with the blanket labelling of teachers as poor and as primaries being no good!

Well, I don't think it's impossible, and I don't think it needs to be teacher proof. Teachers are not stupid, but need steering towards a more scholarly model of professionalism. If we incentivised primary teachers to take advanced courses in Maths, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Languages, Music, Art, and so on, then this surely would have a massive impact on their ability to deliver the curriculum properly, and indeed even contest the curriculum where necessary. I am thinking of Diplomas slightly above the level of an A Level, delivered by subject specialists in local universities. Teachers who bothered to study for one of these could be lifted a point on the payscale for each additional subject they had studied to this level.

Let's reward intellectual endeavour and subject interest, and move away from the pseudo Marxist educational rationing that goes on in primary schools where the main aim is to get all children to a basic average (not even the USSR in its heyday would apply Marxist philosophy in such a flawed way).

I didn't label all teachers as being poor, I accused poor teachers of being unscholarly and suggested that the ones who made more effort to engage academically with curriculum subject areas did not receive enough plaudits.

I'm really bothered by the state of upper junior education at the moment. I think most of years 5 and 6 is wasted for so many children because we deny them subject specialists.

Boffin - I think it's more wasted because of the emphasis on getting good SATS results. Many year 6 kids spend the first two terms of the year simply cramming. To me that's more of a problem than not being taught by specialists.

To be honest, lots of primary schools do bring in specialists more and more - PE training, artists, musicians to name just a few. And many teachers do undertake specialist training in subjects, INSETs, Masters degrees, special needs diplomas etc.

What's the solution? To go back to a middle school system or a secondary-type system in primary schools? Personally I think that until we stop assuming that the solutions for everything lie at a teacher's door things will start to get better. Stop expecting them to be social workers, administrators, managers, nutritionists, personal trainers and experts in child protection and they might start to get somewhere.

Hang on, where did the argument about BSF go?!

MissM, I am going to be a bit hard on you now but I hope you take it in the spirit of concern for children and realise I am not having a personal go at your DH, as I can see he is rather between a rock and a hard place in terms of current school systems ...

... however ...

I think you gave a good example of an unscholarly approach to being a teacher. I would suggest that if teachers do not speak French but are required to teach it, then they should consider spending their summer holidays in France improving fluency. Instead they would probably make arguments about the fact they are being 'forced' to teach it despite not speaking it, 'need' their summer break and should not have to arrange to do anything education-related, and 'can't afford' to go to France for an extended visit to improve the situation. I suggest a really committed educationalist would be more pro-active than simply mugging up each lesson slightly ahead of time. That is the point I am making - we need a shift in professional culture here.

Thank you for your disclaimer - I will take what you say in the spirit in which it is meant! But I think you are being unfair calling his approach unscholarly. In DH's defence - actually we have been to France for summer holidays several times, and he does make a real effort to speak French when we are there. He also has very little time on his hands to do anything other than mug up each week as he's the SENCo at his school as well as having a class. His priority is rightly the kids on the SEN register. I think it's unfair and unrealistic to expect every teacher to study every subject they are required to teach in depth.

I would argue that DH is a committed educationalist - he works evenings and weekends to do what he should as a good SENCo, but he is caught in a system that says primary kids should (rightly IMO) learn a language, without putting the resources in place to fulfill that requirement. So people like him are left to teach French, when they have other very pressing responsibilities. I know he's my DH so I'm biased, but I admire him for not moaning (well, only a little bit), accepting that this is what he's got to do and doing his best by the kids. Not the way it should be, but at the moment the way it is. Actually I think it's more the responsibility of the headteacher to sort out his/her resourcing so that people like DH aren't left to teach French.

I feel as strongly about this as you do Boffin. If they'd let me I'd honestly go in and teach those kids French myself, without charging. I'm just glad that I can speak it well enough to fill any gaps my kids will have when they start school if they're taught French by someone like DH.

See, this is why I HE

It is my personal opinion that any teacher should at the very least have a pure degree in the subject they teach, then acquire the training/skills to teach it.

A Maths teacher should have a degree in Mathematics, then do the PGCE, regardless of whether they teach primary or secondary level.
the same goes for languages, sciences, even PE.

In a way the BSF programme will continue in a lesser form as Free schools take up the empty school buildings from when the LEAs closed the local schools and made all the local kids travel to a larger primary school. Genius idea, that

According to John Abbott's book, our school system was not designed to optimise our children's education. Most decisions have been taken for political or economic reasons.

E.g Following Butler, it was assumed that Grammar schools would be mainly populated by middle class children - so they were often built in MC areas (and in line with the prejudices of the day - in superior buildings). Then came the vision of equality and comprehensive education. Unfortunately, because of their locations - the ex-grammar school comps still mainly housed the MC's (without the bright WC) and the less affluent children went to the less well resourced ex-secondary modern.

And IMO, much of what the last two governments have been doing is trying to adapt and control this structure.

Blair's Academies were a device to push investment into the less affluent areas. And the previous Tory government started the centralised control and standardisation obsession which Labour extended.

So back to Gove. With his New Academies and Free Schools - I think he is just trying to give 'educational policy' back to the schools.

And actually this is exactly what I meant about involving the wider community in the schooling of children.
It is not acceptable to ask someone, no matter how committed, to teach a language they don't speak!

There are plenty of people in our communities who have languages other than English who are willing to volunteer their time, but are unable to do so because of the bureaucracy involved.
It's about recognizing the resources in the community are utilising them as best as we can, getting language students in to assist in the delivery of the programme as part of their courses, for example.

You can bet next months rent that the Free schools will doing exactly this, opening up the school to the parents and communities to be actively involved in supporting the school and their children.

"Let's reward intellectual endeavour and subject interest, and move away from the pseudo Marxist educational rationing that goes on in primary schools where the main aim is to get all children to a basic average (not even the USSR in its heyday would apply Marxist philosophy in such a flawed way). "

This is what I keep coming back to in observing what has gone wrong wth our eductaion system.

There is no room for excellence, no incentive to seek it out and nurture it. It is all about bringing up the average, partly by dumbing down the tests from KS1 SATS all the way up to 'A level' and partly by giving teachers a target (eg SAT Level 5) at Yr 6 which there is no reward for teaching beyond.

I know people like Feenie and other teachers disagree with me and this is not what is supposed to hapen but my sister was a TA (and now SEN teacher) and sees it, my nephew is in a state Primary and being held back at the pace of the weakest in the class. My own DSs at a private Prep that slavishly follows the National Curriculum is holding back the brightest children and totally unwilling to stretch them.

But there's a lot of contradictions going on here. On the one hand you're saying that teachers should be scholarly, study the subjects they have to teach, be specialists (although no-one's come up with a solution for that for primary teachers). And then on the other hand you're talking about inviting community members in to teach languages, home educating etc. Absolutely agree that the community can be a valuable resource (and is used in schools at the moment), but just because someone speaks a language doesn't mean they can teach it. And they may speak the language but not have a qualification in it or any kind of 'scholarly' involvement in it.

So what do we want? Academic specialists or just people who can do a certain thing teaching our kids?

Agree that decisions have been political or economic, just as they are currently under this government. New schools? No - we need to save money. Academies - yes because we're a new government, need to put our stamp on things, don't agree with the way Labour did it etc. etc.

I'm not a supporter of Academies of free schools, but I think we're agreeing on many other things here!

In order to teach a language, language teaching skills would need to be taught to every candidate and a modicum of classroom management skills too. Hauling proficient speakers in from the community does not make them effective teachers. It may be quicker to teach them to do this than to equip every monolinguist with at least a B in French at GCSE but still expensive, time consuming and seeing that they are not teachers anyway, would be a bitch to retain them.

Jackstarbright, we had 2 of the first academies near me in the North. They were both funded by Peter Vardy and both taught Creationism.

The first was already an excellent Catholic school, where you didn't just have to be a committed catholic to get your kids into it, you needed a letter from the friggin Pope!!

The second was a bog standard failing comp in a WC area, it's a nice building, but the kids are still thick as pig shite.

It seems to me that we, as a country, have a huge problem in accepting that some of our kids will get jobs stacking shelves in a supermarket.
It concerns me that we push all children to pursue an academic minded education, to take exams etc, when some kids just aren't cut out for it.
Basic of levels of numeracy & literacy should be ensured (not that it is now) which is, after all, what school was invented for. Beyond that, we need to have a rethink about what we are trying to achieve for a lot of kids and in whose best interests that is.

If you don't have a teacher who can speak French would you rather get someone else in "to assist in the delivery of a programme" or give a second/third rate education, no matter how well intentioned?

I did not advocate replacing teachers with volunteers. I do not think my points are contradictory at all. You cannot teach a subject you do not know yourself. What you can do is work with other resources to deliver an effective programme.
Just because someone has a PGCE doesn't automatically make them a teacher either imo

Home education doesn't cloud the issue at all, I HE out of choice, full stop.

sorky - my Dad left school at 14 (officially it was 15 but didnt go) and he worked on his Dad's farm. That is all he ever wanted to do. He is good with figures but can only read and write poorly.

I tend to agree that there has been an obsesison with sendng more and more kids to University. In reality 25% of kids should go to University and th other 75% go on to do an 'A Level' or world of work and proper state funded apprenticeship at 16.

That way, we get excellence at the top end of the academic scale and valuable skills in the remainder of the population.

Shelf stackers in other countries can be multilingual and well educated in terms of maths and literacy. What on earth is wrong with that? Some people prefer doing flexible low-stress work near home with a bit of bonhomie in the workplace, hence working in retail or similar. Others want to get out of their comfort zone and do ambitious things that involve personal incovenience and moving far away from home, so that probably means uni and one of the professions, or similar. We need both sorts of workers. However they can be educated in a similar way at school level.

Just because you are likely to do a repetitive job in adult life, it does not mean your entire education has to numb your mind in preparation, like something out of an Aldous Huxley novel.

I would add that I have had good success teaching music and German to school-averse adolescents in comprehensive schools, and they have expressed appreciation for this. They were perfectly capable of tackling the subject matter, it just took a bit of belief in them.

I agree Boffinmum, every child should have an engaging and diverse education which encourages their skills and passions, but it doesn't happen does it.
Every child is taught the same subjects in virtually the same prescriptive way, whether that topic holds any interest for them at all.
Little thought is given to whether the media suits the learning style of the child because there are 30 kids to educate.

There is no such thing as a better profession/job. There are some differences in pay/conditions, yes, but if people are happy doing the job they do, then fantastic.

I'm off, lunch is over, got to round them up again
it's been very interesting, thanks

I still like Michael Gove (at the minute)