What does Nicky Morgan not seem to understand?

[theluckiest]

Nicky Morgan urges teachers' unions to 'do their bit' www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-35899478

No Nicky, teaching is not wonderful at the moment. No, teachers are not just moaning yet again (because that's what we usually do, isn't it?). No, your constant interfering, moving of goalposts and unnecessary 'reforms' are not helping anyone. In fact, you are damaging education irreparably.

Here's an example: the 'more rigorous' testing that you insist all 11 year olds should be put through are actually damaging. They are demoralising teachers but much more importantly, they are seriously damaging children's mental health. Yes, really. The stress these children are being put under is unforgivable this year. As a school we are held to ransom because of these tests (let's be honest, tests that we teachers, parents and schools know are bullshit).

They feel like they have failed already because your 'rigour' is inappropriate, unnecessary and completely pointless. They despise learning this nonsense and I can't blame them. At a time of their lives when learning should be exciting, they are force-fed inaccurate, archaic grammar and given the message that their writing cannot be good enough if it doesn't have a semi-colon.

Sounds crazy doesn't it? Because it is. So forgive me if I don't "Use the tools available to them to build up teachers, promote the profession and tell the story of what a rewarding job teaching really is" at the moment. (how I laughed when I read that one!!)

And don't get me started on academisation....Nicky, take your fingers out of your ears and listen. Before it's too late.

...& I left my UK teaching post (which I also had to compete for against a long- & shortlist 16 years ago) in July.

A non specialist is still ' temporarily' filling that post, & supply is covering that of my colleague who, ironically, decided doing supply permanently was more manageable after ML.

The brilliant nqt I was mentoring last year is off to teach abroad.

Giraffe, given that controlled assessments have led to cheating, malpractice and extreme stress for teachers I am delighted to see the back of them.

Yes, the coursework approach slightly favours girls but then that's not necessarily an argument for keeping them as English is a subject girls tend to perform better in than boys anyway. If the implication is that not only am I a bad, bad teacher but also a bad, bad feminist I can only point out that keeping a system that is so open to abuse and adds hugely to teacher workload is not a good reason to keep it because it slightly benefits the girlS.

No, raining there was no implication of anything. I know controlled assessments are rife with cheating and I was certainly glad to see coursework go, I was merely enquiring as to whether anyone had considered the effect on girls' results and thus the English departments' results as I'd not seen it discussed anywhere.

PrettyBrightFireflies
"Yes, that was my point. The change from OLevels/CSEs to GCSEs was greeted by the teaching profession with shrieks of derision."

Are you sure because that isn't how I remember it.

Every single time education has been changed, teachers have been up in arms. We have done ourselves no favours with that because the general attitude by now is that teachers won't like anything the government does, so people shrug and smile and roll their eyes a bit.
Mumsnet is not reflective of the general attitudes

Yes - indeed.
I retrained as a teacher after a career in business, and now work as a supply teacher, going regularly into the same few schools, and so see the staffroom etc from the inside. In one staffroom recently, I mentioned something I had read in the Times, and had a snarling 'I don't believe anything written in the Murdoch press' 'The government' is a dirty word in most staffrooms - no-one ever attributed any positive intentions to government initiatives, and this cynicism is then passed onto the children. recently a semi-literate 'experienced' teacher boasted on TES that as soon as heard the announcement that some schools would have money to have longer days, immediately told his Y9s (!) that it was because the 'government' had all been 'borders' (sic). No attempt to think through, get them to debate, think up make points on both side of the argument, but just lazy knee-jerk soundbite 'Tory scum'.
There is trend on all theses threads for people to claim 'there is no evidence' as if they had scoured peer-reviewed journals looking for academic research - doubt that somehow - again just a lazy way of attempting to close down reasoned arguments.
Now that Christing Blower has announced she is rejoinin ghte Labour Party, since Jezza spoke at the conferences, the NUT credibility in the outsode world is likely to fall even further.
No wonder many parents don't respect teachers, and pass their contempt onto the kids

Christ, it's like I've wandered below the line in the Daily Mail.

My experience, Guy is nothing like yours. In my staffroom I see lots of dedicated, intelligent people working themselves into the ground for the benefit of the kids. Sure, people don't like the government, but then lots of intelligent and well-informed people don't.

No wonder many parents don't respect teachers, and pass their contempt onto the kids sad

Hmmm

I did not say they were not hardworking or dedicated ... different point entirely.

But Guy the onus is on those proposing changes to provide the evidence.

It is right that teachers stand up to changes they believe will harm children's education and good that students see them doing so. Yes, some teachers may have political leanings that colour their opinions but that is no different to the rest of the population.

And far from it just being whingeing teachers who hate the Government who are upset about schools being forced to become academies. It is parents, students, local councillors (of all political persuasions), Ofsted...

There is no evidence that academies have any benefits to students over maintained schools which is why the Government cannot provide any. That's even before the potential (& actual) misuse of public funds by MATs is brought into the argument.

Surely any professional worthy of the title 'teacher' should be questioning the logic of forcing schools to become academies.

"Lazy" "semi-literate" "snarling" "close down reasoned arguments" "no wonder many parents don't respect them"

I'm sure you meant to say 'hard-working and dedicated' but the above just slipped out instead.

But Guy the onus is on those proposing changes to provide the evidence

This is exactly the point. There IS no evidence to suggest mass forced academisation improves schools. Over 8/10 state schools are good or outstanding currently-why do they need to become academies? Many academy trusts have, on the other hand, been criticised even by the head of Ofsted!

Why should we spent a great deal of money turning thousands of Good and Outstanding schools into something that appears to be broken?! Convince me!

summer it's not possible to convince someone to change their ideology. No system is perfect. There will always be good and bad schools, and good and bad teachers, irrespective of the system in place or the training and qualification framework offered.

The general trend in this country is for right-wing governments to decentralise, and involve the private sector in the delivery of public services. That is based on a belief that it improves quality and efficiency. Similarly, left-wing governments deliver and manage public services centrally, which they believe is better.
I'm sure my DD could explain it better - I was never a politics student.

After a term of coalition government, a move further towards the right has caused consternation amongst the public. But it really is no different in its extent to any other government which has taken advantage of a majority and weak opposition to further their ideology.
The NUT was equally vehement about its objections to the initiatives introduced by the last labour government, too.

Of course everyone has the right to object and strike, that is the nature of democracy. But the government doesn't have to listen. That is democracy, too. It's up to unions, professionals and individuals to decide if the action they plan to take has a likelihood of changing government policy, and whether the disruption caused is worth it.

Slightly at a tangent Guy, I'd be worried in the current climate if I'd made the choice to just do supply rather than take up a teaching post.

I know it's boom time at the moment with so many teacher shortages, but once QTS becomes a thing of the past, you chaps are going to be the proverbial tits on a bull. Academies will be able to employ plenty of cheap unqualified 'teachers' full time to supervise cover; no need to pay daily agency rates to an expensive supply colleague.

I've got a couple of mates who went into supply for an easier life after having dc. Both are quietly moving over increasingly to tutoring as an exit strategy.

Does nobody care about the impact of having future generations 'taught' by unqualified cheap labour?

How will we compare with other countries who have excellent education systems in place?

Or will 'we' be ok as the public school boys will have had great educations-in small classes, with no interference from constant curriculum changes- be the ones in charge?

Well, I've chosen to teach, & educate my dc, abroad because it's such a grim picture in the UK.

Over the last few years I've seen an increasing rise in teachers moonlighting as tutors to fill the gaps for those that can pay (& making reciprocal arrangements for their own kids).

& of course the private school system will quickly be able to advertise itself on its qualified, experienced staff - my current school overseas already does this, & wealthy parents are delighted to pay through the nose for British teachers.

So yes, I think rich kids will be fine. In fact, they'll have a great advantage over academy taught kids. If I were rich & without social conscience, I'd be perfectly happy with what's going on.

If I were rich & without social conscience, I'd be perfectly happy with what's going on.

And that sounds like the people in charge of our country! It won't be MP's children whose education suffers, you can be damn sure of that.

This reminds me of that Children of Earth Torchwood episode where aliens come and demand the lives of 10% of the nation's children. The MPs sit and discuss it -agreeing to the demands, but making sure the pot of children won't include any children in any of THEIR families...

Academies could - and some do - use unqualified Cover Supervisors but where those I work the state schools are academies, and employ supply teachers even if they have one or more on their staff. Cover Supervisors also get ill, need training days etc so cannot cover all the absences - they can only cover one absence per period, and often a whole dept is off, in a meeting, or for training.
One aspect that is often glossed over is that although a school may be using a teacher with QTS, they are using them for a subject outside their own expertise. On here, on TES, and in RL, often hear of teachers being expected to teach other subjects - esp in MFL/Physics/Maths/English so yes the teacher is qualified as a teacher, but in terms of subject knowledge, KS3 and even KS4 already have unqualified teachers in many LA schools.
Crowy the choice to be a supply teacher was instead of being FT perm. I am currently getting more daily supply work than I have days for/ pre-booked/ more direct schools rather than agency work. Another school has just emailed me to meet with them after Easter to discuss direct daily ad-hoc work. But if supply dries up, I will do something else. Definitely not going to grab a perm job now because of fear of unknowns in the future.

No, I don't think you'd be suited to it, Guy, & I wouldn't in conscience encourage anyone into UK teaching atm anyway, sadly.

Good you've got the flexibility to do something else in the future.

If indie schools benefit from marketing their use of qualified staff, nothing to stop academies also making that same boast to attract parents. The best of our local schools displays the teachers' qualifications on their website, including SEN/EAL qualifications.
If they were don't parents can ask why, and pressure them to do so.
Instead of sitting back and moaning about what 'could' happen.

But there's a shortage of a) qualified specialist teachers & b) vested financial interests that create downward pressure on teachers' T & C, which are unprotected in academies.

I took a long hard look at my dc's secondary options, & my professional future, & took my expertise & experience elsewhere - it's a sellers' market.

Why would I teach in, or send my dc to, an ARK academy for example, when I can choose not to?

& as several of the cackademy apologists on this thread keep telling us, a lot of the public don't know or care enough about schools to need to be attracted by poring over teachers' published qualifications. So mediocre MATs still get bums on seats.

If indie schools benefit from marketing their use of qualified staff, nothing to stop academies also making that same boast to attract parents. The best of our local schools displays the teachers' qualifications on their website, including SEN/EAL qualifications.

'Indie' schools have more money than academies to hire qualified teachers.

At present, most academies hire qualified teacher and treat them 'OK' because they know that these teachers could leave and go and work in another school. The minute this white paper is implemented, there will be no alternative place (ie lea school) for these teachers to go so there is no incentive to pay teachers by the old STPC. Once academies are all employing unqualified teachers and have to pay out for the huge repairs on their crumbling walls, collapsing roof and decaying classrooms, they will be forced to go for cheap staffing! It won't be a choice.

Again, though, the 'hardworking' debate is used to shut down discussion, and that definitely isn't just aimed at you giraffe, it happens all over here and in 'real life.' Any attempt to discuss has 'teachers work so hard' thrown back accusingly and because people don't want to cause upset they nod meekly and leave it.

I agree teachers work hard but it should not be used as a reason not to do something and it frequently is. Ironically even when something is introduced that actually saves teacher workload it's still criticised hence why I am a bit cynical of 'teachers work hard' being the ultimate ace-card-up-the-sleeve of all educational policy.

In the 1960s and possibly even the 1970s a teaching qualification was not required: a degree was seen as the sign you had sufficient knowledge to teach. Now for whatever reason that isn't seen as enough. Okay, but does possessing a teaching qualification actually make someone a teacher, a good one that is? I suspect not.

Let's be transparent - teachers are concerned about non qualified instructors as this may put their jobs at risk. That's a legitimate concern but dressed as it is just looks and sounds ridiculous - a big fuss about nothing.

Similarly when I first started teaching in 2004, behaviour was the problem if you like and everyone was complaining schools just didn't have the power to deal with it. Now they have (academies) but it's still not apparently good enough. Again, let's be transparent - it's linked to pay and conditions.

There is nothing wrong with asking questions about what teachers pay and conditions will look like and expressing concern about this but having that concern and putting a costume of over the top hysteria and 'won't someone think of the children' looks and sounds ridiculous and do nothing for general perceptions of teachers which then in turn means there's no sympathy for us when strikes happen.

But my concern was that children would get a crap education in an academy, raining.

My own children, to be precise.

I know the school; I've earned a few quid over the years tutoring the children of colleagues who attended there. I have friends working there.

I wasn't hysterical.

& I'm definitely not claiming any lack of self interest! Very aware I'm a rat that's fled a sinking ship. I stayed until it became obvious the holes were extensive & beneath the waterline.

Also, I like that now I work less hard for more money, frankly.

That's absolutely right and likewise there are many schools I wouldn't dream of sending my own children too, but that's not about whether they are academies or not. The two local schools (secondary) are at the moment one academy one LA maintained and it is the latter I would walk the streets rather than send my children there not send my children to, but that's not because it's an LA maintained school but because it's just a crap school.

But I believe raining, as do most teachers, that staffing schools with unqualified, underpaid, overworked people is a recipe for crap schools.

It's not about individual schools - of course some academies are great, of course some LA schools are rubbish.

There are plenty of other factors involved, but as you explained in your post above, replacing a critical mass of teachers with unqualified instructors & bullying the rest into accepting poorer T & C is inevitably going to put people off teaching. & it is an inevitable consequence of wholesale academisation.

Making teaching a less attractive career = harder for schools to recruit suitable candidates = lower quality of teaching.

It's not rocket science.

I can do the wailing lefty stuff too, but from a hardnosed point of view these policies are only in one's selfish interest if either you can pull your own children out of the mire (private school/tutors) OR if you have your nose in the trough.

For the vast majority of students, parents, & yes teachers, they are serious bad news.