“We have to be more serious about meeting individual children’s needs,” announced Education Secretary, Ruth Kelly this morning. In the wake of a disciplinary ‘crisis’ in our schools as well as (unsurprising against this backdrop) allegations that the DfES has overstated the rise in education standards, Kelly is now proposing to redirect power to the parent and pupil.
OfSTED’s latest findings on disruptive behaviour in schools, combined with the Centre for Policy Studies’ report on substandard learning leading to ‘violence and vandalism’, are potentially disastrous for the government. All this loud investment in education must have been misguidedly spent, and as a consequence we face a generation of juvenile delinquents. However rather ironically, these revelations actually present a platform for attracting New Labour votes: you the parent are dissatisfied with the current education system, we are a responsive party and thus by re-electing New Labour it will be within your powers to dictate school life according to the specific requirements of your child. This is clearly an implausible claim in a school system where pressures of time mean that teachers are barely able to learn the names of all their class, let alone teach them on an individual basis. Yet in a climate so taken with rhetoric about individual rights, such notions of individualised learning are likely to appeal.
The disciplinary crisis has been described alternately by the DfES as either ‘gang culture’ or ‘low level disturbance’. Either way, the DfES has succeeded in dodging any possible PR damage by evading both the blame, and the root of the problem. For the first time in a long time, we are reminded that it is indeed teachers who are at the frontline of education. But predictably, this reminder comes with strings attached - hand in hand with the assertion that the onus for the behaviour crisis is on them. In the OfSTED report ‘Managing Challenging Behaviour’ the bottom line is that poor behaviour is directly linked to ineffective teaching. This is a reasonable conclusion. The proposed solution however, is less so. The proposition is for greater effort to be made by teachers to respond to the ‘individual needs of the pupil’ – read ‘individual weaknesses of the pupil’, the result of inadequate curricula and conditions. This morning Kelly reasserted this notion of personalised teaching, when she announced that up to 50% of 11-14 year olds’ school days will be ‘freed up’ to allow for ‘tailored tuition’. The concept of ‘tailored tuition’ completely ignores the real issue. Moreover how would it be achieved in school reality? Firstly, with their hands tied tightly by the National Curriculum and test result targets, how can teachers even attempt to personalise the curriculum, particularly for 30 + pupils? Furthermore, why is there a need in the first place, for what is essentially individualised problem solving, designed to rectify ingrained failings in the curriculum?
The point is being cleverly missed. An agenda allegedly addressing the individual needs of pupils both side steps the underlying issue as well as conveying a genuine interest in the customer-power of the parent. ‘Managing’ bad behaviour is exactly not what needs to be done. Instead, it’s time for the plaster to come off, to bring an end to treating the symptoms and time to get back to policy basics. The key issue lies ultimately not with ineffective teachers - for they are so closely controlled, there is little leeway for incompetent autonomy – instead in the foundations of the current organisation of the education system. The DfES must face up to this rather than retrospectively treating the casualties of a poorly constructed curriculum, oversized classes, and teacher instability resulting from alienating teaching conditions. Until the finger is rightfully pointed back to policy makers, the discipline crisis will continue to spiral. For once, top down action is desirable.
Anastasia de Waal
Comments (6)
Thanks Henry,
It's just I'm a bit older than the average bear (as Yogi bear would say ... and THAT'S showing my age too!
I've only recently discovered Melanie Phillips - I might not agree with her 100% on everything but she has an enquiring intellect and perspective as sharp as a scalpel. Thought provoking at the very least!
Posted by PhilB | March 7, 2005 1:29 PM
Posted on March 7, 2005 13:29
PhilB,
Upon reflection, I think there's a lot of truth in your comments. I haven't read very much on the subject but I do remember reading that the (recently) modern trend in educational philosophy began as long ago as Rousseau and certainly flourished with the advent of the Teacher Training Colleges in the first half of the last century - a process that was halted temporarily by the 39-45 hostilities but quickly resumed thereafter.
I think, perhaps, I was attributing more influence to the political hierarchy than was possibly the case.
Posted by Henry Kaye | March 7, 2005 11:28 AM
Posted on March 7, 2005 11:28
Henry,
I recall quite clearly Doug MacAvoy's militant and vigourous pushing for higher salaries, smaller class sizes and the whole raft of policies which has cumulated in the state of the educational system we have now.
So either Mr MacAvoy and a very small clique of people who ran the NUT somehow hijacked control and direction of the system and had convinced the membership that the ideas and concepts being pedalled by himself as the spokesman were valid, or the majority of the membership of the NUT fully supported these policies.
I can recall how much power the Unions had back then and although I have not read Melanie Phillips book, I can easily envisage a situation where fellow travellers of Mr MacAvoy were forced on Ministers to become "advisors" and to secure posts of influence in the Education Department to work both from within and without to realise their goals.
If on the other hand the vast majority of teachers were against all the proposals put forth by Mr MacAvoy, then (although I hate to bandy Clichés about) truly for evil to flourish, all that is necessary is that good men (and women too!) do nothing. But he was allowed to remain secretary of the Union for a long time.
I also recall (around 1970) having a new, young teacher one year who way back then, just out of teacher training college, displayed many of the signs of the current crop of teachers - the teacher is our friend, the teacher wants to make lessons FUN!, the teacher uses humour to put points across etc. He didn't last long but I also recall the standard of discipline in his class was much lower than the more traditional teachers. Had the rot set in that early? I certainly believe that the ideas and concepts taught to him in the Teacher training colleges were demonstrated in the classroom with the results I decribed (i.e. insubordination etc.).
Posted by PhilB | March 7, 2005 8:05 AM
Posted on March 7, 2005 08:05
The fact is that until Government is entirely removed from Education, this kind of gibberish by Kelly will be trotted out with monotonous regularity - whilst all the time standards drop!
Posted by David Vance | March 4, 2005 10:35 PM
Posted on March 4, 2005 22:35
PhilB, Was it the teachers who introduced the diastrous policies that you describe so accurately, or the political and civil service leaders responsible for Education?
Melanie Phillips wrote a book entitled "All Must Have Prizes" which follows the pattern of development of this insanity and properly ascribes the responsibility where it belongs.
Posted by Henry Kaye | March 4, 2005 9:46 AM
Posted on March 4, 2005 09:46
Oddly enough, I DO blame the teachers, though not the present Incumbents.
I'm old enough to remember when the teacher held absolute power and control in the classroom, the ability and authority to phisically punish an unruly child and old enough to remember when "progressive" teaching was a strident and forcefully imposed new methodology. Of course these modern thinkers railed against corporal punishment and imposed their trendy, self centred concepts on the education system. They demanded (and got) the abolition of Grammar schools (too elitist and condemned lesser ability pupils to the humiliation of being relegated to second league people), smaller class sizes (I was in a primary class of 42) more money (can anyone else remember the NUT secretary demanding better pay to attract more teachers into the classroom?). They also shouted down any criticism of their methods ("We are the experts, you haven't studied education and you aren't a trained teacher") , made the lessons more "touchy-feely" and less knowledge and fact based and had all sorts of weird and wonderful "Brave new world" theories and practices.
For example, they introduced the simplified reading method which did away with spelling. I worked as a Technical Author for a company and my two staff were taught this method of reading and writing. They could not produce documents (even with the spell checker facility as many of the words were just so whacky that it was unable to suggest a close match) and for external documents and manuals, I had to write them. As pocket calculators were so prevelant, basic arithmetic isn't taught (you don't need it, do you?) and Religion, being the opiate of the masses was allowed to atrophy and die.
After at least 35 years of this "we know best and we need more money/resources/computers/new schools/books/classroom assistants etc, education standards are better than ever AND YOU LOT DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE TO BE A TEACHER SO DON'T CRITICISE!!!!!" we have reached the stage where a 45% mark in A level maths merits an A Grade.
So, yes. I do blame the teachers. They sowed the wind 35 years ago, and they are now reaping the whirlwind. Unfortunately they have destroyed the educational system in the process.
When non teachers are now demanding results and some kind of value for the cash they are pouring into the system, they flatly refuse to accept any responsibility for the output they produce and demand more money/resources etc. etc.
There are NEVER any bad ideas in teaching, only a lack of money and resources to implement them ....
Posted by PhilB | March 4, 2005 8:11 AM
Posted on March 4, 2005 08:11