Education, work loads, stress, meltdown

"Class sizes of 38 should not be made to be manageable. They just simply shouldn't exist." The ATL's executive member for Dorset, Phil Jacques, accused the government's national curriculum of being dismal, tedious, inflexible and of very little value to the great majority of children who are subjected to it."No wonder we have large numbers of disaffected children in those schools - in schools where the disaffection results in violence."
Education Guardian 

Education, education, education, micro-management, incompetence, chaos. This sums up the state of education in the UK under Labour. There have been smoke-screens galore (Academies) good ideas even (Excellence and Enjoyment), but  the bottom line is that education policies driven by a government whose overall tenure in government has been characterised by small-minded, mean-spirited meddling have largely failed.

The latest slap in the face for hard working teachers is the expectation that they should accept an increase in class size - from the current 30 or so to 38. This, says Jim Knight, is quite manageable, given the help of a few classroom assistants.  To my mind, the attempt to make classes bigger is a clear indication of a government at the end of its wits... nothing else we have tried is working, lets cut our losses by cutting teacher numbers and the salary bill.

The thing is, classes of 38 are manageable, but only when the correct infrastructure in place. It is not - because we have bought into the idiotic idea that disciplining children is bad. Too many children today run rampant in schools because they know that teachers can do nothing about it. According to the Education Guardian at least one teacher is attacked by a child each day in England. In another report, the claim is made that an astonishing 66% of teachers were either physically or vocally assaulted during the 2006/7 school year. During my time in schools, I have seen year 1 children deliberately ignore all instructions (and getting away with it) and children as young as year 3 children swearing at and physically attacking teachers. In a recent incident, a disruptive year 3 child was told to report to the head by the teacher. The answer, from beneath the table where the child was hiding, was "I don't think I will." Nothing was done, because it was known that the head would do little more than attempt to appeal to the child's better nature.

Recent teacher conferences have revealed a  number of issues. We have an increasing number of stressed teachers, an increasing level of violencein the classroom, a time wasting regime of testing, targets, prescription and inspection driven my government's need for dubious statistics. We also have an increasing number of suicides amongst stressed pupils. Government's response? Bigger classes, an increased workload and a callous, cynical attempt to diminish the status and rights of teachers as they persue their dubious policy of closing schools and replacing them with academies.

 
Inyoka suggests the following.

• Children should start school later - six going on seven, when they have the necessary emotional maturity and social skills which will enable them to thrive rather than simply cope (or fail experience an ongoing state of deferred success)
  
• Trim the National Curriculum - do less, but do it in more detail and do it better, giving teachers the space to be more creative and imaginative as Excellence and Enjoyment
•  Cut down on testing and make it more flexible.
• Get rid of league tables. These are dubious at the best of times given that the playing field is not level. Rather, provide extra support for schools in difficult areas to help them provide a better experience for disadvantaged children.
• Change the purpose of organisations like OFSTED. They should concentrate on staff development and support of schools, rather that the current regime of fault finding and finger pointing.
  
• Get a better balance on the issue of entitlement and special schools. While one can make a case for entitlement, disruptive children who need special support too often destroy the learning environment of normal pupils.
• Trust teachers. These are professional people and do not need to be micro-managed and controlled like criminals. Self regulation is a better option. Go Theory Y as opposed to Theory X.
• Provide Education Secretaries and ministers who are educationists, rather than ex-posties and people from privileged backgrounds like Balls¹ and Knight ³ who have no idea of how the rest of us live.
  
• Most important, bring back proper discipline.  If parents cannot, or refuse to discipline their children, schools have to do it. Children need clear parameters with respect to what is acceptable and what is not. Consequence need to be made clear and enforced. Many of us were at schools where corporal punishment was used. There were times when I was punished unfairly, but on balance discipline did me more good than harm. Unacceptable behaviour (stealing, fighting, willful disobedience, swearing etc) needs to be highlighted and punished. Parents should be informed and given the opportunity to be part of the solution. When I was a head, I called parents in for a meeting, informed them of the issue and what I proposed to do about it. I expected them to give me the go ahead. If they did not, I would ask them to remove the child from the school. In reality, I seldom needed to used corporal punishment because guidelines were in place and parents and teachers worked together on the issue.
  

A society without discipline is a society heading for failure. I am certain that the high levels of violence we are seeing from teenagers is a result of our skewed thinking on discipline and human rights.

¹ I find it interesting that Balls hints at a blue collar background (a Labour welfare state enabling his working class father to get a scholarship to university²)  in his personal bio while hiding his own privileged background - independent school, Oxford (pre fees) and Harvard as a Kennedy scholar (free). But of particular interest is his class attack on the Conservatives, with his claim that "Back to basics is back to privilege. They are still the Tory party of the privileged few who want world-class education not for all, but for the privileged elite. That is Cameron Conservatism." Balls obviously does not seem to have a sense of irony... well,  perhas that is indicitive of a blue collar background.

I also find it interesting that the same Labour government which (I assume) provided Balls with a priviledged education , now seen fit to make the rest of us pay through the nose for the same privilege. Or, in George Galloway's inimitable style, 'burning the ladders up which they climbed'.

² Ed comes from a Labour family. It was the welfare state, created by a Labour government in 1945, which enabled his father - from a widowed family in a working class community - to get a scholarship to University. (Extract, Ed's bio)

³ Jim Knight, too, fails to mention his educational background. He also attended an  independent school. He completed a B.A.(Hons) at Cambridge.

Neither Balls nor Knight rebel against party policy according to their voting records. Both are strong supporters of ID Cards, Labour's anti-terrorism legislation and against an investigation into the War in Iraq. Knight voted strongly for the Hunting Ban, the War in Iraq  and Top-up Fees. Balls is opposed to transparency in parliament and Knight has not voted on the issue.