Where goes the river?

A journey through creativity and leadership

When shall we have Teachmeet Brum?

Tmbrum1

So I'm looking to organise a Teachmeet in Birmingham sometime in March.

My preferred date would be Friday 9th March of Friday 16th March. I have a city centre venue with free parking that's about 5 minutes walk from Broad Street, so I'm figuring we could go for a Teachmeet and then a TeachEat at a decent Birmingham balti place.

But here's the thing - I'm not quite sure about Fridays. Being an inexperienced Teachmeet organiser (having only done one previously and that was mid-week), is Friday just to late in the week? Are we all too tired on Fridays?

So here's a chance to influence the decision. Please fill in this spreadsheet to answer the question: When shall we have Teachmeet Brum?

Cue the imposition of another fad in education

Many people who will have read the announcement from the Prince's Trust I found on the BBC this morning will have dismissed it with the thought Oh anyone could have told you that. That's just common sense. The headline reads, "Princes trust: school grades hit by lack of routine." In the article, the vital statistic is that 30% of students with poor grades had no set routine as a child, contrasted with 14% of students with 'better grades'.

Certainly it would seem to make sense. Children who go to bed whenever they want don't do so well at school. I've experienced that myself - eight year-olds staying up watching TV into the early hours then demonstrating zombie-like engagement with lessons the next day. In the famed Birmingham Quake of 2008 (what - you didn't hear of that one?) some students were woken at 1:06 in the morning by the terrifying shaking. Myself, I slept through it. However I was particularly concerned the next day when a Year 6 child (aged 10) told me: "Yeah it was so bad I dropped my Playstation controller."

So what is my response to that as a teacher? A conversation with the child perhaps. Maybe I mention it to parents at the next parent's evening. If I'm really concerned that the late nights are affecting school performance I would make a phone call home.

However, I worry that someone in government is looking at that story right now and thinking they really have to do something about it. Something big. Something governmental. I fear the conversation may go something like this:

Concerned minister: Have you seen this article? We need to bring back routines into family life.
Junior minister: How can we do that? We don't control every family.
Concerned minister: Hmm. What do we control?
Junior Minister [Thinks]
Civil servant: There's always schools. And Ofsted.
Junior Minister: Yes. We could make schools teach their children to have better routines at home.
Concerned Minister: Yes. It could be part of the criteria in the Ofsted framework.
Civil servant: So... you'd like a glossy pack going out to every school, perhaps? An instructional DVD? A website?
Concerned Minister: Yes, that sounds good. I could really... Oh I mean, this will help the whole country.
Junior Minister: I'll prepare a press release...
Civil servant: Might you also like a pilot study? Some academic research to back up what we want to do?
Concerned Minister [eyes glowing a baleful red]: Yes! Yes!
Civil servant: Right away minister.
(Apologies to the script writers of Yes  Minister)

Of course, the coalition government have said they want less paper work in schools. Less government and local authority control. More self governance. But when something like this comes along will they really be able to resist the urge to send that glossy fad-pack into school? Will they really have the confidence in the country's teachers?

The King of shapes: the stellated icosahedron

2012-01-01_14

There's nothing quite as good as mathematical toys for Christmas. After I had wrested this 'geomac' off the children, I made my very favourite shape - the stellated icosahedron.

I just love adding points to a platonic solid.

With 60 faces, 90 edges and 32 vertices, Euler's formula still holds true: 32+60-90=2 (vertices+faces-edges=2 for all solids without holes in them).

The question for young mathematicians is "do all the 3D shapes you know follow this rule?" and following on from this "can you make a 3D shape that doesn't follow this rule?" [clue: try making a donut out of geomac].

Low attaining pupils in low attainment shock

The BBC article on the school leagues tables surprised me this morning. According to both the BBC and various politicians, low attaining children don't attain well. Let me put that another way: Children who are less average when they are 7 don't become average by the time they are 11.

It reminds me of when Tony Blair, newly in power back in 1997, was alleged to have said that he wants all children to become better than average.

So what is supposed to happen? Bearing in mind that the National Curriculum is divided into 'levels', which are broad descriptors of a child's knowledge in each subject area, children are supposed to make 2 levels of progress between Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2. Also, children are expected to finish Key Stage 1 at level 2, although some low attainers finish at level 1, some high attainers at level 3. This progress that children should make means that, if all goes to plan the children
  • move from level 1 to level 3; or
  • move from level 2 to level 4; or
  • move from level 3 to level 5.
Apparently a quarter of children who are 'low attainers' actually made it to level 4 - this means moving from level 1 to level 4 - a great achievement. Disappointing then that Steven Twigg, Shadow Education Secretary should see his glass as being half empty with this statement: "The fact that only a quarter of low attainers at age seven go on to meet the expected Level 4 in English of maths when they leave primary school is not good enough."

Fortunately we have a country with such amazing secondary schools that they will pick up these disastrously low expectations from primary schools and make good their low attaining pupils.

I'll write next about how this announcement is akin to thrusting a red hot poker into the nether regions of all secondary schools, given the current SATs regime.

Is Michael Gove doing a good thing, but in so bad a way as to spoil its beneficial effect?

My title is a shameful paraphrase of Gladstone from his third Midlothian Speech (Tuesday 27th November 1879). What he actually said was:

"Even, gentlemen, when you do a good thing, you may do it in so bad a way that you may entirely spoil the beneficial effect;"

and he finished his sentence by saying:

"and if we were to make ourselves the apostles of peace in the sense of conveying to the minds of other nations that we thought ourselves more entitled to an opinion on that subject than they are, or to deny their rights - well, very likely we should destroy the whole value of our doctrines."

The reason I've made this quote is that Michael Gove quoted this same speech in his recent address to Cambridge University. I understand that Gladstone was talking about foreign policy at the time, whereas Gove was talking about Education, but I wonder whether I can make a comparison with a speech that's 130 years old. After all, Gove did.

Some real positives hit me from Gove's speech, for example: "I want to proclaim the importance of education as a good in itself. I want to argue that introducing the young minds of the future to the great minds of the past is our duty." and "I think any society is a better society for taking intellectual effort more seriously, for rewarding intellectual ambition, for indulging curiosity, for supporting scholarship, for feting those who teach and celebrating those who learn."

These are sentiments that ring my bells - they make me think this is what I got into education for. They are: A. Good. Thing. I think it's great that he doesn't want to subordinate education to purely economic ends; that he believes our current generation of teachers are the best ever; that he wants us to be connected with communities of learning such as those at Google and Apple. Marvellous. FAB!

However I think Michael Gove is a bit disingenuous about some things and just plain wrong about others -  a bit like how Gladstone hints in his speech with the 'apostles of peace' phrase. You see Gladstone's arch-rival, Disraeli had waited through the early 1880s as the Liberal party tore itself apart (partly due to the rigours of getting the country's first Education Act through Parliament). Disraeli was offered the chance to form a minority government in 1883, but could see that the Liberals would only make it worse for themselves and waited for the general election of 1884 to form a majority government then. Disraeli seems to have been characterised as cunning and cynical and it was these characteristics that Gladstone was railing against.

Gove casts a vision of acadamies bringing the excellence into the education system. He talks about a 700% increase this year. But this is nearly all at secondary level, where a school's large size can help undertake the structural change necessary to become an Academy. I don't see a model which works for Primary schools unless there is a significantly active community group ready to support them. And this to me seems slightly cynical - he's said what he wants(Academies) but for those who are in no position to attain it - like most Primary schools it's like "Oh well, you'll just have to be the have-nots" - he's left the future of students and teachers in those schools in the ambitions of their tiny governing bodies.

What Gove doesn't say about Gladstone's speech is that there is a common theme of Christianity in it - there is an assumption that his entire audience are Christians. If you then look back at the Education Act of 1870 you see that at that time over the half the children in the country were being educated by the Anglican or Roman Catholic Clergy. The National Education League was set up by mainly secular industrialists, such as Joseph Chamberlain to demand a state education system for the benefit of industry. When the Act went through it was a victory for the League, but the first Education Boards were often dominated by non-conformist Christians such as the Quakers. So the motivation for providing schools was either from religion or from industry.

In Gove's speech he talks about education for education's sake - for the love of the art, or the music, or the literature and I want that as much as anyone. But it isn't right to suggest that Gladstone's audience thought the same thing. The 'rude mechanicals' would have valued education because of their religious beliefs, or because they wanted their own children to have a better quality of life than they, because of their education.

The 'push' for Academies that religious groups could have provided in Victorian times no longer exists - those Christian groups just aren't there any more in large enough quantities. So it makes me wonder what will happen to the rest of schools when all those who can possibly convert into Acadmies have done so. There just won't be enough motivation in our society to run all theose academies - so we'll have to have a significantly-sizsed state school sector. When Gove says he'll be putting greater demands on headteachers and academics, does that mean in supporting those schools within the state sector who aren't yet elite so that they too can become elite? And is it elitism for everyone - so that when everyone is elite, nobody will be (I'd like to be quoting Aldhous Huxley at this point, but I realise I'm closer to quoting 'Syndrome' from 'the Incredibles'.)

There is also the odd item in his speech that I consider to be just plain wrong. Like for example when he says that 'children in Singapore are exposed to calculations involving the foundations of algebra' before children in the UK. Our children meet their first algebra at the age of 4 - children in Singapore don't even start school until they're 5 so how can this be true? He also claims that the government are reforming the whole exam system and yet Key Stage 2 SATs remain unchanged. It is KS2 SATs where education starts going wrong for many of our young people, but I'll be looking at this in another post.

The final thing that is wrong with this speech is the context. I have read at least three of Gove's recent speeches and each one has impressed me - I love his ambition and the vision he casts in them - I want to be in the education landscape he paints. However the speeches I have read have been (a) to the Conservative party; (b) to the Royal Society; (c) to Cambridge University. It would be nice to see Gove trying to inspire (like I do) 60 young parents about the virtues of education - then I would see that he was not only doing a good thing, but doing it in such a good way as to enhance its beneficial effect.

How the decision whether to strike or not has become harder, not easier.

Click here to download:
SN00405.pdf (430 KB)
(download)

I can't decide whether to strike next Wednesday (30th) or not.

A few months ago, the decision felt a lot simpler: pensions are the one good thing about teaching - I have to strike. But now I'm not so sure. Over the next few paragraphs I'm going to sketch out my indecision in more detail.

Pensions are not the one good thing about teaching.

The first thing is that pensions are not the only benefit of being a teacher. I didn't become a teacher because of the pension. I had finally found something that I was good at and I enjoyed doing. I had previously tried engineering, selling computers and even being in a band, but I either wasn't good at them or didn't enjoy them. I enjoy teaching. And I'm good at it (most of the time).

The pay isn't bad either. When I started teaching the highest pay I could expect in about the year 2000 was about £25000. Now I could expect £39000 - that's over a 50% increase in 10 or so years - well above the rate of inflation in that time.

The holidays, hours and general flexibility are brilliant. Like most teachers I'm in work by 8 and I work late some evenings. I work at home. I work in the holidays. But I don't work all the time. Being a teacher has enabled me to support my wife get back to work after having children and it helps us with childcare during school holidays.

The exaggeration of my union

I'm disappointed with the language coming out of my Union. According to them I am "demoralised" and desperate to have my "classroom released from the shackles or paperwork". I am, in fact, neither of these things. I am concerned about pensions, but I've been taken aback by some of the mouth-frothingly* emotive language I've had emailed to me over the last few weeks. What's more, I did some digging and found a report that I've posted (above) which seems to indicate that the teaching unions were in a no-compromise mood from as long ago as 1997 when the at-the-time New Labour government took office and set up a working party to look at the Teacher Pension Scheme. The government in 2004 was frightened off making significant changes to the pension scheme by the teacher unions. It made me wonder whether a more conciliatory stance back in the 2000s (when we were all living in our heady credit bubble) might have led to a more constructive dialogue now.

In addition today my local association have been tweeting: "Remember there's no requirement to tell your Headteacher if you intend to strike on #N30. NASUWT advises you do NOT tell them #sufs #nasuwt" Now that may be true, but it's really unhelpful to school leaders, some of whom are in that union are just trying to find out whether they can keep their school open or not. Most headteachers have a positive relationship with their staff and it seems a shame to jeapordise it by telling union members to communicate less with their senior leaders.

Two issues in one strike

There are two issues that dominate discussion on pensions - the pension age and the pension contribution. I'm a primary teacher with the belief that a certain amount of role modelling is important to the primary age child. My pension age is 68. At that age I can't quite imagine myself being able to perform a Cruyff turn, or somersault or even jump off a bench. I'm sure some sixty eight year-olds may be able to, but many won't. I know some may find that a rather fey reason, especially when firemen are expected to work until 60 these days, but a reason it is. The contribution for me is another matter - I know paying more represents a pay cut, but the sliding scale that hits teachers on the leadership spine worse than teachers who aren't seems fair to me. Why shouldn't the rich contribute more? It's an idea that old Labour would have been proud of.

Suffice it to day that I'd like to see these two issues separated. Strike about the age thing - yes I'll go with that. Strike about the contributions? Not for me.

The mandate of the vote

I've been told twice, via email and letter, that an 'overwhelming' 82% voted for strike action. But it's an 82% of only a 40% turn out. That means about seventy thousand teachers in my union positively chose to strike out of a possible two hundred and twenty thousand. I don't see that as overwhelming. Given that this is a really important issue that could affect the future of many people and will cause many families a severe headache next Wednesday, how can only 40% have bothered to vote about it? And how can that justify this strike action? What I suspect is that many teachers aren't that bothered about it, but quite fancy 30th November as a Christmas Shopping Day. Letting a keen minority make the decision for them, they will gleefully take the day and when challenged say "well my union are striking, I can't go against them." Worse, I suspect that some staff are hoping to tell their schools that they are not striking that day so that they can still claim their pay, but that the school will have sufficient strikers out to close the school. OK, maybe I'm getting a bit paranoid here - I've certainly not seen any of this behaviour in my own school - but now the thought is there I'm struggling to get it out of my head.

The importance of unions

The flip side to my previous argument is that I really believe unions are important. For many years, my union has given me helpful advice, great opportunities and that legal protection just in case something should go wrong at school. I also think that it's important to stick together about key issues - for my part I think the changes within the new curriculum might be more important than changes to pensions. I don't want to go against a union decision, because I think unions are important.

School is important free day care

I hear a lot of teachers moaning that parents just view school as free daycare and yes I agree, school is a lot more than that. Schools provide knowledge, understanding and skills for future life. They are important social structures within our communities. But they are also free day-care and as such form part of our economy. With our economy being in such a fragile state at the moment, is it wise to close them for a even a day?**

My prior experience of strikes

As a secondary school student in the 1980s I was negatively affected by teachers' action. All the clubs stopped. As a twelve-year old treble I had sang that part in Carmina Burana at the Town Hall. I never got the chance to develop my baritone, because by then the choir club had shut down. It also seemed to affect the teachers badly too. I remember them being bright and happy at the start of secondary school (1983), but gloomy and miserable by the time I left - I'm sure there were other factors, but such things stick in the mind.

My conclusion

I read articles like this and I float one way, then I think about the whole 40% turnout again and I float back the other.

I think about the looks I had from other dads at my son's scout group and how each of them in the private sector have had to make all sorts of financial sacrifices over recent years just to stay in work and I think "Nope, I can't strike." Then I think about myself teaching PE to 30-ten year olds when I'm 68 and I think "I really should strike."

My union tells me I don't need to tell my headteacher, but he's given me until Wednesday.

* - note how I've used some emotive language of my own here.

** - you could argue with all the teachers Christmas shopping, it may actually boost the economy.

Sleeping Dad Blues

(download)

 

A blues that came to me this morning after a terribly disrupted night with a poorly child. Messed up the guitar solo a bit. Whoops.

 

Also, I got in a bit of a mess with formatting this audio file. Posterous doesn't seem to like .aifc files. The .mov file above will play in Posterous, but is technically a video with no images. The audio only file is here: http://recorder.davaconsulting.com/records/5f4fe4b64938b72dd396515246f54935aa1b043a710dd3db00/Recording%200036%202011-10-25%208-58-50.aifc

 

It's weird (from a technical point of view) that movie files are easier to deal with than audio files...