Broadmoor Primary changed its name to rid itself of negative connotations. They are not the only school to have considered this move.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals have asked a school in South Dakota to change its name from Spearfish High to Seakitten High.
The justification for this identity overhaul was voiced by PETA spokesman, Pulin Modi: ‘If children were taught to refer to fish as "sea kittens," reflecting that fish, like cats and dogs, are "individuals" that "do have friendships," fewer fish might be killed for food or sport.’
This request is part of a larger campaign to change the way the world views fish. PETA are concerned that more fish are killed each year than all other animals combined. They are therefore looking for ways to challenge our perception of them, firstly by changing their name.
“When your name can also be used as a verb that means driving a hook through your head, it’s time for a serious image makeover,” states PETA’s “Save the Sea Kittens” Web site.
A noble, worthwhile cause, one might think. Unfortunately these sentiments are not shared by Spearfish High’s Head. Whilst Steve Morford did not want to share his feelings about PETA, he stated: "Obviously, it's nothing we're taking seriously."
Can’t think why.
Little Lil- the hen that laid the huge egg
Eggstra special things have been going on at the Raikes Centre in Kingsholm, Gloucester. Kate Farminer, who set up the county’s student referral service, recently decided to adopt 4 hens as part of the students’ personal development programme.
Lil gained her name because she was far smaller than her siblings: Auntie Madge, Edie and Doreen.
When the pupils discovered an egg nearly twice the normal size, they could not believe the tiny hen had laid it. An average egg is 6cm in length and weighs only a paltry 2oz whilst her gargantuan offering measured a tear-inducing 11cm and clocked in at 7oz. Although this is an impressive achievement for the Columbian blacktail cross, at present Lil is still a way off the world record. According to the Guinness Book of Records, a black Minorca hen set the record in 1896; laying an egg which tipped the scales at 12oz.
Little Lil has laid four elephantine eggs and strangely, is still laying ones of standard size as well. If this was not weird enough, when the class opened one of the eggs for closer inspection, they found an entire normal egg inside. Mrs Farminer likened it to “a set of Russian Dolls."
The pupils have met this mild phenomenon with a mixture of excitement and confusion. At one point they thought there might be a dinosaur inside but sadly their hopes were dashed.
Blondes not having all the fun at school in Gloucester
Two year 11 pupils, Reagan Booth and Abby Western were sent home from Rednock School, Dursley last week because their hair was deemed as “too blonde”.
At present, Reagan, a natural blonde who has had highlights for the past three years, is refusing to change the colour of her hair. She argues: ‘no amount of hair dye affects a person’s ability in school.’
Nevertheless, she now fears that her decision may result in expulsion, a mere few months before she is due to sit her GCSEs.
The school rules clearly state that no pupil may dye their hair an unnatural colour. However, her father, Martin Booth fully supports his daughter’s decision claiming: ‘her hair looks a very natural blonde.’
Head, David Alexander has said that the girls are not facing expulsion and were sent home simply to dye their hair. He does accept that a meeting with parents to clarify these rules will be necessary.
Facebook put to good use
There has been a recent spate of students using social networking sites to insult and criticise their teachers. This is both demoralising and insulting; it can also feel simultaneously intrusive and public. Therefore it is refreshing to learn that a recently retired teacher has defied this worrying trend by being the recipient of a Facebook appreciation society created by his old pupils.
Rene Cochlin has had a long and distinguished career in education. He spent his latter years teaching Politics and Business Studies at Gravesend Grammar School in Kent.
Named ‘The Father of the staffroom’, he is both an inspiration and confidant to all. Aside from being a talented practioner, he also stole the show at staff cabarets and organised interactive events such as Challenge of Management and Mock Parliament.
When asked about his reaction to the society, Rene said: “This is a bit golden globey! I feel humble – no I never feel humble. But I feel totally appreciative.”
The group has around 150 members and the wall details the pupils’ fond memories of being taught by Mr Cochlin. One succinct young man simply wrote: “Absolute Legend.”
It is encouraging to see proof that good teachers are always remembered fondly.
Friday 23 January 2009
Wednesday 21 January 2009
Shout about what makes you happy, sad or mad
Whilst I appreciate the perks of the cyber-revolution in teaching, I have experienced one clear drawback: the amount of stuff that can now go wrong in lessons. In days of yore, when teachers were armed merely with their trusty chalk, board rubber and extensive subject knowledge, very little could deter them from imparting wisdom, short of a freak frontal lobotomy en-route to the classroom.
Now, with an increasing pressure to incorporate (worthwhile) ICT in the classroom, every lesson becomes a potential minefield for disaster. Can you access your email? Will power-point open? Does the disk-drive work properly? Why won’t the speakers work? Why is there just a big blue square where my wonderful resource should be? I can’t find the IWB pen! Argh!
The most annoying thing is that it is nigh on impossible to anticipate these hazards and head them off at the course. They can even sneak up on an unsuspecting teacher in the middle of the lesson, after cunningly lulling them into a false sense of security. The cyber-wizards (or you may prefer the term pupils), like dogs, can smell technophobia…and they like it. Incapacity and panic tickles them; any disruption is fun but especially when a teacher swears under their breath and pulls hopelessly at loads of wires (and hair).
Given these circumstances, it is not surprising that some teachers are reluctant to embrace ICT with open arms. This is especially true if they do not have the luxury of their own classroom. When I was in this position, it got so ridiculous at one point that I had to note down what was wrong in every room I taught in so that I catered for the malfunctions in my planning. It became almost like a game, albeit a rubbish one.
The cherry on the cake came when I was teaching in a computer room next to the ICT support room. Inevitably something went wrong and I popped my head in for some support (funnily enough). I explained that I was next door and needed a hand with the network. Without looking up, the technician replied, “Yeah, you’ll have to email us about that.” Fuming, absolutely fuming.
Now, with an increasing pressure to incorporate (worthwhile) ICT in the classroom, every lesson becomes a potential minefield for disaster. Can you access your email? Will power-point open? Does the disk-drive work properly? Why won’t the speakers work? Why is there just a big blue square where my wonderful resource should be? I can’t find the IWB pen! Argh!
The most annoying thing is that it is nigh on impossible to anticipate these hazards and head them off at the course. They can even sneak up on an unsuspecting teacher in the middle of the lesson, after cunningly lulling them into a false sense of security. The cyber-wizards (or you may prefer the term pupils), like dogs, can smell technophobia…and they like it. Incapacity and panic tickles them; any disruption is fun but especially when a teacher swears under their breath and pulls hopelessly at loads of wires (and hair).
Given these circumstances, it is not surprising that some teachers are reluctant to embrace ICT with open arms. This is especially true if they do not have the luxury of their own classroom. When I was in this position, it got so ridiculous at one point that I had to note down what was wrong in every room I taught in so that I catered for the malfunctions in my planning. It became almost like a game, albeit a rubbish one.
The cherry on the cake came when I was teaching in a computer room next to the ICT support room. Inevitably something went wrong and I popped my head in for some support (funnily enough). I explained that I was next door and needed a hand with the network. Without looking up, the technician replied, “Yeah, you’ll have to email us about that.” Fuming, absolutely fuming.
Monday 19 January 2009
Education piece-The post- SAT aftermath-How are schools reacting to their newfound freedom?
Since SATs were introduced by the Tories in 1993, the only consistency they have managed to maintain is that of criticism and incompetence. The debacle last year, courtesy of QCA’s decision to outsource the assessment to a private US company ETS, led to students being marked as absent when they had sat the exam, unmarked scripts being returned to schools and papers even returned to the wrong schools. These mistakes were not isolated: they were an epidemic.
The Government was left with no choice but to abandon compulsory testing at KS3 in October 2008. This was met with uproarious applause; former Ofsted lay inspector, Margaret Morrisey claimed it was the ‘first sensible thing Mr Balls has done since becoming Schools Secretary.’ Many felt that the decision did not go far enough and that SATs at KS2 should have been culled as well.
This did not happen and, upon the sacking of ETS, QCA announced that Edexcel would resume its assessment of 11 year olds. It is worrying that the contract was signed before the finer details were agreed upon. The hasty implementation of this new(ish) system could lead to further incompetence. With the ambitious target of releasing 99.9% of the results on time, Edexcel are going to be under immense pressure to make the grade. Educational expert, Mike Baker, has even labelled results day, 7th July, as “D-Day” for the National Curriculum.
Published at the end of 2008, The Sutherland report did not really reveal anything that the analysts (and most of the 11-14 year olds) hadn’t worked out for themselves. ETS were held accountable, as were QCA for not being able to cope with the remit. It was deemed that QCA was not capable of acting as an independent watchdog. This will now become the responsibility of new body, Ofqual, although their ties to Government may still make objectivity difficult to achieve.
QCA’s Chief Executive attempted to resign but this was not recognised by QCA and he is currently suspended pending further inquiry. While we all like to have someone to blame, this does not really help schools work out what they do from here. From a long term planning perspective, the carpet had been ripped from underneath them, although granted it was a shabby, tired one.
On the 13th January, the Chief Adviser on School Standards, Sue Hackman, composed a letter detailing the Government’s plans for KS3 in 2009. Whilst schools may choose to internally assess pupils at the end of year 7, 8 and 9, none of these tests will result in any kind of accountably. Schools are required to enter teacher assessments both locally and nationally but no system of moderation has been proposed. The QCA will still be providing optional tests for schools who wish to take them internally. Schools were also reminded that they could choose to squash KS3 into year 7/8, freeing up year 9 for exciting things like GCSE preparation.
Upon reading this, many HODs turned the paper over, waiting for the BUT…that never materialised. It certainly seems as though schools are being given much more freedom to tailor their curriculum at KS3 to suit individual needs.
These measures have still been met with criticism. Even though it remains compulsory to study Shakespeare at KS3, The RSC became troubled when, post October 2008, 50% of teachers cancelled their courses on KS3 teaching. They feared that many schools may abuse their new found freedom by marginalising Shakespeare. Their main concern: ‘there is no effective way of mandating practice in schools.’ may be increasingly echoed as the dust settles.
In response to The RSC’s doubts, teachers have argued that no school would entertain pushing Shakespeare to the sidelines. Courses may have been cancelled because they generally tend to concentrate on the two set scenes that pupils would have been examined on. Pupils now have the opportunity to study plays in their entirety, without the need to quash enthusiasm by force feeding them two scenes line by line. English departments can also choose any tragedy, comedy or history, allowing teachers to play to their strengths rather than choose from the paltry three works that are normally on offer. This lovely notion does unfortunately depend on having a bottomless budget, not an option for many departments. Most schools would have bought all of their SAT resources for 2009 at the end of the previous academic year.
Given the lack of notice, how much can schools really change their approach in the short term? The easy option would be to continue with the planned syllabus and sift out any specific elements that have previously made staff lose the will to live. It may be a year of tentative tinkering where schools behave like animals that have been released from captivity. Those that have ordered the 2009 exam from QCA have the option to cancel their order and it will be interesting to see how many choose to persevere and use the test internally. If a mass exodus occurs, it will be a clear indication that it was not only the assessment of the National Curriculum tests that was at fault.
Another anxiety is, in the absence of national testing, how can any sense of standardisation be achieved across the country? It will be virtually impossible to ascertain that a level 6 means the same thing in Sheffield as it does in The Isle of Sheppey. With no formal moderation, schools are being given significant powers to decide on how they translate the “modified” NC levels. It is difficult to be entirely confident that schools will level accurately and not think of their place in the (now fairly meaningless) league tables. If these assessments inform the data for predicted GCSE results, it is also worrying that teachers’ future performance management targets may be based on inaccurate levelling.
It is unfair to argue that the Government has not anticipated this. From April, every LEA should have a National Strategy Consultant ready to assist schools that are experiencing difficulties with assessment. When key schools’ pilot training schemes have finished, they will also be able to offer support to other schools in their area. Nevertheless, it is hard to say whether these procedures will provide enough support.
The abolishment of SATs at KS3 was not foreseen when the new year 7 National Curriculum launched last September but it now allows for a complementary freedom across the three years. The personalised ethos based on developing successful learners, confident individuals and responsible citizens fits perfectly with the new autonomy that has been bestowed upon schools. Many schools have already started revising SOWs, trying to develop coherency both within their own subjects and in a cross curricular sense. They will now be able to continue this sense of fluency throughout KS3. Although this will involve hard work for teachers, they will begin to see the results of updating their curriculum this year and this will remind everyone of the need to make learning relevant to all students.
Despite the worries, this is positive progression away from the SAT albatross and towards a bald eagle of opportunity. The only possible cloud on the horizon is that the Government has a team of experts presently constructing a report due to be published this spring. Let’s hope that their findings don’t burst our bubble.
The Government was left with no choice but to abandon compulsory testing at KS3 in October 2008. This was met with uproarious applause; former Ofsted lay inspector, Margaret Morrisey claimed it was the ‘first sensible thing Mr Balls has done since becoming Schools Secretary.’ Many felt that the decision did not go far enough and that SATs at KS2 should have been culled as well.
This did not happen and, upon the sacking of ETS, QCA announced that Edexcel would resume its assessment of 11 year olds. It is worrying that the contract was signed before the finer details were agreed upon. The hasty implementation of this new(ish) system could lead to further incompetence. With the ambitious target of releasing 99.9% of the results on time, Edexcel are going to be under immense pressure to make the grade. Educational expert, Mike Baker, has even labelled results day, 7th July, as “D-Day” for the National Curriculum.
Published at the end of 2008, The Sutherland report did not really reveal anything that the analysts (and most of the 11-14 year olds) hadn’t worked out for themselves. ETS were held accountable, as were QCA for not being able to cope with the remit. It was deemed that QCA was not capable of acting as an independent watchdog. This will now become the responsibility of new body, Ofqual, although their ties to Government may still make objectivity difficult to achieve.
QCA’s Chief Executive attempted to resign but this was not recognised by QCA and he is currently suspended pending further inquiry. While we all like to have someone to blame, this does not really help schools work out what they do from here. From a long term planning perspective, the carpet had been ripped from underneath them, although granted it was a shabby, tired one.
On the 13th January, the Chief Adviser on School Standards, Sue Hackman, composed a letter detailing the Government’s plans for KS3 in 2009. Whilst schools may choose to internally assess pupils at the end of year 7, 8 and 9, none of these tests will result in any kind of accountably. Schools are required to enter teacher assessments both locally and nationally but no system of moderation has been proposed. The QCA will still be providing optional tests for schools who wish to take them internally. Schools were also reminded that they could choose to squash KS3 into year 7/8, freeing up year 9 for exciting things like GCSE preparation.
Upon reading this, many HODs turned the paper over, waiting for the BUT…that never materialised. It certainly seems as though schools are being given much more freedom to tailor their curriculum at KS3 to suit individual needs.
These measures have still been met with criticism. Even though it remains compulsory to study Shakespeare at KS3, The RSC became troubled when, post October 2008, 50% of teachers cancelled their courses on KS3 teaching. They feared that many schools may abuse their new found freedom by marginalising Shakespeare. Their main concern: ‘there is no effective way of mandating practice in schools.’ may be increasingly echoed as the dust settles.
In response to The RSC’s doubts, teachers have argued that no school would entertain pushing Shakespeare to the sidelines. Courses may have been cancelled because they generally tend to concentrate on the two set scenes that pupils would have been examined on. Pupils now have the opportunity to study plays in their entirety, without the need to quash enthusiasm by force feeding them two scenes line by line. English departments can also choose any tragedy, comedy or history, allowing teachers to play to their strengths rather than choose from the paltry three works that are normally on offer. This lovely notion does unfortunately depend on having a bottomless budget, not an option for many departments. Most schools would have bought all of their SAT resources for 2009 at the end of the previous academic year.
Given the lack of notice, how much can schools really change their approach in the short term? The easy option would be to continue with the planned syllabus and sift out any specific elements that have previously made staff lose the will to live. It may be a year of tentative tinkering where schools behave like animals that have been released from captivity. Those that have ordered the 2009 exam from QCA have the option to cancel their order and it will be interesting to see how many choose to persevere and use the test internally. If a mass exodus occurs, it will be a clear indication that it was not only the assessment of the National Curriculum tests that was at fault.
Another anxiety is, in the absence of national testing, how can any sense of standardisation be achieved across the country? It will be virtually impossible to ascertain that a level 6 means the same thing in Sheffield as it does in The Isle of Sheppey. With no formal moderation, schools are being given significant powers to decide on how they translate the “modified” NC levels. It is difficult to be entirely confident that schools will level accurately and not think of their place in the (now fairly meaningless) league tables. If these assessments inform the data for predicted GCSE results, it is also worrying that teachers’ future performance management targets may be based on inaccurate levelling.
It is unfair to argue that the Government has not anticipated this. From April, every LEA should have a National Strategy Consultant ready to assist schools that are experiencing difficulties with assessment. When key schools’ pilot training schemes have finished, they will also be able to offer support to other schools in their area. Nevertheless, it is hard to say whether these procedures will provide enough support.
The abolishment of SATs at KS3 was not foreseen when the new year 7 National Curriculum launched last September but it now allows for a complementary freedom across the three years. The personalised ethos based on developing successful learners, confident individuals and responsible citizens fits perfectly with the new autonomy that has been bestowed upon schools. Many schools have already started revising SOWs, trying to develop coherency both within their own subjects and in a cross curricular sense. They will now be able to continue this sense of fluency throughout KS3. Although this will involve hard work for teachers, they will begin to see the results of updating their curriculum this year and this will remind everyone of the need to make learning relevant to all students.
Despite the worries, this is positive progression away from the SAT albatross and towards a bald eagle of opportunity. The only possible cloud on the horizon is that the Government has a team of experts presently constructing a report due to be published this spring. Let’s hope that their findings don’t burst our bubble.
Sunday 18 January 2009
Educational piece-‘Fragmented, unproductive, inefficient and unregulated' Is CPD doing its job?
When one muses over the purpose of teaching and the inherent skills that teachers should possess, it would be easy to assume that continuing professional development should be an intrinsic part of teaching. Individuals who spend the best part of their day nurturing and motivating skills in others would jump at opportunities to further their own understanding…wouldn’t they? If this is true, it is a strange anomaly that many teachers roll their eyes and sigh at the mention of both in-house training and commercial courses. It is clear that something needs to be done to challenge both the apathy of staff and the possible incompetence of School Leadership and course facilitators.
With the learning manager revolution, every school should have someone who is directly responsible for facilitating CPD. This involves answering the difficult “chicken and the egg” question of how far CPD should be influenced by the schools' development plan or by teacher need. Is it possible that it can promote teachers’ careers and improve the overall performance of schools too? Another balance that also needs to be struck is between time dedicated to subject areas and pastoral issues. The expectations are perhaps spread too thinly; the conflicting nature of these aims makes it easy to see why some schools are failing to make CPD useful and accessible to all their staff.
LEAs recommend how much schools should be spending on CPD; for instance, Southwark Council recommend that 1% of a school’s overall budget should be dedicated to developing teachers. That said, schools operate a certain amount of discretion over how these funds are spent. This freedom is beneficial but it has led to vast disparities in how different schools utilise their funds.
Let’s deal with in-house training first- since the creation of the infamous Baker Days in the 1980s, schools have been expected to dedicate five days per year to training their staff. In Darwinian style, different schools have adapted this requirement to suit their needs. Certain schools hire out hotels to treat staff to a day out, away from the school environment. These events could be beneficial in breaking up unhelpful cliques that exist by forcing people out of their comfort niches; it also scuppers the tendency for individuals to slink off to their offices when they think no-one is looking. The more cynical may view these days as an unnecessarily frivolous attempt by SLG to distract teachers’ attention away from deeply entrenched problems with a “jolly”.
Other schools stretch the system by giving teachers extra days off in exchange for twilight sessions. Training is delivered through a series of after-school sessions rather than having an entire day dedicated to it. Whilst there are clear morale-boosting benefits, these sessions can end becoming too dispersed and viewed as an “add on” to the general school day rather than something worthwhile in its own right.
In Kent, school’s priorities are changing with the introduction of ‘Building Schools for the Future’; certain schools have started a new programme whereby students are sent packing for one afternoon per week, giving staff the extra time to take part in different training exercises both as a whole body and in smaller planning “parties”. This unsurprisingly has been celebrated by pupils, and staff have also started to see the benefits. It allows for continuity, helps to develop relationships across subjects and ensures that teachers feel included in the ethos of the school. It does however require careful organisation and staff feedback has shown that certain sessions have been received more favourably than others. The key to any in-house training is careful consideration of how to make the subject in hand relevant and accessible to all teachers. No mean feat given that they are the most unforgiving and judgemental audience one could ever have.
Despite the problems that exist within schools, Heads still have the luxury of control and are ultimately responsible for the programmes that they put in place. Outside of school, opportunities for CPD operate within an unregulated minefield. When teachers gain a fraction of responsibility, they are almost ironically immersed in a paper jungle. On a daily basis, they are forced to wade through an exotic array of courses offered by a myriad of institutions including: museums, galleries, commercial companies, universities, examining boards and LEAs. Teachers have to battle against the attitude that one is not a real pedagogue unless they are holding court in front of a class. Every time they consider taking time out of school, they are aware that they are leaving classes to be covered and will have to pick up the consequent behaviour issues and marking when they return. This can make individuals reluctant to research courses (this is on the proviso they even have time to do this) that could be crucial to their development. With institutions charging anything from £180- 300, courses cannot be booked on a whim (“That leaflet looks super!”) and schools are under increasing pressure to ensure they are getting value for money.
Let’s be honest, most teachers have experienced pointless courses. There are several reasons why independent courses can fail to inspire. Courses that claim to get the most techno-phobic teacher ICT savvy, can be relatively futile if they do not focus on the specific software that participants use at their school. Other courses may be pitched incorrectly and rely far too much on teachers sharing “good practice”: writing wonderful things on post it notes and sticking them on sugar paper. These always end with a “plenary” where the facilitator regurgitates banal clichés and patronisingly pats everyone on the back. As one teacher remarked:
‘It was all very posh. We had little notepads, pencils and bottles of water on the tables. But I could have delivered a better course myself. It didn’t tell me anything I didn’t know.’
These bad cappuccino (all froth and no substance) events generally leave teachers feeling disheartened and complacent. Teachers can also feel stressed about how they will feedback about unsatisfactory courses. If they are negative, then they could seem ungrateful; it may also mean that SLG are less willing to authorise courses inn the future. It is very difficult to ascertain from the advertising jargon crammed in bulging pigeon holes what courses are actually worth their salt.
Some of the best courses are predictably run by examining bodies. However, these have also faced criticism; chief examiners have been accused of “moonlighting”: earning private money when they should be focused upon improving the current assessment system. As these courses flourish, another worry is that exam boards will become more reluctant to distribute free materials and resources to schools. Why face these costs when they can charge money and make a profit? Schools are at their mercy; the courses cannot help but be relevant as these bodies dictate what the pupils need to know in their exams. Therefore, even if the provider is bum-numbingly inept, the content will be greedily gobbled up by teachers under pressure to meet their performance management targets.
The attitude of Head Teachers can be detrimental too, one Head stated that courses ‘Really should be cream-cake and coffee time.’ Given the prevalence of views such as this, it is not surprising that The Training and Development Agency found that 41% of schools had never consulted national organisations. Insular behaviour can lead to schools becoming archaically ignorant.
Although at present there is a distinct lack of a system of accreditation for commercial courses, there is some good news. Teachers TV have employed regional CPD advisors and in autumn 2008, the TDA finally launched a national database for CPD. This was spear-headed by former London Schools Commissioner, Tim Brighouse who argues that: ‘for too long CPD was the Cinderella of school budget making.’ His wish is for the database to emulate the Amazon book review website; it should be a forum for teachers to share their experiences and for courses to gain the credit they truly deserve. In the private sector, any form of CPD is carefully assessed and culled if it is not immediately successful. Companies that play with tax-payers’ money should face the same kind of scrutiny. Nevertheless, the database will not perform this function unless teachers take time to feedback on their experiences.
So what’s the answer? Greater accountability and sharing of good practice?
Funny that.
With the learning manager revolution, every school should have someone who is directly responsible for facilitating CPD. This involves answering the difficult “chicken and the egg” question of how far CPD should be influenced by the schools' development plan or by teacher need. Is it possible that it can promote teachers’ careers and improve the overall performance of schools too? Another balance that also needs to be struck is between time dedicated to subject areas and pastoral issues. The expectations are perhaps spread too thinly; the conflicting nature of these aims makes it easy to see why some schools are failing to make CPD useful and accessible to all their staff.
LEAs recommend how much schools should be spending on CPD; for instance, Southwark Council recommend that 1% of a school’s overall budget should be dedicated to developing teachers. That said, schools operate a certain amount of discretion over how these funds are spent. This freedom is beneficial but it has led to vast disparities in how different schools utilise their funds.
Let’s deal with in-house training first- since the creation of the infamous Baker Days in the 1980s, schools have been expected to dedicate five days per year to training their staff. In Darwinian style, different schools have adapted this requirement to suit their needs. Certain schools hire out hotels to treat staff to a day out, away from the school environment. These events could be beneficial in breaking up unhelpful cliques that exist by forcing people out of their comfort niches; it also scuppers the tendency for individuals to slink off to their offices when they think no-one is looking. The more cynical may view these days as an unnecessarily frivolous attempt by SLG to distract teachers’ attention away from deeply entrenched problems with a “jolly”.
Other schools stretch the system by giving teachers extra days off in exchange for twilight sessions. Training is delivered through a series of after-school sessions rather than having an entire day dedicated to it. Whilst there are clear morale-boosting benefits, these sessions can end becoming too dispersed and viewed as an “add on” to the general school day rather than something worthwhile in its own right.
In Kent, school’s priorities are changing with the introduction of ‘Building Schools for the Future’; certain schools have started a new programme whereby students are sent packing for one afternoon per week, giving staff the extra time to take part in different training exercises both as a whole body and in smaller planning “parties”. This unsurprisingly has been celebrated by pupils, and staff have also started to see the benefits. It allows for continuity, helps to develop relationships across subjects and ensures that teachers feel included in the ethos of the school. It does however require careful organisation and staff feedback has shown that certain sessions have been received more favourably than others. The key to any in-house training is careful consideration of how to make the subject in hand relevant and accessible to all teachers. No mean feat given that they are the most unforgiving and judgemental audience one could ever have.
Despite the problems that exist within schools, Heads still have the luxury of control and are ultimately responsible for the programmes that they put in place. Outside of school, opportunities for CPD operate within an unregulated minefield. When teachers gain a fraction of responsibility, they are almost ironically immersed in a paper jungle. On a daily basis, they are forced to wade through an exotic array of courses offered by a myriad of institutions including: museums, galleries, commercial companies, universities, examining boards and LEAs. Teachers have to battle against the attitude that one is not a real pedagogue unless they are holding court in front of a class. Every time they consider taking time out of school, they are aware that they are leaving classes to be covered and will have to pick up the consequent behaviour issues and marking when they return. This can make individuals reluctant to research courses (this is on the proviso they even have time to do this) that could be crucial to their development. With institutions charging anything from £180- 300, courses cannot be booked on a whim (“That leaflet looks super!”) and schools are under increasing pressure to ensure they are getting value for money.
Let’s be honest, most teachers have experienced pointless courses. There are several reasons why independent courses can fail to inspire. Courses that claim to get the most techno-phobic teacher ICT savvy, can be relatively futile if they do not focus on the specific software that participants use at their school. Other courses may be pitched incorrectly and rely far too much on teachers sharing “good practice”: writing wonderful things on post it notes and sticking them on sugar paper. These always end with a “plenary” where the facilitator regurgitates banal clichés and patronisingly pats everyone on the back. As one teacher remarked:
‘It was all very posh. We had little notepads, pencils and bottles of water on the tables. But I could have delivered a better course myself. It didn’t tell me anything I didn’t know.’
These bad cappuccino (all froth and no substance) events generally leave teachers feeling disheartened and complacent. Teachers can also feel stressed about how they will feedback about unsatisfactory courses. If they are negative, then they could seem ungrateful; it may also mean that SLG are less willing to authorise courses inn the future. It is very difficult to ascertain from the advertising jargon crammed in bulging pigeon holes what courses are actually worth their salt.
Some of the best courses are predictably run by examining bodies. However, these have also faced criticism; chief examiners have been accused of “moonlighting”: earning private money when they should be focused upon improving the current assessment system. As these courses flourish, another worry is that exam boards will become more reluctant to distribute free materials and resources to schools. Why face these costs when they can charge money and make a profit? Schools are at their mercy; the courses cannot help but be relevant as these bodies dictate what the pupils need to know in their exams. Therefore, even if the provider is bum-numbingly inept, the content will be greedily gobbled up by teachers under pressure to meet their performance management targets.
The attitude of Head Teachers can be detrimental too, one Head stated that courses ‘Really should be cream-cake and coffee time.’ Given the prevalence of views such as this, it is not surprising that The Training and Development Agency found that 41% of schools had never consulted national organisations. Insular behaviour can lead to schools becoming archaically ignorant.
Although at present there is a distinct lack of a system of accreditation for commercial courses, there is some good news. Teachers TV have employed regional CPD advisors and in autumn 2008, the TDA finally launched a national database for CPD. This was spear-headed by former London Schools Commissioner, Tim Brighouse who argues that: ‘for too long CPD was the Cinderella of school budget making.’ His wish is for the database to emulate the Amazon book review website; it should be a forum for teachers to share their experiences and for courses to gain the credit they truly deserve. In the private sector, any form of CPD is carefully assessed and culled if it is not immediately successful. Companies that play with tax-payers’ money should face the same kind of scrutiny. Nevertheless, the database will not perform this function unless teachers take time to feedback on their experiences.
So what’s the answer? Greater accountability and sharing of good practice?
Funny that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
