Learning is delightful and delicious …

I did some marking this morning – year 7 music books. I can’t say I’m surprised – and I suspect that anyone who teaches in a bog-standard, everyday school will say the same – but I’m saddened at the state they’re in.

My daughters are at primary school (year 2 and year 5) and they’re taught handwriting. Now, I should point out here that my being critical of handwriting is truly a case “pot, meet kettle”, because mine isn’t great and never has been. BUT – given that children spend a lot of time in primary school learning how to form letters properly, I’m amazed that there are only about 2 or 3 books out of 20-odd that bear witness to that fact.

Right from day one, I have insisted that pupils write “date, title, objective” in their books. They’re always up on the board at the beginning of the lessons, so they can get on with it straight away, and I have a colour coding system. We’re almost at the end of their first term with me, and although it’s getting better, there are still kids who sit there at the start of the lesson with their books closed in front of them, looking gormless. And the state of some of the books… I don’t mean that they’re drawn on or scribbled on (although some are), it’s just… the way the work is set out just makes no sense, and will be of no help to them when I set them to revise for a test!

Although my handwriting leaves a lot to be desired, I’m sure that at 11, I did at least recognise the necessity to lay out my work in such a way that I could understand if when I went back to it. But now?

A couple of weeks back, I introduced pupils to the Elements of Music, standard technical vocabulary that includes words like tempo, pitch, structure etc. I told them to list the words on one side of the page and write the definitions on the other. Common sense, right?

It would seem not.

It would also seem that they’ve not been taught to underline titles. Or how to lay out their work. I think I’m going to have to do some powerpoint “templates” to put up to try to drum it into them, because if they don’t learn it now, then I can’t see them ever doing so. Although they should have already learned stuff like that in years 5 and 6, surely.

This is also something I’ve asked myself repeatedly, since I started teaching – but are kids lazier now than they used to be? Sure, I was crap at tidying up my room, and would lie in bed reading all morning at the weekend, but this is more than that. I set a lesson starter each week that relates to something we did in the last lesson or one before that. But again, the majority of the kids just sit there with blank expressions on their faces, It doesn’t seem to enter their heads to try looking back in their books! And in fact, a lot of them don’t do it until I tell them to! Why do they think they are writing things in their books each lesson? Just because I feel like making them write in their books?

I know there’s something in the media almost every week about how standards in education are falling, and I’m sorry to say that I think it’s true. There has been a point – and I think I can guess when – where, instead of teaching children to think for themselves, we began to spoon-feed them to such an extent that they now expect to have to do practically no thinking for themselves. In a French test last week for year 8s (yes, that test), one of the questions on the reading paper involved reading the information given and drawing a very simple conclusion from it. For example, one question was “who likes to visit castles?” (in French, of course!). The text didn’t say that “X likes to visit castles”, rather it said that “X was very interested in history and liked to visit monuments”. So the kids had to work out the answer from that.
Not hard, is it?
But they really struggled.

Is expecting a 12-13 year old to be able to use simple reasoning expecting too much?

I’m not sure whether I’m annoyed or strangely amused by this.

I was marking some tests earlier. The class in question is probably the worst behaved of all my groups and has more than its fair share of obnoxious kids in.

There’s one boy in particular that I taught last year who is very bright, but just wastes his time being rude and uncooperative. Let’s call him “X”.

He sits close to “Y” – another rude, obnoxious child that I’ve only had the pleasure of knowing since September. Let me tell you, it’s a pleasure I could quite happily have lived without.

So, I’m marking X’s test. The sad thing is that on the three questions he bothered to answer, he got perfect marks. I turn over the page to find a drawing of me. The way I know it was me was because he’d labelled it. I won’t describe it. Next to “me”, was a stick drawing labelled “X”, where X is pointing a gun to my head.

The next picture is of a gravestone with RIP Mrs “me” on it (and he can’t even spell my name properly), and then more stick drawings, this time of X and Y, both of whom are pissing on my grave.

I don’t get upset by this sort of thing – I mean these kids are total wankers who don’t really deserve any attempt to educate them, and they’re as far beneath me as to be shit on my shoe. But I’ve brought this to the attention of the head of year, who is going to be calling in both boys’ parents.

What happens remains to be seen.

If they were adults, and in any other job, they’d have been dismissed and I could probably have called in the police to deal with malicious threats.

I guess all I can really do is dig my heels in and refuse to have either of them in my class.

I don’t teach science. But I did study physics and chemistry at A level, and can honestly say that I never felt intimidated by the boys in my class, whether then or when I was doing O levels.

But I can see that some girls could feel that way in science lessons, which is why the idea of having single-sex science classes could actually be a good idea. It could work in other subjects too, the other way around; boys may find English lessons tough because girls of that age are generally more articulate (well, when they can stop combing their hair or checking their make-up), so there may be a case for single-sex classes in other subjects, too.

I never attended a single sex school, but I can see there are arguments for and against. On the one hand, academic results from single sex schools have tended to be better, partly, one could argue because the girls or boys aren’t as… hormonally distracted at that awkward age. The downside though is that the girls/boys spend a lot of their time without interacting with the opposite sex and therefore they become something of a “mystery”. I remember the crowds of boys that used to congregate outside the local girls’ school at chucking out time.

So having single-sex lessons, but in mixed schools could bring the best of both worlds. There would be some subjects where the classes could be mixed, and also, the kids would be able to socialise at break and lunch; but there would be less of that whole “boy/girl thing” going on in lessons. You know the sort of thing – the slapping, punching, kicking and nicking of pencil-cases that goes on when a boy and girl “like each other”.

The big question is – would teachers have to plan different lessons for classes of boys and classes of girls? We’re supposed to plan to appeal to both sexes, but there are some things which lend themselves more naturally to girls than boys and vice versa.

Whatever – I still think it’s a good idea in principle and would like to see more schools giving it a go.

Honestly, when I read articles like these, I feel like going around echoing John Laurie’s Dad’s Army catchphrase – “We’re doomed.”

These all come from the Telegraph over the last few days.

First of all, Schools fined for expelling violent pupils.

I posted a while back that one of the schools I work at is now tending to opt for the “better the devil you know” approach, partly because of the money it costs when a pupil is permanently excluded. I didn’t, however, realise that some councils are fining schools ON TOP of the lost funding. I mean, WTF? A school that is trying to safeguard the mental – and often, physical – well-being of it’s pupils and staff is penalised to the tune of thousands of pounds? A school which gets rid of the thugs and (I’m sorry) no-hopers who don’t want to learn, regardless of how exciting we make our lessons – is made to pay through the nose because they’re doing the right thing in trying to ensure that the rest of their pupils gets a chance at an eduction?

It’s truly mind-boggling. But what’s even moreso is the quote from a government idiot spokesman at the end of the article, that

“Schools have multi-million pound budgets and we do not believe that this would be a disincentive to exclusion, especially when unruly pupils use such large amounts of resources.”

Hang on. Because schools have large budgets, they can afford to take that sort of hit in the pocket? When was the last time he visited a tough state school? I have just spent my entire budget for this financial YEAR. I blew it on non-essential items like exercise books for the kids, some new percussion instruments, pens, pencils, glue, blue-tack and paper clips. I bought some storage units to keep the books in, some recorders, an audio cable. You want to know how much that budget was? For a secondary school music department for a year?? A measly 500 quid. I have instruments in need of repair or replacement because really, I can’t get the kids doing what they’re supposed to be doing without them. I don’t have the money to do it. I had to buy about £15 worth of stationery last week, because I had run out of a few things, and was told that there isn’t any money. And that’s without all the stuff I provide myself that I don’t claim for. Blank CDs, tracks I download, stickers, stampers, pens and pencils (because they’re cheaper in ASDA than from the county supplier!)

So, Mr Government spokesman, don’t bloody-well tell me that because schools have multi-million pound budgets it doesn’t hurt when they get fined for trying to do the right thing.

*takes deep breath*

The second article which got my blood boiling was this one, Bullies returned to the classroom. Well, it’s not news to me, but the thought that those poor kids who have suffered at the hands of bullies have to face them again because they’ve only been given a short suspension… makes me want to throw up my hands in despair. When did this become a society in which the victim has no rights whatsoever? The odds are stacked hugely in favour of the wrongdoer – they all “know their rights”, and when it comes to schoolkids, they are the ones who know that we can do nothing to them by way of sanctions that they actually care about. Because, let’s face it – those kids who are the ones causing us the most problems are the ones who don’t want to be at school anyway. And given that in most cases, their parents probably couldn’t care less (which is why the kids have turned out that way), exclusion for a short period of time causes no inconvenience whatsoever. Sure, the school is obliged to send work home, but the kids don’t do it. And then they come back, having probably won a few more followers because they’re so “well ‘ard” and proceed to make some other poor kid’s life a misery all over again.

But never fear. Help is at hand. Because now, schools have to consult pupils before they do anything that could conceivably interfere with their social life education, like changing the curriculum, or the disciplinary policy. And also, Pupils get new powers to fight expulsion.

Er. What? I think I might have spotted a basic flaw in this plan. Aren’t the majority of the kids who get expelled – assuming that the school can afford it – the ones who don’t want to be there anyway? So why would they bother to fight such a decision? I can only think of one reason – to get their own back and make life difficult for the school.

Or am I being too cynical?

Seriously, on days like this, I fear for the future of our society. We’re turning out a generation who have an over-inflated idea of their own importance while being unable to read, write or add up properly. A generation who have no idea that failure is possible and thus have no clue how to deal with it. Kids who are sent to “anger management” classes rather than taught to have self-control and to know that there are certain mores we all have to conform to in order for society to function correctly.

I think I’ll stop now before my head explodes.

We all know the lengths some pupils will go to in order to avoid doing their homework. But excuses used to be limited to “my dog ate it” or “my little brother peed on it” and suchlike. But now, according to a survey by PIXmania.com, the excuses are increasingly tech-related.

And they’ve just realised that now??

I’ve lost count of the times I’ve heard “Sorry I haven’t got my homework miss, but the printer ran out of ink last night and I couldn’t print it off.”

My usual reply – “Why were you only printing it last night? – you’ve had this for two weeks.”

Followed up by, “never mind, just put it onto a disk or your mp3/phone and bring it in tomorrow and I’ll print it here.”

Heh. Gotcha.

Anyway, The Independent lists the top five tech-excuses, plus some other humdingers, my favourite of which is -

My dad’s computer was hacked by the Russians and they stole my homework,

closely followed by -

The PC exploded when our dog went to the toilet on it

*shakes head* I suppose you have to admire their ingenuity.

I feel distinctly shell-shocked this evening. First lesson this morning was an utterly horrible year 8 French class. It’s a small group (just as well!) but it contains some of the… shall we say, least amiable kids in the year group. They’re hard work at the best of times, but today, I had to throw two of them out – but not before I and the (male)TA who was in there had been subjected to any number of personal comments (”I fink you need to tone darn yer lipstick, miss”), and I’d watched a girl rip up her work and then insist that I’d done it. Among other things.

Then in PSHE today, I had to contend with a very bolshy kid who was refusing to take part in the lesson or to do anything he was asked. He was rude to me as well, and in the end, he’d had enough warnings from me for failing to follow instructions, so there was nothing for it, but to have him removed. I had to leave the room to get to the nearest phone which was in the office next door – and almost the next minute, I heard a terrific crash and hurried over to see this kid storming out of the room. Going back in, I found a couple of desks and several chairs overturned on the floor. Another incident form to be filled in. And needless to say, the lesson went totally out of the window after that. And then, having to speak to the Head and the Head of Year and do the form-filling meant I was late to my next class – which is just across the corridor – and by the time I got into that lesson, the kids were already thinking it was lunchtime.

Joy.

Then I got used for cover my only free period, which was another delight. Year 9 history, which should have been okay, but it was a class where I knew hardly any of the kids, which made it hard work. By the last lesson, I’d just about had it!

Well, different school tomorrow. I’m hoping for a better day. Although I’m not banking on it.

Now this kind of kick-ass head is the sort I think that one of my schools could do with.

And I know what I’m talking about, because the school mentioned in the article is the one where I trained as a GTP a few years back.

The Principal had only been there a year then, I think, but it was already clear that she was going to be a force to be reckoned with and I’m glad it’s working out. Not only because I have connections to the school, but because it’s the one that my kids will almost certainly be going to.

I just hope she stays on and her approach doesn’t get diluted by the namby-pamby-brigade.

This article from TimesOnline naturally caught my eye today – The Case for forcing birth control on unfit mothers.

Of course, I think that last should have read “unfit parents“, but I’ll let that one go.

The article tells of a Dutch politician who is putting forward a draft bill recommending that unfit mothers should be forced by law into two years of contraception. Babies conceived during that period would be taken away at birth.

Wow. I’m not sure I really know where to start, but I’m going to try.

I’m sure a lot of us – and not just teachers – have said at some point, that there are people in society who don’t deserve to have any children and who should be prevented from having any more. Come on, own up. You know you’ve said or thought it – I certainly have. And considering the problems faced by some of the kids at my schools, I’m probably thinking it more frequently than ever. But putting aside the moral and ethical issues of whether the state should be allowed to dictate whether or not you have a child, how the hell would something like this be enforced? Other than by removing the child from the family after birth, which is a pretty draconian step. (Although the argument there, I guess, is that the child is being removed from a potentially abusive situation). But how are you going to force these women into using contraception? The mind boggles.

But the politician quite reasonably states that “the professionals who come into contact with families in difficulties all say the same thing. They see the same problems repeated again and again in certain families. It’s obvious from when social workers are forced to take the first child into care that it won’t be the last.”

The writer goes on to say – “Children are increasingly being damaged by them [unfit parents]. At the extremes, chaotic mothers who are prostitutes or addicts or mentally ill or just what my own mother called inadequate are condemning their children to the same miserable and disordered lives.”

I wouldn’t argue with that.

So the idea is to try to stop more children being born into those families.

I really don’t know how I feel about that. On the one hand, the idea of being able to prevent a child being neglected or abused, their life made a misery at the hands of the people who are supposed to love and care for them the most is definitely a step in the right direction. But… despite my mutterings that there are people in this world who should never be allowed to procreate – do I – or anyone – have the right to stop them?

The writer suggests that an alternative would be to take away the financial… “incentive” … for the “unfit” to continue to reproduce. We’ve all heard and read the newspaper stories about “couple has 22 children, claims £200,000 a year in benefits and has 5 houses, all paid for by the council.”

Her suggestion is that benefits would be withdrawn from said families if they had more than 2 children. But the problem with that idea, surely, is that it would be the children that suffered. Because if the parents are addicts of some description, they will still need to spend money on feeding their habit and the children will be even worse off than before.

I would like to think that there’s some sort of solution to be found which will help to address the problem of “unfit parenting”. Because I can’t see things getting any better, as the current generation of little darlings goes on to produce more unruly kids and so on. Teachers are being expected to do so much more than simply (!) teach these days, bringing a whole new meaning to the phrase “in loco parentis” (although depending on where you live that might not be appropriate, because the council may have banned the use of Latin phrases!) – and we’ve had our hands tied behind our backs in terms of what we can actually do to attempt to discipline those children who are causing the problems. And as I’ve said before, I have a lot of sympathy for whatever problems those children have as a result of their background etc., but that doesn’t give them the right to disrupt and adversely affect the education of others.

And I’ve gone off at a tangent, although it’s a related one – because the article references reports from earlier in the week about the number of young children – under fives – who are being excluded from nursery and pre-schools because of violent and disruptive behaviour. The general secretary of the NAHT puts this down to increasing numbers of parents who are completely unable to control their kids. Probably because their parents were unable to control them. And so on.

And not only are these children (and I know I’m generalising) consigned to a life of illiteracy, unemployment and possibly crime, but according to the article, scientists are “beginning to understand” that neglect retards and/or impairs cognitive development.

On another tangent – I’m sorry, but any teacher or (decent!) parent, or child-social worker could have told those scientists that a parent not interacting with their child will impair that child’s development!

So what do we do about it? Forced contraception, or withdrawal of benefits? I suppose in a way, option one is the lesser of two evils, because then, the child isn’t born to be abused or neglected or taken into care. Because taking away money from the “unfit” parent will only adversely affect that child and its siblings.

But something needs to be done. Working where I work, I see the effects of poor parenting on a daily basis, and those effects are far reaching. If a kid doesn’t want to be in school, or to learn, that’s one thing. But when they’re allowed to stop the learning of others, it’s grossly unfair. I see the frustration of pupils who want to learn day after day, as I have to spend time disciplining disruptive pupils. I have to go through a number of steps for the sake of it, knowing that if I could just stop that kid coming into the room, I’d have more than a half decent chance of actually getting to give a lesson. But no, I have to do all I can to keep them in the classroom (this is at one of my schools – the other is much better at supporting staff who have to remove pupils from lessons) and make all the other students suffer.

I don’t know what the answer is. But whatever it is, we need it soon.

Having had a crap day mid-week, it got better towards the end. It’s very true that a little goes a long way, because a couple of members of SMT – one of them the acting head – approached me on Friday to thank me for the work I’m doing and to say that they’re pleased and impressed and that my name is being mentioned very favourably by other members of staff.

I think I can honestly say that this is the first job I’ve had where people have gone out of their way to tell me something like that. And actually, it’s the first time I’ve heard something like that in quite a while. And for me, personally, it’s been a real confidence boost. I’ve had a tough year – mostly for personal reasons, which have of course impacted on work – and it’s so good to know that I’m back on track and that I can do this, after going through a period of such low confidence in my ability to do the job.

A small thing – but it means a lot to me.

I had a pretty crappy day yesterday. I don’t know why, but most of my classes were real PsITA, even the ones which are usually okay. Those are the days when I end up wondering whether I really know what the hell I’m doing in a classroom.

I was cheered up when I (finally) got home to find my DVD of Iron Man had arrived – but I only managed to watch an hour of it before I had to go to bed. Otherwise, I’d have fallen asleep on the sofa!

Today was manic, as usual, but a bit better. The year 8s I’ve been struggling with are getting a little easier – although that’s not saying much! But at least it’s moving in the right direction. But the year 7s I had at the end of the day – what a bunch of little so-and sos! I guess they’ve settled in, now.

Struggling Schools spared taking excluded pupils – although I know well enough by now not to hang the flags out too early, because the article states that schools won’t have to take children with behaviour problems part-way through the year – so we’ll get them all in a lump at the beginning of the academic year instead!

Over at School Gate, The thorny issue of exclusion, asks whether parents should be taught to discipline properly, and whether the education of the well behaved pupils should be prioritised over the badly behaved.

My answer to the first question – undoubtedly yes. But it won’t happen. It seems crazy, when we have a government that wants to regulate so much of what we do, that it can’t take action over something so vitally and fundamentally important to the wellbeing of the society of the future. But on the other hand, what can actually be done? Short of passing a law that says that expectant parents have to attend parenting classes! And then what? I’d be willing to bet that the prospective parents who really should attend wouldn’t do so – and if they did, they’d be the equivalent of Jason and Shannon in year 11. Or come to think of it; they might actually be Jason and Shannon in year 11!
As to the second – it’s yes; and no. We can’t just abandon the “naughty” kids. In some cases there are medical and/or social explanations for their behaviour. I’m not saying that excuses it, but it’s to be hoped that if these children can be helped by specialist staff, taught things that they will find useful (which for some of them will be basic literacy and numeracy!) that they can be “redeemed”. But that shouldn’t be done at the expense of those kids who have the potential to do well at school and who want to learn. And that is still the majority, although it doesn’t seem like it in some of the classes I teach!