About a week ago, I posted an article about teaching children according to their ability rather than according to what year they are in at school.  In addition to the comments on the post itself, I got some favourable remarks and shoutouts on Twitter.  Given that the system is “my baby” I’m extremely conscious of rambling on for far too long about it, and so I tried to cut it down to the essentials and made the classic teaching mistake of expecting my audience to understand the finer points without further explanation.  Having worked with the system for the large part of the last decade I sometimes forget that the system is not self-explanatory.  So thank you to the people who posted and tweeted questions.  For anyone who missed the original post, you can find it and the comments here.

I’m going to start with perhaps the most fascinating question, which was put by Pandoora who asked:

does this mean my 13-year-old daughter and I shouldn’t be bothered by her having to sit next to that 16-year-old gang banger boy who keeps getting retained and can’t seem to get out of middle school? Continue reading »

(c) Sunshine on the Road, via Flickr

When I was younger, it wasn’t all that unusual to see a small kids struggling to get around on his or her big brother’s bike.  It always looked a bit strange.  It was undoubtedly both somewhat dangerous and tiring, and the kid would have always been better served by having a bike of the right size.  Obviously, not every family could afford it.  And if you travel a lot in developing countries, you will still regularly be confronted with such a sight.

Now ask yourself this…  If you decided to learn a new language and went to evening school to enrol in a course would you find the following conversation between yourself and the enrolment clerk odd?

“Hello, I’ve decided I’d like to learn Chinese.”
” That’s great!  How old are you?”
“Er… Forty-two.  Why?”
“Excellent.  We’ll put you in a Level 6 Course”
“But I’m a beginner!”
“At 42 you should be in Level 6.”
“Er…”

If you don’t find the above odd, then stop reading now – this article is not for you.  For the rest of you, ask yourself the following:  Why do we do that with foreign languages in schools? Continue reading »

This article was originally published as a guest blog in Betty Ray’s edutopia.org blog.

* * * * *

(c) trix0r, Flickr

To put it bluntly, teachers have a major image problem. Seen from the outside, teachers have excellent job security, long holidays, they aren’t accountable for their performance and then to cap it all, they are constantly complaining about their pay and conditions.

It gets worse. Although teachers may be great at presenting information, they are not usually skilled at defending themselves against adversaries in the same way that politicians, journalists and business managers are. This means the teacher is holding a really bad hand when getting involved in emotive arguments like how to reform education.

Because reform is an emotive word. If you put it together with education, you have a heady mixture. At the same time reform is an elusive thing. It’s like quality. Everyone wants it, but no-one can agree what it is. So when the #edchat discussion last Tuesday took on the issue of education reform and the role of the teacher in it, I knew it would be a dynamic discussion. Six-hundred ninety-one posts in an hour from 83 different contributors around the world confirmed my expectations. Continue reading »

(c) Gary Hayes, via Flickr

If you’re a Twitter user and you’re looking for great, thought-provoking ideas on education then a good place to start is @spedteacher.  His blog, Education On The Plate is a must-read for anyone looking for stimulating input on the subject of education.  I saw through Twitter that he’d blogged on the subject of running schools like a business – something which I feel has great advantages.  One thing that Deven did was to identify that this is not only controversial, it is also not simple.  Teachers are almost naturally resistant to the factory model for a school, recognising that students are individuals in their formative years and have differing needs and skills.  I’ve even heard a teacher use Pink Floyd’s, The Wall as an example of how school can be too focused on creating drones.  Sadly when it comes to this piece of music, I can’t forgive the band for the first line – We don’t need no education.  Countless kids know this line without understanding or even having heard the rest of the piece. Continue reading »

(c) Mags_cat, Flickr

It’s been a hard week.  Today was the deadline for the half-year reports so I’ve been tied up with checking the marks for the English Department for the last few days.  As always the deadline took a few of my colleagues by surprise (but they often get caught out by Christmas too, so I’m prepared for that now!)  We have a standardised grading system which is centrally administered.  The aim is to balance out individual differences between teachers as much as possible and to make the results for the kids as fair as we can.  Actually, this is less work than it sounds and results in the English teachers having rather less to do than some of their colleagues at this time.  The computer takes over the drudgery, and I pass out the result sheets.

And, as always, there has been a stream of kids coming to my office to explain to me why they should get a better mark.  “You’ve calculated it wrong,” is very popular.  As is, “I’ve worked really hard.“  Sometimes the explanations are truly impressive – “You’re ruining my life,” crops up once or twice a year.

This is all par for the course.  It’s part of the job, and once in a while you hear something so good that it makes the job worthwhile.  My favourite this week was, “I need at least a C or I’ll get Mr X again and I hate him.“  I had some sympathy with this, but sadly couldn’t do anything about it.  Of course, it’s a bit annoying when colleagues pass the buck when it comes to handing out bad news and refer the kids to me to give them their marks.  It’s even more annoying when fruitless appeals are passed on to me on the grounds that I, as the Department Co-ordinator, can change marks because of tears, demands, begging or flattery.

But this is all part of the job.  I expect kids to try it on.  I did it myself on occasions.  They’re growing up and pushing their limits.  That’s fine.

What’s not fine is when colleagues come to me and beg.  Continue reading »

(c) daveknapik, Flickr

This is a favourite subject of mine.  There are lots of slogans in this world that deal with change management – “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” is the mantra of the cautious.  ”if you aren’t moving forwards, you’re going backwards” is innovator’s cry.  If you get to the point where you start hearing “stop flogging a dead horse” then it’s probably time to stop wondering which slogan holds more truth and to start doing something about your situation.

The trouble is, that’s when the real work starts.  Of course, you can delay the moment by setting up a work group, or issuing a draft proposal and asking for comments , but the day is going to come when you have to make the change.  It’s at that point you realise that your opponents (and whatever you believe, you do have them!) are well-armed and thoroughly trained in putting a brake on your campaign to conquer the brave new world at your doorstep.

The first weapon of choice for such people is, “what if…” and believe me, this is a potent enemy of the innovator.  It’s supporters proclaim the need for a thorough understanding of the new concept, including any possible issues that just might crop up somewhere along the line.  The what if game is, of course, a variation on the four-year-olds’ favourite game – “Why?”  A well-practised kid can bring otherwise stable parent close to a nervous breakdown with seven repetitions of this simple question.  The problem is that the parent’s final sanction, “because I say so,” doesn’t usually work in the adult world and even more rarely in a teachers’ staff meeting.

I watched a very skilled headmaster blow the what if tactic out of the water.  Having allowed the discussion to continue for a while, he asked the meeting, “Is anyone here actually against implementing the new system?”  This is playing hard ball.  Few professional delayers want to openly show dissension, they prefer to use “concern” as their motive.  No-one was prepared to oppose the idea outright.  The headmaster wrapped up the discussion.  ”Good, then we’ll phase in the new system starting on the 1st of next month and deal with any issues as they arise.”

In the same way that expecting to get all the kids in your class up to the pass standard is usually counter-productive, continuing the negotiations until everyone in a department agrees is a recipe for never changing anything.

What it really comes down to is, how much do you want the change you are advocating?  If it’s important to you, then unanimity, consensus and diplomacy are your enemies.  Harmonious staff rooms exist only in Utopia and the sooner you accept that the better.  Smoothing out arguments and negotiating is playing into the hands of your adversaries.  Before you know it, your plans are so watered down, they are rendered almost useless.  Failure is pre-programmed.

It all comes down to what sort of institution you want to work in.  You can accept the status quo and let the professional objectors have their comfortable life, of you can rattle a few cages and maybe reduce your own personal frustration levels.  And maybe, just maybe, a few of your colleagues will thank you for your efforts somewhere down the line.