"Every school pupil in England is to be taught that domestic violence against women and girls is unacceptable, as part of a new government strategy. Under the plans, from 2011 children will be taught from the age of five how to prevent violent relationships."
Of course I agree that domestic violence and abusive relationships are wrong. So are murder, rape, burglary, bestiality and necrophilia. Will teachers also be required to teach students about these crimes?
Well, I have a better idea: Why not allow teachers to teach the subjects that they are trained in and familiar with, rather than expecting them to solve everything in a classroom environment? It's a wacky one, I know, but let's give it a go. Can schools solve all problems? No, they bloody can't! Leave us in peace to teach our subjects!!
Thursday, 26 November 2009
Wednesday, 25 November 2009
Carnival
The fifth edition of the Carnival of Educators is up and running over at Notes From a Homeschooling Mom. I must be particularly ranty lately because I have three posts on there. There are lots of interesting posts and it is certainly worth a visit!
Tuesday, 24 November 2009
A day in the life
It occurred to me late last night that after twenty months and eighty-six posts, I have never given an insight into my daily routine. Yes, I wax lyrical about policies and government initiatives and the colleagues who either inspire me or, increasingly, drive me to despair. And yes, sometimes I am so bold as to offer my own solutions to education's many, many problems. I am a teacher, the clue is in the title, and I write almost exclusively about teaching and learning issues. Yet it could be argued that people have no idea as to what I do all day. So, in case you were wondering, here is a summary of what I did today:
The alarm woke me up at 6:20am. I could hear that Mrs Teacher was already in the shower so I hit the snooze and finally got out of bed ten minutes later. I never eat breakfast at home during the week because I can't relax as much as I would like to for fear of getting too comfortable and leaving too late. Or not leaving at all. So, I locked my front door at 7:05 and listened to the car radio on the way in, via a stop to drop the aforementioned Mrs T at the train station. Arrived at work at 7:30, one hour and twenty minutes before the start of the first lesson.
I put the exercise books that I had corrected over the weekend and last night back in their boxes and then took the chairs down off the tables. Rather strangely, I loathe this mundane table-and-chair routine and even dread it at times. Of course, I could wait and get the kids to do this themselves but in my experience it is much better to be organised and ready to start as soon as they turn up. It cuts down on the hassle.
The first lot shuffled in about 8:50 for the dreaded double lesson, lasting until morning break just before 11:00. I spent most of the allowed twenty minutes writing basic things on the board - title, date, learning objectives - and generally getting the room ready for the lessons to come. I managed to grab a quick cup of coffee but, as usual, didn't really have the time to take a breath.
I then taught three consecutive lessons to three different year groups before the next opportunity to switch off, each one requiring a tremendous amount of preparation, energy and enthusiasm.
Thirty-five minutes of a fifty minute lunch was spent sitting upstairs in the main staff room, having something to eat and drink. My colleagues and I chatted as we ate, sometimes about our lives and loves away from school but mostly about our students and our heavy, unreasonable workloads. All of us with one eye on the big clock on the wall, of course.
Normally I would work for at least an hour and a half before leaving but no such luck tonight: It's a parent consultation evening so, after roughly forty-five very similar appointments, I get in my battered old VW and drive through the school gates in my favourite direction at exactly 6:48pm, eleven hours and eighteen minutes after I arrived. I got back home just after 7:00, twelve hours since I had last been there.
After an hour spent marking books while eating my dinner, I took a shower and now I am writing this post. As soon as it is done I will slump in front of the tv for a short while before going to bed and starting all over again.
The alarm woke me up at 6:20am. I could hear that Mrs Teacher was already in the shower so I hit the snooze and finally got out of bed ten minutes later. I never eat breakfast at home during the week because I can't relax as much as I would like to for fear of getting too comfortable and leaving too late. Or not leaving at all. So, I locked my front door at 7:05 and listened to the car radio on the way in, via a stop to drop the aforementioned Mrs T at the train station. Arrived at work at 7:30, one hour and twenty minutes before the start of the first lesson.
I put the exercise books that I had corrected over the weekend and last night back in their boxes and then took the chairs down off the tables. Rather strangely, I loathe this mundane table-and-chair routine and even dread it at times. Of course, I could wait and get the kids to do this themselves but in my experience it is much better to be organised and ready to start as soon as they turn up. It cuts down on the hassle.
The first lot shuffled in about 8:50 for the dreaded double lesson, lasting until morning break just before 11:00. I spent most of the allowed twenty minutes writing basic things on the board - title, date, learning objectives - and generally getting the room ready for the lessons to come. I managed to grab a quick cup of coffee but, as usual, didn't really have the time to take a breath.
I then taught three consecutive lessons to three different year groups before the next opportunity to switch off, each one requiring a tremendous amount of preparation, energy and enthusiasm.
Thirty-five minutes of a fifty minute lunch was spent sitting upstairs in the main staff room, having something to eat and drink. My colleagues and I chatted as we ate, sometimes about our lives and loves away from school but mostly about our students and our heavy, unreasonable workloads. All of us with one eye on the big clock on the wall, of course.
Normally I would work for at least an hour and a half before leaving but no such luck tonight: It's a parent consultation evening so, after roughly forty-five very similar appointments, I get in my battered old VW and drive through the school gates in my favourite direction at exactly 6:48pm, eleven hours and eighteen minutes after I arrived. I got back home just after 7:00, twelve hours since I had last been there.
After an hour spent marking books while eating my dinner, I took a shower and now I am writing this post. As soon as it is done I will slump in front of the tv for a short while before going to bed and starting all over again.
Monday, 23 November 2009
What's in a name?
This lazy, selfish cow has 13 kids and another on the way at the age of 39. Does she have a job to support her brood? Does she hell! This sort of things really gets on my nerves because it is obvious that this creature, Sara Foss, and her partner do not view having a family in the same way that I and most others do, namely that it is something that needs to be planned and thereafter paid for. By yourself.
She has vowed to keep churning them out until she fulfils her dream of having twins. Well, how wonderful for the rest of us who are up to our armpits in taxes so that she can stay at home all day, "begin her chores at 4am every morning and keep the house spotlessly clean to avoid being tagged a layabout scrounger." Too late, love. Unless her boat-building fella has a lucrative contract to build boats for the ministry of defence, I maintain that she is feeding and clothing her clan with money from my pocket. This vile, selfish pair receives a whopping £4,200 every month in benefits. That is more than Mrs Teacher and I earn between us and we rarely put in less than a combined total of 90 hours graft per week. Imagine how much that sticks in the throat. No doubt they were given a free house and don't have to cough up for council tax, gas or electric. This leaves them with more taxes to squander on fags and booze and cheap food. Here's an idea: Why not do us all a favour and splash out on a packet of condoms? It is wrong, plain and simple, and is a stand-out example of everything that is wrong with this wretched country.
To compound an already disastrous situation, she has already foisted her appalling lack of judgement onto some of her offspring by calling them Peppermint, Echo, Rogue, Frodo, Morpheus, Artemis, Blackbird, Baudelaire and Voorhees. Need I say more?
She has vowed to keep churning them out until she fulfils her dream of having twins. Well, how wonderful for the rest of us who are up to our armpits in taxes so that she can stay at home all day, "begin her chores at 4am every morning and keep the house spotlessly clean to avoid being tagged a layabout scrounger." Too late, love. Unless her boat-building fella has a lucrative contract to build boats for the ministry of defence, I maintain that she is feeding and clothing her clan with money from my pocket. This vile, selfish pair receives a whopping £4,200 every month in benefits. That is more than Mrs Teacher and I earn between us and we rarely put in less than a combined total of 90 hours graft per week. Imagine how much that sticks in the throat. No doubt they were given a free house and don't have to cough up for council tax, gas or electric. This leaves them with more taxes to squander on fags and booze and cheap food. Here's an idea: Why not do us all a favour and splash out on a packet of condoms? It is wrong, plain and simple, and is a stand-out example of everything that is wrong with this wretched country.
To compound an already disastrous situation, she has already foisted her appalling lack of judgement onto some of her offspring by calling them Peppermint, Echo, Rogue, Frodo, Morpheus, Artemis, Blackbird, Baudelaire and Voorhees. Need I say more?
Wednesday, 18 November 2009
34
I remember 1 lesson when I had to teach 2 full groups of students in 1 normal-sized classroom, a grand total of about 60 kids. This was due to the selfishness and stupidity of a former colleague who has since moved on, no doubt to a high-ranking position in education. This was, of course, madness. It makes me laugh out loud when I read articles about the maximum number of students who should be in a class at any given time because it always makes me think of this incident.
I am timetabled to teach about 10 different classes this year, varying in age and ability level. 1 of the Key Stage 4 groups has only 12 kids in it but the rest have between 28 and 30. There is, however, 1 notable exception: 1 class has exactly 34 students on the register. I argue that, in terms of teaching and learning, there isn't really a worthwhile difference between a class with between 28-30 kids and a class with anywhere up to 36 kids. The triumphs and problems probably wouldn't differ too much, except when it comes to marking their books and tests and trying to make appointments for parents evening. I do begin to see a problem, however, when there isn't enough physical space for this to work. Everybody must have a desk to lean on and a chair to sit on. There must be enough space for the teacher to move, unobstructed, around the room. Anything less isn't viable and isn't safe.
This is the situation I find myself in on 3 occasions every week when 34 kids have to learn and be taught in a room with 30 desks and 30 chairs. The "solution" is to beg and borrow 4 chairs beforehand and have the poor sods who arrive last sit in the narrow spaces between rows with their materials either on their laps or on other people's desks. It isn't fair on anybody, myself included, to be expected to progress in this sort of environment. This is 1 of many examples of such practice that exist here at the school I work in. Luckily the students involved are a decent bunch who get on with it without too much fuss, but surely this is even more of a reason for them to be properly treated and adequately catered for?
I have no doubt that there are loads of teachers who can empathise with this all too common problem. There needs to be a national, legally-binding consensus between the government and schools whereby a maximum number of students per class is agreed upon and is never breached.
I am timetabled to teach about 10 different classes this year, varying in age and ability level. 1 of the Key Stage 4 groups has only 12 kids in it but the rest have between 28 and 30. There is, however, 1 notable exception: 1 class has exactly 34 students on the register. I argue that, in terms of teaching and learning, there isn't really a worthwhile difference between a class with between 28-30 kids and a class with anywhere up to 36 kids. The triumphs and problems probably wouldn't differ too much, except when it comes to marking their books and tests and trying to make appointments for parents evening. I do begin to see a problem, however, when there isn't enough physical space for this to work. Everybody must have a desk to lean on and a chair to sit on. There must be enough space for the teacher to move, unobstructed, around the room. Anything less isn't viable and isn't safe.
This is the situation I find myself in on 3 occasions every week when 34 kids have to learn and be taught in a room with 30 desks and 30 chairs. The "solution" is to beg and borrow 4 chairs beforehand and have the poor sods who arrive last sit in the narrow spaces between rows with their materials either on their laps or on other people's desks. It isn't fair on anybody, myself included, to be expected to progress in this sort of environment. This is 1 of many examples of such practice that exist here at the school I work in. Luckily the students involved are a decent bunch who get on with it without too much fuss, but surely this is even more of a reason for them to be properly treated and adequately catered for?
I have no doubt that there are loads of teachers who can empathise with this all too common problem. There needs to be a national, legally-binding consensus between the government and schools whereby a maximum number of students per class is agreed upon and is never breached.
Saturday, 7 November 2009
Sex, Ed?!
There were fireworks in and around Westminster and subsequently up and down the country on Thursday 5th November when, remember remember, the current Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, Ed Balls, announced that from 2011 sex education will be a compulsory part of the curriculum in both primary and secondary schools, with parents unable to withdraw their children from the age of fifteen. This undoubtedly controversial move is in response to a recently completed independent review of the provision for the teaching of sexual health, values, etc within the current education framework.
"Under the new curriculum, pupils as young as 7 will learn about puberty and the facts of life and 5-year-olds will be taught about parts of the body, relationships and the effects of drugs on the body.
When they reach secondary school, pupils will learn about contraception, HIV and Aids, pregnancy and different kinds of relationships — including same-sex unions and civil partnerships."
As a secondary school teacher at a tough, fairly typical comprehensive school on the outskirts of London, this is a topic relevant to my job that has long since held my interest and I have previously included a post on this blog about sex education for four year olds.
Sarah Ebner over at School Gate Times Online is one of many well-respected voices in the public domain who has written about this issue during the past few days. The comments section following her post gives an interesting indication of the wide-ranging opinions the issue of sex education at school always seems to provoke.
As things stand at the moment, students must be taught the basic biological and scientific reproductive facts. This normally takes place in general science lessons or in specialist biology lessons, depending on the school. In my experience, as a student and as a teacher, this tends to involve a nervous teacher shuffling at the front as (s)he talks to a group of sniggering and often equally uncomfortable kids about things that many of them are already far too familiar with. There is no requirement at the moment for schools to deliver lessons on relationships and the non-physical side of sex, namely the social and emotional consequences and responsibilities that go along with being sexually active. Some schools do make an autonomous decision to teach this sort of thing, often under the umbrella of PSHE (Personal, Social, Health and Economic Education).
This contentious issue continues to be highly-debated because it seems that those with different opinions will always be poles apart with no hope of being reconciled. For example, under the new agreement faith schools will be obliged to provide information about contraception. On the contrary, though, family groups have welcomed the proposed changes because, understandably, they believe that education about - and perhaps a certain level of promotion of - birth control may eventually lead to an undeniably much-needed reduction in pregnancy rates among British teenagers.
As a teacher with a reasonable amount of experience, I always voice two main concerns whenever I discuss or write about sex education in schools. Firstly, it is yet another example of too much responsibility being placed on schools and their staff, with even more emphasis therefore being removed from already irresponsible parents. Secondary school teachers are specialists who choose to and are trained to teach subject-specific lessons. We do not receive the necessary training that would allow us to deliver proper, well-informed sex ed lessons. There needs to be an agreed balance between home and school, with a shared responsibility between the two. This should not be viewed as an excuse for parents to ignore their role in educating their own kids about sex and relationships, as is often the case. Those parents who are so irresponsible that they leave the teaching of sex, sexual health and relationships exclusively to the school have no right to complain about what the kids subsequently learn. In addition to all of this, kids and their parents must receive non-judgemental help and advice relating to the social and emotional circumstances that frequently lead to young people having irresponsible (and often illegal) sex without giving sufficient consideration to the potentially devastating consequences of their chosen behaviour.
The other, often ignored issue that the general public seems to be unaware of is that PSHE is usually considered by most teachers - and by extension their students - to be a waste of time. This opinion is fostered by the fact that no training is provided for staff, schemes of work and resources are either unavailable or sorely inadequate, and nobody within each individual school takes ultimate responsibility for what is/isn't taught. I realise and appreciate that there will of course be schools where this not the case but, without exception, this has been true for every school that I have worked in. In fact, at my current school, all Key Stage 3 students (Years 7 - 9) do not have any PSHE lessons on their timetables.
Although I could never be described as a fan of Ed Balls, I believe that this proposal is a positive step in the right direction. (Genuine consultation with teachers and parents would have made it even better!). In order for it to be successful, teachers, parents and the government will need to work together to ensure that PSHE and SRE (Sex and Relationships Education) provide helpful, relevant and non-bias information to the children in our care.
"Under the new curriculum, pupils as young as 7 will learn about puberty and the facts of life and 5-year-olds will be taught about parts of the body, relationships and the effects of drugs on the body.
When they reach secondary school, pupils will learn about contraception, HIV and Aids, pregnancy and different kinds of relationships — including same-sex unions and civil partnerships."
As a secondary school teacher at a tough, fairly typical comprehensive school on the outskirts of London, this is a topic relevant to my job that has long since held my interest and I have previously included a post on this blog about sex education for four year olds.
Sarah Ebner over at School Gate Times Online is one of many well-respected voices in the public domain who has written about this issue during the past few days. The comments section following her post gives an interesting indication of the wide-ranging opinions the issue of sex education at school always seems to provoke.
As things stand at the moment, students must be taught the basic biological and scientific reproductive facts. This normally takes place in general science lessons or in specialist biology lessons, depending on the school. In my experience, as a student and as a teacher, this tends to involve a nervous teacher shuffling at the front as (s)he talks to a group of sniggering and often equally uncomfortable kids about things that many of them are already far too familiar with. There is no requirement at the moment for schools to deliver lessons on relationships and the non-physical side of sex, namely the social and emotional consequences and responsibilities that go along with being sexually active. Some schools do make an autonomous decision to teach this sort of thing, often under the umbrella of PSHE (Personal, Social, Health and Economic Education).
This contentious issue continues to be highly-debated because it seems that those with different opinions will always be poles apart with no hope of being reconciled. For example, under the new agreement faith schools will be obliged to provide information about contraception. On the contrary, though, family groups have welcomed the proposed changes because, understandably, they believe that education about - and perhaps a certain level of promotion of - birth control may eventually lead to an undeniably much-needed reduction in pregnancy rates among British teenagers.
As a teacher with a reasonable amount of experience, I always voice two main concerns whenever I discuss or write about sex education in schools. Firstly, it is yet another example of too much responsibility being placed on schools and their staff, with even more emphasis therefore being removed from already irresponsible parents. Secondary school teachers are specialists who choose to and are trained to teach subject-specific lessons. We do not receive the necessary training that would allow us to deliver proper, well-informed sex ed lessons. There needs to be an agreed balance between home and school, with a shared responsibility between the two. This should not be viewed as an excuse for parents to ignore their role in educating their own kids about sex and relationships, as is often the case. Those parents who are so irresponsible that they leave the teaching of sex, sexual health and relationships exclusively to the school have no right to complain about what the kids subsequently learn. In addition to all of this, kids and their parents must receive non-judgemental help and advice relating to the social and emotional circumstances that frequently lead to young people having irresponsible (and often illegal) sex without giving sufficient consideration to the potentially devastating consequences of their chosen behaviour.
The other, often ignored issue that the general public seems to be unaware of is that PSHE is usually considered by most teachers - and by extension their students - to be a waste of time. This opinion is fostered by the fact that no training is provided for staff, schemes of work and resources are either unavailable or sorely inadequate, and nobody within each individual school takes ultimate responsibility for what is/isn't taught. I realise and appreciate that there will of course be schools where this not the case but, without exception, this has been true for every school that I have worked in. In fact, at my current school, all Key Stage 3 students (Years 7 - 9) do not have any PSHE lessons on their timetables.
Although I could never be described as a fan of Ed Balls, I believe that this proposal is a positive step in the right direction. (Genuine consultation with teachers and parents would have made it even better!). In order for it to be successful, teachers, parents and the government will need to work together to ensure that PSHE and SRE (Sex and Relationships Education) provide helpful, relevant and non-bias information to the children in our care.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
