What did you want to be when you grew up?

I realise I owe a huge amount to both my parents and much teachers.

I particularly remember that my old headmaster regularly used the parable of the talents in morning prayers. I think his point may have been that we would all end up as uniquely talented individuals – and then it would be our job to do whatever we could do best to benefit others (and society in general).

This comment was removed at the request of the user

Oh, thanks, Duncan. I thought it would just about do on a Sunday when nobody’s looking.

Yes ! – Back of the net, Malcolm.

I await with interest seeing how the PM refines and develops her policy proposals, seizes the current opportunities, and addresses the evident needs. The biggest stumbling block politically is the word “grammar”, if they could find a better word for the new concept it would help.

I think every child in the country is entitled to the highest standard of education and development opportunity that is possible, and the country is entitled to a teaching profession and an education system that can deliver it.

The prevailing arrangement whereby going to the right church, or buying an expensive house in the right road, or being able to afford private tuition, are the necessary pathways to the best education cannot be morally justified as they perpetuate elitism and exclusion. Even without selection, they would be wrong.

I never understood why the local authorities that employed the teachers effectively appointed them to specific comprehensive schools rather than used them as a resource with which they could balance the standards across all their schools and reduce the inequalities. I don’t know whether the academy structure [where several schools are run by the same sponsor] has overcome this, but there really is a case for placing the better teachers in the under-performing schools [with raising achievement across the board, not equalising it down to a comfortable level, being the aim].

I think it is most unfortunate that in many secondary schools there is no education after GCSE and the pupils transfer to sixth form colleges or to external colleges, or just leave. Like a climber apprehending a mountain range, if pupils and teachers in the lower years cannot see the advance of students into the upper level and beyond, it limits their aspirations and motivation and diminishes the corpus of the school and its esteem. This adversely affects parental attitudes as well.

I can answer your query about why authorities appoint to schools and not an area. It’s essentially because of continuity. When the Government introduced the National Curriculum they stopped short of specifying how it would be delivered, claiming they were making it possible for ‘creative and gifted teachers to deliver the subject matter in unique ways’. This was, of course, simply a get-out, since simply agreeing what should be taught proved insuperably difficult for civil servants to manage, let alone dealing with the How.

That means that teachers within school work as heads of or part of teams or faculties. It takes a lot of work to prepare a lesson scheme within a faculty, and those lesson schemes have to be submitted whenever an inspection occurs, so teachers hone schemes to their particular pupil intake, area and resources. All that means that schemes of work tend to be extremely specific to areas and schools.

The second reason is that it normally tales a Secondary teacher around a year to integrate themselves into a specific school; many reasons, but the socialisation and adaptation processes, whereby the teacher gets to know the kids, take a fair while. So continuity is seen as an advantage in much the same way as some people prefer to deal with the same GP each time they visit the surgery.

Finally, councils do have a pool of unattached staff called ‘Supply staff’, and these are paid by the individual schools on a per need basis. The biggest issue reported by supply staff is not knowing exactly what to teach or how to teach it, since the systems differ, as noted previously.

Thank you, Ian. I thought continuity would have lot to do with it. Whether that is a holistic good for education is debatable as it inhibits the cross-fertilisation of good practice, limits the opportunities for weaker teachers who could benefit from a posting to a better school, and has probably led to inconsistency through the proliferation of bespoke learning schemes and thereby a diminution of accountability. This might of course suit some parts of the teaching profession who regard all change as disruptive and if the objective is to keep things as they are it is not difficult to design administrative systems to target that and reinforce it.

Obviously there is a degree of teaching turnover in all schools, and teachers can choose to leave at a term’s notice whenever they choose, but beyond that I think a good school should be able to accommodate a five per cent refresh rate each year to redress the imbalances that must constantly occur across a group of schools under common LEA control or academy sponsorship. Of course, such a notion of supplying teaching by reference to practitioner quality must involve some sort of appraisal system – the sort that many workers have to live with during their careers – and that would be anathema to certain interests and not welcomed by those who would have to do it.

I believe that Theresa May is looking to secure what is best for children’s education and development through inspiration and motivation rather than what might suit the teaching profession or the bureaucracy. I suspect that one of the objections to the grammar schools is that they have a tendency [by tradition and culture] to become stale, but I can also appreciate that that could appeal to many people including some parents.

There’s a comprehensive appraisal process used for Teachers in existence and has been since the mid-90s. But the main yardstick has been results, in the past – an indicator that brings its own problems to the table.

To be fair to teachers (and there are still some rather poor ones around) the profession as a while has been messed with repeatedly since the early ’80s. Increasingly pressured to do more paperwork many teachers have either left the job or become administrators – with far less stress.

Not entirely sure what May’s agenda is. Partly it’ll be to placate voters in some seats but it’s not about making a more equal society – of that I’m sure. After all, to do that all you need to do abolish public schools…

The problem I have with aspiring to an “equal society” is it is an impossible objective, even if it were desirable (which I do not think it is). Those who propound it usually stand above it – in status, salary, pension, authority. Not you Ian, I’m sure – present company excepted.

More equal in opportunity I would support. But we must grasp opportunity and use it to our advantage. Inevitably what emerges are specialist skills which will always be more dominant in society, more lucrative, more leadership. more entrepreneurial.

The quality of teaching is key to all of this and academic results are only a part of that. It is indeed desperately unfortunate that schooling has been a political football for decades and, in consequence, curriculum, standards, testing, and even projected outcomes have been subject to so many changes which have impacted on the quality of teaching.

In terms of preparing pupils for careers, I question whether we have the right approach. It seems all a bit one-dimensional and inevitably has a political structure based on inputs rather than an expectations-based framework concerned with outputs and the needs of students and society.

On the route to an equal society I believe that is unattainable [like a rainbow] but that does not mean it is unapproachable. In terms of education it used to be said that state education should be so good that no one would want to send their children to a fee-paying school. I wonder how things would be if we handed it over to educationists and the teaching professions and withdrew the heavy hand of government. Personally I doubt that would work either and there would be huge inconsistencies.

In terms of the teaching profession, where else can one work effectively unsupervised while doing the most important part of one’s work behind a closed door and where the out-turns are not available before it is too late to influence them? This not wrong, but it is an enormous privilege that should have a counter-balancing yield for the subjects of the system and for those who place their trust [and their children’s futures] in it. I am not convinced that is happening as much as it should.

And I agree there is far too much paperwork in the teachers’ timetable which drains the joy from their vocation and blunts achievement of the main purpose.

I suspect many professions share that characteristic, John (where else can one work effectively unsupervised while doing the most important part of one’s work behind a closed door ). But you’re spot on about the quality of teaching. Trouble is the really excellent teachers seem to burn out early on or become Heads and Deputies, so their teaching ability doesn’t influence the number of pupils it should. We are, in the UK, a little over-whelmed by assuming management should always be paid more. In teaching, perhaps that’s something that needs examining.

Several points I’d pick up on, Duncan. We were also extremely poor, but post–18 – provided you had sufficient A level grades – the local authorities paid rather good grants on which to live, and they paid all tuition and accommodation. To be fair, I agree that the social pressure was on from certain families to get out and start earning, so that extra three years did make a significant difference to some children.

Things have changed (although not for the better I suspect) and children now incur significantly greater costs to go to University. But children are not all guided towards university: far from it. The myth that this happens is partly down to those Unis that offer degrees that carry little real worth. The Government, back in 1974, set a target to ensure that 50% of school leavers would have degrees. Gradually, it dawned on the policy-makers that this was unachievable for two reasons: firstly, there simply weren’t enough Universities, and, secondly, University degrees are demanding often too demanding for many. By the late ’80s they reluctantly conceded the first point, and, instead of building new Universities, simply converted all existing Polytecs, Art colleges, Building colleges and Teacher training colleges to Universities. Bit like waving a magic wand, they simply defined more universities into existence.

But as reality bit, trades began running short of plumbers, Sparks, technicians, joiners, plasterers and so on, and the costs of attending a University escalated the less popular Universities – those with a less than stellar reputation – desperately sought to attract more students by any means possible, and that included making the degrees as simple as possible to pass. Which translated into degrees that didn’t require particularly good English skills, no mathematical ability and little real intellect, while suddenly apprenticeships came back into fashion. It had finally dawned that we didn’t need, nor was it practicable, to have a workforce of Advanced Degree holders.

I’d also pick up on one final point: Engineering MEngs from any Universities in the Atkins group are considered every bit as worthwhile and valuable as Medicine and their holders frequently earn a great deal more.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

This comment was removed at the request of the user

John: all youngsters have to study Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. It’s compulsory. And you’re right in that Engineering as a career has never been more valued. Chartered Engineers are commanding silly salaries (although not as much as some charities…) and there’s a real need for repair people in all fields.

Thanks, Ian – I should have corrected that during the edit stage because I meant to say “beyond school” instead of “at school”.

‘Deitzian’ does have a ring, doesn’t it? I’m glad you’re happy at Which?. Lauren, but nothing lasts forever so you should keep an eye out for the next stage of your professional life. After all, ‘Deitzian Productions Presents’ could be coming to a cinema near you, soon…

Oy! Why can’t we paste pics, then? Typical mogul…

Ahah! Unleashed creativity will soon strike 🙂

Bad timing Ian as Hollywood and Co are defecting. Will cakes burn during the adverts when the GBBO is lost to Auntie. A sad day after developing a good programme.

Looks to me as though Perkins is just about to put Hollywood out of his misery anyway. They all made good career choices I suppose but for some it was a long time coming.

I think the commercial breaks will be the hottest property on TV.

Even thought of politics? We need a decent Education Secretary.

What we need is a decent Department for Education with the capability of developing proper policies and trying to rein-in those who lack knowledge but try to set policy. We may have that, but it should have resisted continual change. What I don’t like to see before a policy is fully developed is those who were sacked from government, or those who should carry out government policy, rubbishing something before it is properly formed. “Grammar school” has become, unfortunately, a despised term in some quarters politically, as John alluded to. Perhaps they should be given a more appropriate label – or just second schools. We don’t distinguish between the universities by labeling them.

Thanks Lauren and Erin. There are always going to be more questions than answers in this life but never stop searching and learning or allow any setbacks to deter you on your way and you will be guided to the places you were meant to be.

PS Its a while since I visited Brum, but I still have traces of the accent I am told 🙁