Is low-level misbehaviour in class getting worse?

Somebody asked me the other day if I thought behaviour in schools is worse now than it used to be. My immediate response was to say yes, it is. But then I began to think about my own time at school....
It got me thinking back to my own time at secondary school, in the 60s. It brought all sorts of vivid memories flooding back like seeing my music teacher staggering out of his classroom with a busted nose having been thumped by Big Billy Barnes. Mr Entwhistle the English teacher snoozing with his chin on his chest while we read Jack London's "Call of the wild" in silence - or at least that's what we were supposed to be doing, in reality we were carefully inserting needle sharp pen nibs into the end of the waxed paper straws we used to have for the school milk then, very surreptitiously and with a deft upward flick of the wrist, flinging them up to stick in the wooden ceiling.
In those days we were given wooden nib holders to write with and each class had an ink monitor who would go round and top up the inkwells on the desks. We also had milk delivered to the classroom every day. Hence, each classroom had ample supplies of ink, brass pen nibs and waxed paper straws - all you need, in fact to have some good schoolboy wheezes. For those room where the ceiling was impervious to the straw and nib dart, or just for variety, we had plan B. The milk bottles had aluminium foil tops. This could be readily shaped into a little cup shape with a short stem. The stem was inserted snugly into the straw and the cup end filled with a wad of well chewed, soggy paper ripped from the back page of your exercise book. This was then flicked up to the ceiling where the mixture of spit and paper allowed it to stick. Each classroom was thus adorned with a variety of straw stalactites, creating a vaguely troglodytic ambience. Occasionally these would fall from the ceiling during lessons as the paper pulp dried out and shrank.
The milk bottle tops could be employed in a variety of other wheezes too. If carefully removed, the crimped edge could be smoothed out to form a small round, flat-bottomed dish. This, it turned out, made a super frisbee (before frisbees were known over here, note!) which could be whizzed across the classroom by holding the rim between the crossed index and second finger then flicking the wrist whilst simultaneously imparting a spin with the fingers. (you will note that quite a lot of wrist flicking went on in this all boys school, some of which I will not go into here!).
The utilitarian bottle top could also be smoothed flat then carefully domed in the palm of the hand. This dome then fitted snugly into the circle formed by the fingers and thumb of the left hand. The right hand was then cupped and smacked firmly into the bottom of the left hand. If performed correctly, this manoeuvre would cause the bottle top to fly off with a loud POP - most effectively employed in Mt Entwhistle's silent reading lessons!
Apart from milk bottle tops and straw darts, the other thing to fly around the classroom was chewed blotting paper (remember that?) launched from a wooden rule. It wouldn't have been so bad having that land on your book had it not been dipped in the inkwell first.
So what was my conclusion? Is behaviour worse now than it ever was? Hmm, probably not, in terms of the amount of low-level misbehaviour. What is different is kids in schools today just splat handfuls of wet toilet paper onto the bog walls and tell you to fuck off; so crude, no creativity, no wit, no finesse at all.

Pot calling kettle black?

A former primary head was judging schools’ performance despite GTC’s ‘guilty’ verdict. Well, Ofsted and the GTC in the same story; can I resist the temptation to have a go at both of them at once? (er, no.)

Those who can, do.
Those who can't, teach.
Those who can't teach, teach teachers to teach.
Those that can't even do that and who have a variety of psychological problems, including superiority complex, delusions of grandeur (and competence) become ..... ta dah..... Ofsted inspectors!

Alternatively, if they're the sort of curtain twitching busybody who stands on a chair in order to see into the neighbours bathroom (and then complains to the police that they've been flashed), or would secretly quite like to wear a uniform (one with large, glittery badges and a large cap preferably); if they're the sort of person who really, really, really needs to feel quite important, well, they sit on the GTC, don't they? I would like to know what qualifies the pompous, self-important bods on the GTC to sit in judgement on their fellow teachers? Anyway, where do they find the time? They should be at home drinking cocoa and marking books! Am I the only one who's depressed at the willingness of some of our alleged colleagues to jump at the chance to parade all their 'holier than thou-ness' in public? Give me Quisling anyday! They used to say that a schoolmaster was a man in front of boys and a boy in front of men. If that's so then GTC Disciplinary Panel members are .... erm ... teachers in front of ..um.. Ofsted inspectors and tossers in front of teachers. There, said it (and I don't care).

New complaints service for parents...and pupils - just what we need!

"Pupils who are upset by something their headteacher does will be able to complain to a new service in England". Another stick to beat teachers with? Read the full BBC news item here.

Pupils and parents who feel that they have suffered an 'injustice' will be able to complain via a new service set up under the Apprenticeship, Skills, Children and Learning Act. So what constitutes an injustice, exactly? A spokesperson for the Department for Cushions and Soft Furnishings said that an 'injustice' may include hurt feelings, distress, worry or inconvenience". So the first thing I do is check the date, nope, it's not April 1st, so presumably this is for real then? Hurt feelings? Inconvenience? If I got a complaint every time I inconvenienced a pupil or hurt their feelings...
The only note of sanity in the whole article came from Mick Brooks who noted that "Parents can already complain to Ofsted, the governing body and the secretary of state and some parents frankly make a hobby of it." Well, tell me about it; there was the parent who complained that I'd "beaten her son with a stick" (I tapped him on the shoulder with a 30cm rule), the one who screamed at me over the phone that I was 'worse than Hitler' and that my school was "worse than prison" (I asked why her daughter hadn't attended school detention). Then there was the parent who complained that I had 'made her feel like a bad parent' (I told her that her son was not making much effort in class). Sometimes some people have a completely irrational response to perfectly ordinary or reasonable situations. I suspect the woman who harangued me about detention being worse than prison had herself had a bad experience at school. The mum who felt that I had impugned her parenting skills was, I suspect, feeling a bit sensitive about here son's lack of effort and may well have been partly blaming herself, I don't know.
And it's not just me. Poor old Mrs Admin got a call from a parent recently complaining that her daughter had come home "upset and distressed" about something that happened in the lesson. It turned out that the distressing incident was that the girl had been asked to hand out some scissors at the start of the lesson.
Also noted in the article is the fact that MPs are considering 'guaranteeing' good behaviour and strong discipline in schools. Really? Will I be able to claim my money back from the Department of Comedians and Silly Fools if my school can't honour the guarantee?

'Tis the season to ..overindulge!

Oh dear, done it again, blown the diet! To start at the beginning; I've been on a diet for a while - well, I say 'a diet', I'm actually on two. You don't get enough to eat on one, do you?
And anyway, I figured that if you lose weight on one diet, you'd lose even more on two. One diet is an Atkins type thing where you can eat as much protein as you like. The other is a vegetarian diet where you eat loads of carrots and stuff. So, I've been sticking to my combined diets eating only meat, eggs, cheese and fish with lots of veg. It's been a struggle to stick to it, but it's been worth it; I lost two ounces last month.
Then along comes Christmas. Time to dust off The Blessed Delia's Christmas cookbook once again and get the mince pie production line rolling! First, make a list of all the Christmas necessities: sultanas, chocolate, raisins, chocolate, brandy, chocolate, currants and all the rest of the essentials, like chocolate. Now, strictly speaking, chocolate is not part of either diet; being neither protein nor veg. So I shouldn't be eating it. Then I thought 'soddit, it's Christmas' So I've put the diets on hold for a week or two. Best plan, eh?
Anyway, not in Mrs Admin's best books at the minute. She said she'd join me in doing the dieting thing. I told her no, no my love. You don't need to diet; you really suit chubby. Now she's taken the hump for some reason; I don't know, you can't even pay a woman a compliment these days! I tried to make it up by getting her a really nice Christmas present, but that just seemed to make her worse. Anyway, I give up; that's the last new ironing board she gets from me at Christmas!
Bah humbug!

Why can't kids be allowed to fail anymore?

Are we really doing our children a favour by not subjecting them to negative criticism nor allowing them to experience failure at school? Or are we just producing a generation of people who do not have the resilience to deal with knock-backs out there in the real world?

This old hobby horse of mine was resurrected when I read a thread on the TES website about the apocryphal story about banning of red pens for marking children's work. Red, you see, is AGGRESSIVE!! The argument is that a child can be demoralised by seeing their work covered in red ink, underlining every spelling mistake, grammatical error, miscalculation and so on. Well, I'd be pretty demoralised at that, whatever the bloody colour of ink! And anyway, any teacher who's got the time to underline every mistake in each piece of work for every child needs to a) get a life and b) get a life. There needs to be a balance when marking children's work; to tick everything and say "super, fab, great Pansy, keep it up!" to any old bit of tat handed in is both patronising and unhelpful. On the other hand nit-picking every littul speleing mistacke is demoralising and can put kids off a subject.

There is, however, a difference between being constantly criticised and being allowed to experience failure within a supportive and constructive environment. Poor Mrs Admin had all sorts of shenanigans with a particular A-level pupil when she was given an estimated D grade. The girl went to pieces and was quite unable to deal with it. The parent's complained "Well, she's always been told she's doing really well and anyway, she responds better to praise." Er, don't we all? And don't blame the poor A-level teacher, blame the school who nursed her through GCSEs, spoon-fed all the coursework, gave her uncritical feedback and generally set her up for failure at A-level by not instilling a proper work ethic nor helping her develop a sense of self-appraisal of her work.

Typical of this patronising attitude to pupils is the A* nonsense. I've even heard it suggested that now some universities are asking for A**, in order to separate out the brightest students. So, here's my suggestion for a revised grading system for GCSE:

A****
A***
A**
A*
A
Everyone's a winner! Everyone gets an A. Let's all go to uni!

Subject of selection raises its head again

Professor Alan Smithers of Buckingham University this week called for schools to select its brightest pupils at age 14 to receive a more challenging curriculum.
The reform is needed, apparently, in order to increase the number of pupils choosing science, especially physics, at A-level. The question is, why are we in this country so hung up about the subject of selection by ability when it comes to our children? Other countries seem to manage this ok without all the agonising that we go through. We select on the basis of other skills quite happily; PE teachers select pupils to play on school teams on the basis of skill, drama teachers cast parts for school productions based on acting, singing or dancing ability and so on. Why, when it comes to academic ability, are we suddenly so completely averse to any sort of selection?
It strikes me that we are working to a whole middle class PC agenda when it comes to education, in which fairness and equality equate to the SAME for everyone.
Let's look at that point, that equality means the same treatment for all. No matter what your ability, disability, aptitude or skill level you will all go to the same school and be taught the same things in the same lesson by the same teachers. Imagine if the NHS worked on that principle; no matter what your illness or injury, we all received the same treatment: "Ah, yes, Mr Smithers; lets see 'compound fracture of the left femur', well here's you prescription for Statins and a month's supply of viagra. What's that? Well, I'm sorry, it's what everyone else gets; we can't be seen to be treating you differently from everyone else; that wouldn't be fair now, would it? Look on the bright side, at least you'll have lower cholesterol and be able to keep your pecker up!".

There is also the notion that what is desired by the middle classes must also be what the working classes necessarily aspire to. This is reflected neatly in the Labour party's ambition to have 50% of all young people go to university. First of all, where has the figure of 50% come from? Why not 45% or 60%? Implicit in this are the assumptions that a) at least half of all young people actually want to go to university and that b) going to uni is somehow a 'better' option than not. This policy has been dreamt up by people who are, by definition, upper and middle class. They assume in their arrogance that because that is what they aspire to for their own children, it must also be same for everyone else. Well, guess what? Not everyone wants to go to uni! Some people actually CHOOSE not to. Not because they are poor, or thick, or lazy or anything; they'd just rather do something else. The problem then, of course, is the attitude that whatever else you choose is somehow second best. There is a general feeling in this country that academic success is somehow superior to other form of success (except celebrity, of course! Shallow as we are). I have seen inordinate pressure put on good A-level students by the school to apply for Oxbridge. WHY? Because it will look good in next year's prospectus? Poor lad wants to go to Leeds because that's where they do the course he want's to do, and anyway his aunty Pam lives there and she can his washing and cooking for him.

In this country we do tend to judge people by what they do, rather than by how well they do whatever it is they have chosen to do. Let's take the pressure off kids to go to uni. I'd rather have a first class joiner (plumber, carpenter, electrician, car mechanic, shop manager) than yet another third class graduate in football studies.

What is the purpose behind an Ofsted inspection?

What is the purpose of an Ofsted inspection ; to help a school improve or catch them out?
This question arises out of a couple of things that have come my way recently: one was Mansell's article in TES about Ofsted being more interested in its image than anything else (Really? Well knock me down with a feather!). The other was a recent LA inspection by Ofsted trained inspectors at Mrs Admin's school. The LA was to provide a 'pre-Ofsted' inspection for the school under Ofsted conditions and using Ofsted registered inspectors; the idea being to help staff prepare for the next real inspection, which is due any time in the near future. Ok, well, good intention - and anyway, you can never have too many inspections, can you?
Well, the chap inspecting Mrs Admin's department made his intentions clear as soon as he walked in: "Now, no need to worry. I'm not here to catch you out, I'm here to help you improve and look at all the good things you're doing in this department". And he was, indeed, as good as his word. Some excellent lessons were observed and very positive feedback given. Points for improvement were delivered in positive and encouraging language, all the time referring back to what was good in the department. Result? One motivated and happy set of teachers, pleased that their efforts had been appreciated. That department is now up for the challenge.
Sadly, the story was not repeated in other departments seen by different inspectors. The general feeling was that the inspectors were looking to catch the teachers out. Feedback tended to concentrate on the negative. Result? A demoralised and unhappy set of teachers with an increased cynicism regarding both the value and purpose of inspection.
It's my feeling, and indeed experience in the classroom, that too many Ofsted inspectors fall into the latter category and that often a decision is made even before the on-site inspection, based on the exam results (no, don't get me started!).
I was at Mrs Admin's school last weekend for the Christmas fair. It was packed. Huge parental support, lots of kids there helping out and, best of all, Christmas music provided by the junior band - then the senior band - then the school orchestra - then the swing band! And where was Ofsted when all that was going on, eh? There's more to a school than exam results and four-part lessons.