teaching – The Equality Blog

School exclusions ‘fuelling gang violence’ – Barnardo’s

Councils across England are obliged to make every effort to reduce their NEET (Not in Education Employment or Training) numbers which identify how many young people in the region are not actively involved in education, employment or training. In the main, Councils will work closely with schools to identify pupils who are at risk of not being involved in education, employment or training when they leave school whilst supporting the schools intervention strategies. Worryingly, where schoolchildren are excluded from education there is a significant rise in their likely hood to become NEET.

However, a recent report by Barnardo’s highlights a worrying trend that excluded schoolchildren are at serious risk of becoming involved in knife crime, the children’s charity has warned. Barnardo’s says excluded children are also at risk of “being groomed and exploited by criminal gangs”.

The charity said 47 councils, about one in three in England, had no spaces in pupil referral units (PRU), which look after excluded children. The government said a review of school exclusions and their impact on children was ongoing.

The research, which was carried out in collaboration with the All Party Parliamentary Group on Knife Crime, shows a 56% rise in exclusions in England since 2014. The group’s chairwoman, Sarah Jones, said knife crime was at its highest level on record and “our schools are on the front line”. She added: “Exclusions are rising and in many cases there is literally nowhere for those children to go. This is heartbreaking.” She said excluded children were “marked as failures”, and added professionals often talk about the “PRU to prison pipeline”.

Barnardo’s chief executive, Javed Khan, said: “We know children excluded from mainstream schools are at serious risk of being groomed and exploited by criminal gangs.” He urged the government to reduce the number of pupils excluded from schools and to improve alternative provisions so “vulnerable young people get the help they need to achieve of positive future”.

A government spokesperson said: “Permanently excluding a child from mainstream school should only ever be a last resort, and we support teachers in making these difficult decisions where they are justified.” They added the government was undergoing a review of exclusions led by the former education minister Edward Timpson.

The spokesperson said: “We are transforming alternative provision to improve outcomes for these children which helps them to flourish, backed by our £4m innovation fund that has created nine new projects around the country.”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46027265

League tables changes ‘toxic’ for poor white schools

Interesting article here by Sean Coughlan, BBC News education and family correspondent, highlighting the challenge of school league tables for schools with predominantly poor, white, British students.

As a former school manager I can confidently say that schools in economically challenging parts of the country – where there pupils are predominately disadvantaged white students – are both rewarding and challenging environments to work in. However, when being compared to a school in leafy suburb somewhere where the students come from financially better off communities it is certainly a challenge.

What the league tables don’t reveal is just how much progress that school actually has made, instead it is vilified for not being at the standard of a school in a more privileged part of the country.

The same can be said of recent comparisons between poorly preforming schools and the local privately educated and independent schools. There were calls for private schools to take over failing state funded schools but as mentioned in my previous post what on earth do private and independent schools know about the needs of learners from deprived areas?

This has noting to do with class or money, instead it has to do with privilege which is something entirely different. It is not uncommon to find two parents who are, lets say both doctors, at an independent school that charges £13,000 fees per year. For the pupil they have very clear role models there who can support them through their studies, attend parents evenings and pay £500 so ‘Sebastian’ can go on the schools annual skiing trip to the Black Forest in Germany. Now compare that to an inner-city school in an economically deprived part of the country. That pupils role models at home might both be unemployed, there could be a long history in the family of low skills, low wages and long term unemployment. That pupil might not get the academic help at home and parents might not even attended parents evening… lets not be naïve here – I worked in a school where parents evening attendance was as low 38%. Admittedly, I am using two extreme examples here that are clearly poles apart but when asking an independent school to run a poorly performing state school the leadership will have to get to grips with the fact that the pupils they have to work with are already highly disadvantaged and might not be saved by good intentions alone. What happens when the schools outcomes don’t improve? Will they then be jettisoned by independent schools?

League tables should compare like for like – so an inner-city school in an economically disadvantaged part of the country should be compared to other inner-city schools which are situated in an equally economically disadvantaged part of the country. However, people might argue that will lead to lower standards in inner city schools as well as those in deprived parts of the country, a two tier system so to speak. But, don’t we already have a two tier education system in this country? Its called the haves and the have not’s… It’s certainly not a system based on equality for all.

What do you think? Should we be using league tables to compare all schools or should we be comparing similar situations to see what is working and what is not.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-44196645

BTEC snobbery and class prejudice is alive in our moribund HE sector

Alice Barnard, Chief Executive of Edge, wrote an interesting article for fenews.co.uk which references Nick Hillman, HEPI Director who is quoted as saying: “It is a good thing that these people [BTEC students] are going into higher education. But they do have clearly a slightly different background to people who have done A-levels.”

There has been a historic snobbery in this country, one where the A-Level is perceived as the course for the ‘bright kids’, one could argue that is euphemism for ‘privileged kids’. However, the establishment, another euphemism for universities, has often viewed the BTEC with suspicion, its something ‘poor people’ undertake. That said, in light of Government aims to further embed employability into higher education a vocational education at college may be the ideal start for the modern learner. Certainly, A-levels are hard and so they should be as they are the elite L3, post compulsory qualification in this country. On the other hand, we have employability based BTECs and it is true that entry criteria is not as high, candidates still need 4 good GCSEs to be enrolled but the qualification is highly embedded with employability skills relevant to the sector. These two different qualifications are aimed at two very different audiences.

For example, the fundamental difference between an A Level in Media, for example, and BTEC in Media is actually very simple… the A Level student can write you an excellent essay comparing the opening sequence from Baz Lurhman’s Romeo + Juliet (1996) and Franco Zeffirelli‘s Romeo and Juliet (1968) where as the BTEC Media student can put you together a multi-camera live broadcast using industry standard professional equipment. At best, the A-Level Media student might be able to put together something via a handheld camera and Microsoft movie maker but work in TV they won’t.

Now, as Alice points out, HEPI consistently make the case for widening access to Higher Education – and yet comments such as those by Nick Hillman simply perpetuate the unhelpfully simplistic stereotype that the clever kids take A levels while ‘these people’ from a ‘slightly different background’, study BTECs or other vocational qualifications.

Interestingly, according to UCAS, the number of university applicants with BTECs has been increasing in recent years, by 6,300 (18 per cent proportionally) from 2014, and by 13,970 (50 per cent proportionally) since 2011. That is significant numbers and it indicates that opportunities for widening participation are working in UK Universities and those who might not normally aspire to higher education, such as BTEC learners, are getting the opportunity.

However, Nick Hillman goes on to suggest that Further Education colleges should be providing better support for BTEC students, such as extra essay writing classes to bring them up to speed with their A-Level counterparts.

“I haven’t met an employer yet who has said that the ability to write an essay is top of their recruitment criteria.” Well said Alice.

If learners need more support then why are Universities not putting on additional study workshops? If learners need more support why are Universities allowing them onto these courses that they may fail without further support? Is it because of the money? Are ‘bums on seats’ more important to them?

The Further Education sector is very good at supporting learners something that the higher education sector could learn from, as indicated recently by the Universities Minister.

For balance, Nick Hillman has subsequently clarified his position on BTECs “I think BTECs can provide a good preparation for higher education and I think universities should do all they can to support BTEC students once they are in.”

Take a look at Alice’s article via the link below?

https://www.fenews.co.uk/featured-article/17516-btec-snobbery-and-class-prejudice-is-alive-in-our-moribund-he-sector

Ethnically mixed schools lessen hostility

Interesting article here from Sean Coughlan, BBC News education and family correspondent, highlighting research from the London School of Economics and the University of Bristol which indicates those who attend ethnically mixed schools harbour less hostility to those from different backgrounds.

Now, as an experienced teacher and manager in education I can confidently say that this is no surprise to those of use who work in state funded education. However, if learners benefit from an ethnically diverse schooling, as the research here indicates, what does that say for selective education? It’s well known that private, Grammar and faith schools select on the basis of a range of specific criteria and that these schools are not as diverse environments as those found in state funded education. As such, through selection, are we not hindering the ability of students from selective backgrounds to effectively engage with a diverse work force when they leave education.

Will this actually lead to greater inequality and hinder integration in business, industry, military and Government? After all, in the UK, senior roles are often fulfilled by those from a selective education, just take a look at the make up of the current Cabinet and our senior policy makers in the Civil Service. As such, it is concerning to think that our future leaders of industry, policy makers and business elite may not be adequately equipped to deal effectively with a diverse workforce.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-44196646

Why is Hinds suddenly letting teachers ‘get on with the job’?

Interesting article here from tes.com. Whilst the academisation of our school system was heralded as giving heads more autonomy over how their school were run it has ended up with greater centralised control, especially when you introduce multi-academy trusts. As such, the education secretary’s recent announcement of the dramatic changes to school accountability is made all the more interesting… are Whitehall admitting defeat, such is the complete change in direction of recent policy. What do we think of Damian Hinds proposals?

https://www.tes.com/news/long-read-why-hinds-suddenly-letting-teachers-get-job

Conservative government will stop free hot lunches for all infant pupils causing further inequality

For the Conservative government to make a manifesto promise to rescind the policy where by all infants get free hot lunches is contributing to further inequality.

For some school children in this country the free hot meal they get at school is the only hot meal they get that day. Far too many children in this country dread the summer holidays because a hot meal is, at best, sporadic and in some cases none existent. That is the inequality in our country, that not all children get a hot meal each and every day. So for the Conservative government to make a manifesto promise to rescind the policy where by all infants get free hot lunches is contributing to further inequality. Yet again, the hardest hit will again be the poorest and most vulnerable in our society.

In his analysis of today’s Conservative manifesto release, Sean Coughlan, Education Correspondent for BBC News, highlights “Head teachers across England have been making increasingly strident protests about schools running out of cash.” But, to stave of this criticism the Conservatives have responded by reshuffling about £1bn a year extra into the day-to-day running budgets of schools. However, it would appear that “most of this would come from stopping free hot lunches for all infant pupils – a policy only launched a few years ago.”

In reality, will schools use this money to continue to offer free hot lunches for all infants?In that case there is no benefit for school whatsoever, so no investment and they will continue to struggle. On the other hand if they use it for other purposes then the children loose out. I don’t imagine head teachers will see this as an acceptable alternative to real, hard investment.

Inside the school where 98% of the pupils are travellers.

At the edge of an Essex village sits a primary school unlike any other in the UK. Only a handful of its children will ever go on to secondary school and some of the pupils will disappear for weeks or months at a time. Yet hardly anybody wants to talk about it. Why?

Inside the school where 98% of the pupils are travellers.

Take a look at this interesting article by Laurence Cawley for the BBC. I won’t elaborate on the article to much but instead encourage you to take a look yourself. The children of Travellers are not always educated to what other communities might consider the usual level but this article paints a fascinating picture of the challenges faced by teachers, schools and communities to put the best interests of the children first. However, the local community will not discuss the school in any way which asks further questions about equality in modern Britain.

The article describes a unique primary school on the edge of an Essex village, in fact it is the only example in the country. Cawley explains “only a handful of its children will ever go on to secondary school and some of the pupils will disappear for weeks or months at a time. Yet hardly anybody wants to talk about it. Why?”

But, as Cawley elaborates, “then came Dale Farm, which grew to become Europe’s largest traveller site. Increasing numbers of children from the site – some of it legally developed, some of it illegally – joined the school. The shifting pupil mix came to a head in 2004, when the then head teacher and 10 members of the governing body quit amid concerns at falling pupil numbers and how the school would fare in the future.”

Interestingly, the local community’s reaction to this influx of Traveller children was, at best, controversial, as the author describes “it was also the year children from settled families evaporated. Completely.”

Have a read, interesting stuff.

How much you achieve in life should not be determined by how much your parents earn – Teach First.

When battling inequality in the classroom any offer of support is greatly received. However, as an experienced secondary teacher I must take umbrage with Teach First. Whilst the concept is a great idea, it is basically flawed because of ambition.

Teach First claim ‘Each year, a new group of participants joins us and our university partners for six weeks of intensive training before teaching in one of our partner schools for at least two years while completing our Leadership Development Programme. Their training and their passion for educational equality means that they are dedicated to raising the aspirations of the young people in their classrooms.’

That is a great sentiment… really it is and I say it with out a hint of sarcasm. However, when Teach First trainees are delivered to a school with a first class degree and six week training under their belt they are full of enthusiaum. Yet, the real problem lies in that ‘Leadership Development Programme’ where Teach First trainees are told how they are going to revolutionise the teaching profession, they will be the future leaders of the profession. Subsequently, there lay the fundamental problem – leadership deveopment.

From my own experience, Teach First trainees arrive in a school, normally in a deprived part of the country, and have, again in my experience, been a mix of excellent teachers with a great future and those who are not so sure the profession is for them. However, the staff who are very capable teachers are encouraged, as part of the ‘Leadership Development Programme’, to be heads of department, then on to senior leadership as soon as possible.

So, ultimately, what happens, again in my experience, is that if you are lucky you get a great teacher for a year or two at best, beyond that they have moved on to be a head of department at different school with a 50% teaching timetable. Beyond that they señor leadership roles have less and less teaching commitment these days so a great teacher is no longer teaching. Then we are back to needing teaching staff again…

Some may say, if they are good enough… However, it takes away from the fact that Teach First claim to be offering excellent classroom teachers and what they really offer is ambitious teachers who want to move up the ladder as quickly as possible. Really, they offer the heads of the future, in fact, Teach First seem rather proud of their record of developing those in senior leadership. But, what about the learner… I thought it was about them and equality.

Really, what is Teach First’s true purpose? Is it to provide classroom practitioners or future leaders? I only ask as the laster already has its own process known as Future Leaders.

However, despite me complaining about the longevity of Teach First candidates their enthusiasm and commitment to equality is always welcome.

Children do better at school in more equal societies.

Below is an interesting article from the The Equality Trust which argues that ‘People with more education earn more, pay more taxes, are more productive, and happier.’ However, I would argue that to gain a good education you need a social support system that both encourages education and supports the time it takes, if you take into account college and university.

Children do better at school in more equal societies.

Controversially, the article goes on to suggest that ‘Well educated people contribute more to society; they’re also more likely to volunteer and to vote.’ Again, we can challenge this by asking how do they define a contribute to society? If they mean a financial contribution then perhaps they are correct but what about other forms of contribution?

Finally, the article highlights that ‘Although good school systems make a difference, the biggest influence on educational attainment is family background’. Unfortunately, this leads to the conclusion that ‘…disadvantaged children do less well at school and miss out on the benefits of education.’

This is where equality, or the lack of it, is easily highlighted. For disadvantaged children do less well at school is a national discrace and there are many articles that highlight this but less that actually offer solid solutions.

I understand that the government need to make electoral promises about improving educational opportunities for the disadvantaged but we have had very little impact from successive governments to make any real difference.

Teacher recruitment a ‘significant challenge’, say MPs

According to MP’s ‘Encouraging teachers in England to stay in the profession will “remain a significant challenge” for the coming years, a committee of MPs stresses.’

Wow, does it really take. a select committee to highlight that issue? The article goes on to highlight that ‘The Education Select Committee says the next government will have to ensure recruitment targets are improved.’ Really!? To anyone who has worked in the primary or secondary sector in recent years then this is not really news, the crisis in teacher recruitment has been an issue for a considerable period of time. The previous government failed to improve teacher numbers and still a large number of those who join leave the professsion due to work load.

The article goes on to state ‘The government says it is committed to addressing the challenges schools face.’ Again, really!? We have had successive Conservative governments and they have utterly failed to address this problem.

In reality, this is an example of government stating the obvious and having no history of addressing this problem. In education, we would have an action plan to address the problem and then highlight its impact in 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks… etc. Yet, the government just get to reinvent themselves with every election, despite failure to evidence what impact they have made.

The article can be found here – Teacher recruitment a ‘significant challenge’, say MPs