He obviously hasn’t been reading the Economist recently.

“THE yells of children pierce the night, belting out the elements—“Lithium! Magnesium!”—as an instructor displays abbreviations from the periodic table. Next, two dozen flags stream by as the ten-year-olds shout out the names of the corresponding countries. Later they identify 20 constellations they have committed to memory. Timers on desks push older students as they practise racing through tests. The scene at Seiran Gakuin, a juku or crammer on the edge of Tokyo, repeats itself nightly at 50,000 juku across Japan.

Oddly, Japan’s education ministry refuses to recognise juku, dismissing them as a mere service businesses. The powerful teachers’ union resists them on grounds of undermining equality. Meanwhile the juku concept is being exported. Japanese operators are expanding to China and elsewhere in Asia. There, too, they may prove a response to broken state systems.”

According to the article, then, the Japanese model isn’t so great after all:

1. “the public system treats everyone alike.”

2. ” “The juku are succeeding in ways that the schools are not,” an OECD report says.”

2. “broken state systems.”

Dear, oh dear.

And Twigg is going on a fact-finding mission? Doesn’t he employ a researcher with an internet connection?

Apparently, non-teacher Stephen Twigg thinks that “despite many school reforms, there has been little change to the style of classroom teaching since Victorian times.”

Is he seriously saying that since the days of chimney sweeps, slate, benches and classes of 70 to 80 nothing has changed?

Also, if, as he claims, “Labour’s number one priority for education is raising the quality and status of teachers” then it should start with pay and conditions rather than, as we suspect he’ll keep harping on about, promoting non-sensical programmes like TeachFirst that do nothing but encourage the idea that teaching is not a proper job and can be discarded for ‘better’ things once your CV is buffed up a bit.

What Twigg also shows a complete lack of awareness of is the fact that – and despite what Wally Wilshaw says – teachers haven’t got the time to get together to plan lessons if they have to do all the other non-teaching work that goes into the mad, mad world of the UK teaching profession today. How many hours in the day does Twigg think teachers should be working? Obviously more than MPs.

Twigg should also take more notice of his own words. He is quoted as saying, “Education in England has had years of reform to structures, exams and accountability measures. But the style of classroom teaching has changed little since Victorian times.”

This is not for want of trying, however.

Any reasonable person would think that with decades of reform not making any difference then the problem was perhaps a political one, not a professional or technical one as politicians – deflecting attention away from their own failings/immateriality – would have us believe. Indeed, any reasonable person may wonder why politicians get involved in education at all given the fact that they can’t ever seem to get things right.

And, apparently, he was raving about ‘trial-and-error’ to the Beeb? Is that a serious suggestion? Trial-and-error?!

Finally, he adds: “If we want to change teaching, we can’t just change teachers – we must change the culture of teaching, its very fabric and DNA.”

However, we think this should read: “If we want to change education, we should leave teachers, schools and students alone – we must put an end to political interference in education, put an end to the fact that MPs still believe that they somehow know better than the rest of us despite the appalling track record, we must change this failed and counter-productive political culture, its very fabric and DNA.”

Here’s hoping.

One potential way that sprang to mind was by curbing the handsome amounts TeachFirst executives are currently paid. For according to the accounts for 2010/11, the eight TeachFirst execs earned over £60,000 per annum each (roughly $90,000), which is approximately 3 x the starting salary of a TeachFirst recruit.

Of these execs, one person made between £60,000 and £70,000 ($90,000 and $110,000), another between £80,000 and £90,000 ($127,000 and $143,000), four people made between £90,000 and £100,000 ($143,000 and $159,000), and one lucky person made between £120,000 and £130,000 ($190,000 and $206,000).

To put that into context, the UK average family salary is roughly £40,000 ($63,000). The average Secondary School teacher meanwhile takes home (before tax, of course) roughly £35,000 ($55,600) per annum. A Primary School teacher makes even less on average (£32,000/$50,000).

So to help with TeachFirst’s potential dip in donations we thought we’d restructure their executive remuneration to a level that was perhaps more realistic while at the same time help to facilitate further donations of money to the cause.

And to help us with our project, on their website TeachFirst have provided a helpful breakdown of the donations we could make, how much it’ll cost and who we’d help.

If we assume that the lowest figure from the TeachFirst executive salary bands (for argument’s sake) is their actual respective salaries, take an average of £35,000 from the three different salaries (UK household, Secondary School teacher, Primary School teacher), subtract this average from the eight respective exec salaries and total up the remaining amounts, we are left with roughly £375,000.

With £375,000 TeachFirst could:

- support 37,500 gifted-and-talented pupils without parental history of higher education through a day’s work experience to strengthen their university application.

- or provide 4,687 teachers with a Leading Learning training session to ensure that they are able to have maximum impact on children in their classroom.

- or assess 1,875 individuals through their rigorous assessment centre to ensure they are able to have a profound impact on their pupils

- or fund 750 gifted-and-talented pupil without parental history of higher education to get to university

- or fund 107 participants through the first year of the Teach First Leadership Development Programme, enabling them to reach over 16000 pupils.

- or reach 22,500 children – providing them with the education and access to life opportunities that they deserve.

Of course, our maths may need some work but even if our figures are a little out and there’s a slump in donations, it is still good to know that there is some money left in the pot.

AET is deploying TLC’s online tutoring service, TLC Live! in a number of schools in its academy network, to support children eligible for the £1.25bn 2012-2013 Pupil Premium allowance. After trialling the platform, the AET believes the personalised learning programmes provided by fully qualified UK-based teachers will raise the pupils’ academic attainment.

AET CEO David Triggs, says TLC Live! is a very good solution for an increasing requirement for extra-curricular tuition and attainment support: “The Pupil Premium is a resource which must be carefully invested according to the needs of each student in order to improve attainment. TLC Live! was the natural choice from those explored; its assessment tool allows us to easily focus on the areas in which children need extra help, and the solution enables our academies to raise academic attainment by providing each student with tailored support and individual attention from  fully qualified, UK-based teachers.”

TLC founder Simon Barnes notes that TLC Live! is a popular solution for schools looking to deliver on their Pupil Premium spend: “More schools are looking for tutoring programmes with fully qualified CRB-checked teachers as they’re naturally reluctant to put their children in contact with unregulated tutors. The TLC Live! experience is finely tuned and based on the current national curriculum. Our programme, which first identifies areas of focus then creates a tutoring plan for each student, is a proven method of raising attainment.”

Recent changes to the Pupil Premium include broader eligibility requirements and a rise in allowance to £600 per child. Children registered for Free School Meals (FSM) at any time in the past six years are now eligible for the allowance, which includes looked after children and children of British citizens currently serving in the Armed Forces. From September, schools will be required to publish how they have spent the Pupil Premium, a measure intended to deter wasted spending and drive performance.

-ENDS-

For more information or further editorial opportunities, please contact:

TopLine Communications

">

+44 (0)207 580 6502

About TLC Education Group

TLC Education Group was founded in July 2010 by managing director Simon Barnes and specialises in maths, English and science tuition, GCSE and common entrance exam preparation, for children aged between 6 and 16. TLC Education Group is the only tutoring organisation to have centres in schools all year around, and offers afterschool, tailored, individual learning programmes to pupils in local communities, as well as online lessons through TLC Live!. TLC Education Group currently has an independent tutoring centre in Cambridge and five further centres housed within the following schools: Samuel Ward Academy, Wymondham High School, Coleridge Community College, Parkside Community College and the Open Academy.

For more information on TLC Education Group, please visit: www.tlceducationgroup.com

The IfL website tells us that “it will again operate as a voluntary, professional membership organisation, in light of the interim report of an independent review of professionalism in the further education and skills sector. The government intends to consult on removing the 2007 regulations requiring the sector’s teachers and trainers to be qualified and registered as IfL members.”

But this is not the full story because the interim report that the UK Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning John Hayes welcomed also includes the recommendation that “The last increment of transitional funding for the IfL should be used to refund part of the second year of fees paid by FE staff”

In other words, the mandatory IfL tax/subscription will be cancelled and the money already paid in subs to be returned to those out of pocket.

The IfL therefore loses its money and will then cease to exist. And not a moment too soon.

Good riddance!

The speech proved to be a bit of a landmark in Anlgo-American education policy as it paved the way for the 1988 Education Reform Act in the UK and the 2001 NCLB Act in the US.

The speech also shows that the ideology that presents education as a problem caused by an increasingly more sophisticated and demanding world to be solved only by standards, examinations, inspections, closer links to industry, an onus on teaching methods and a fixed curriculum has not changed in over 35 years.

Indeed, despite its apparent failure and increasing lack of support, this is an ideology that still continues to blight education policy in the UK and US.

Of particular note in Callaghan’s 1976 speech are the following:

Standards aren’t high enough, life is getting more complex, expectations need to change, thereby justifying reform (“Higher standards than ever before are required in the trade union field and, as I shall indicate a little later, higher standards in the past are also required in the general educational field. It is not enough to say that standards in this field have or have not declined. With the increasing complexity of modern life we cannot be satisfied with maintaining existing standards, let alone observe any decline. We must aim for something better.”)

Politicians have the democratic right to meddle in education (“There have been one or two ripples of interest in the educational world in anticipation of this visit. I hope the publicity will do Ruskin some good and I don’t think it will do the world of education any harm. I must thank all those who have inundated me with advice: some helpful and others telling me less politely to keep off the grass, to watch my language and that they will be examining my speech with the care usually given by Hong Kong watchers to the China scene. It is almost as though some people would wish that the subject matter and purpose of education should not have public attention focused on it: nor that profane hands should be allowed to touch it…There is nothing wrong with non-educationalists, even a prime minister, talking about it again.”)

They can meddle because massive amounts of public money is spent on education, and as democratically elected to represent the people, politicians have a right to know what’s going on and so too other interested stakeholders (“I take it that no one claims exclusive rights in this field. Public interest is strong and legitimate and will be satisfied. We spend £6bn a year on education, so there will be discussion. But let it be rational. If everything is reduced to such phrases as ‘educational freedom’ versus state control, we shall get nowhere. I repeat that parents, teachers, learned and professional bodies, representatives of higher education and both sides of industry, together with the government, all have an important part to play in formulating and expressing the purpose of education and the standards that we need.”)

There is the hollow acknowledgement of some excellence in education (“First let me say, so that there should be no misunderstanding, that I have been very impressed in the schools I have visited by the enthusiasm and dedication of the teaching profession, by the variety of courses that are offered in our comprehensive schools, especially in arts and crafts as well as other subjects and by the alertness and keenness of many of its pupils. Clearly, life at school is far more full and creative than it was many years ago. I would also like to thank the children who have been kind enough to write to me after I visited their schools: and well written letters they were. I recognise that teachers occupy a special place in these discussions because of their real sense of professionalism and vocation about their work.”)

Schools are about producing a workforce for industry and business but they’re failing to do that (“But I am concerned on my journeys to find complaints from industry that new recruits from the schools sometimes do not have the basic tools to do the job that is required.”)

There is a lack of interest in science and technology, especially among women (“I have been concerned to find out that many of our best trained students who have completed the higher levels of education at university or polytechnic have no desire to join industry. Their preferences are to stay in academic life or to find their way into the civil service. There seems to be a need for more technological bias in science teaching that will lead towards practical applications in industry rather than towards academic studies. Or, to take other examples, why is it that such a high proportion of girls abandon science before leaving school?”)

Then there is the concern about the standards of numeracy of school-leavers (“Is there not a case for a professional review of the mathematics needed by industry at different levels? To what extent are these deficiencies the result of insufficient co-operation between schools and industry? Indeed, how much of the criticism about basic skills and attitudes is due to industry’s own shortcomings rather than to the educational system?”)

And there is the assumption that humanities is of less worth than science and technology (“Why is it that 30,000 vacancies for students in science and engineering in our universities and polytechnics were not taken up last year while the humanities courses were full?…There is little wrong with the range and diversity of our courses. But is there sufficient thoroughness and depth in those required in after life to make a living?)

Parents are said to demand more formalised teaching methods (“On another aspect, there is the unease felt by parent and others about the new informal methods of teaching which seem to produce excellent results when they are in well-qualified hands but are much more dubious when they are not. They seem to be best accepted where strong parent-teacher links exist.”).

There is the idea that some who speak of educational reform have ulterior motives (“We all know those who claim to defend standards but who in reality are simply seeking to defend old privileges and inequalities.”), a rhetorical tactic we see today employed to silence critics of UK free schools and other unnecessary reforms.

There is Callaghan’s support for standards and a curriculum, as well as an inspection body (“It is not my intention to become enmeshed in such problems as whether there should be a basic curriculum with universal standards – although I am inclined to think there should be – nor about any other issues on which there is a divided professional opinion such as the position and role of the inspectorate.”)

To the PM, education is not just about work, however (“The goals of our education, from nursery school through to adult education, are clear enough. They are to equip children to the best of their ability for a lively, constructive, place in society, and also to fit them to do a job of work. Not one or the other but both. For many years the accent was simply on fitting a so-called inferior group of children with just enough learning to earn their living in the factory. Labour has attacked that attitude consistently, during 60 or 70 years and throughout my childhood. There is now widespread recognition of the need to cater for a child’s personality to let it flower in its fullest possible way.”)

Yet this addressing of the balance between the economic and social imperative of education was said to have gone too far (“We have a responsibility now to see that we do not get it wrong again in the other direction. There is no virtue in producing socially well-adjusted members of society who are unemployed because they do not have the skills. Nor at the other extreme must they be technically efficient robots. Both of the basic purposes of education require the same essential tools. These are basic literacy, basic numaracy, the understanding of how to live and work together, respect for others, respect for the individual. This means requiring certain basic knowledge, and skills and reasoning ability. It means developing lively inquiring minds and an appetite for further knowledge that will last a lifetime. It means mitigating as far as possible the disadvantages that may be suffered through poor home conditions or physical or mental handicap.”)

Callaghan explains that he did not want to “paint a lurid picture of educational decline” but wanted an education system ready to produce a better skilled workforce that the New World Order demanded (“In today’s world, higher standards are demanded than were required yesterday and there are simply fewer jobs for those without skill.”) – now where have we heard that before!?

There is also the unfounded belief that teachers lack broad public support (“It will be an advantage to the teaching profession to have a wide public understanding and support for what they are doing.”) that further legitimises education reform.

In words that sound all too familiar Callaghan summarises his concerns (“Let me repeat some of the fields that need study because they cause concern. There are the methods and aims of informal instruction, the strong case for the so-called ‘core curriculum’ of basic knowledge; next, what is the proper way of monitoring the use of resources in order to maintain a proper national standard of performance; then there is the role of the inspectorate in relation to national standards; and there is the need to improve relations between industry and education…Another problem is the examination system”)

In short, the rhetoric of change made famous by Callaghan and perfected by successive Ed Secs has not changed, only the parties and the people have. We too wish for a change, but only a change in rhetoric. We and many others are tired of the current one.

United Opt Out National endorses Occupy Wall Street by creating ACTION in solidarity. PLEASE READ THIS ENTIRE POST FOR ALL INFORMATION ON THE OCCUPATION. WE OPT OUT OF CORPORATE EDUCATION REFORM.

It is time to end Wall Street Occupation of Education.

We asked – they said NO. We wrote – they said NO. We sent them research – they said NO. We say NO. We opt out. We will put a screeching halt to corporate education by saying NO to the test.

We will occupy the Department of Education in DC from March 30th to April 2nd. On-going planning can be found at our Facebook Occupy the DOE page.

It’s time to put the public back in public education. Occupy the DOE and show them who education REALLY BELONGS to.

Join United Opt Out National & #OCCUPYDOE in Washington D.C.
April Fools!
No Child Left Behind – Fool Me Once.
Race to the Top – We Won’t be Fooled Again.
Join us. In solidarity with Occupy Movements everywhere.

See SCHEDULE.

Download summary of schedule.

Share this letter to promote Occupy the DOE in DC.

See here for Occupy the DOE in DC posters created by Jay Rivett from Occupy ART: Indiana.

Wondering where to stay? (free places and/or hotels)

Check the map here for hotel locations and more. Where are WE/United Opt Out Administrators staying? We are staying at the Washington Hilton, also known as the Dupont Circle Hilton, address: 1919 Connecticut Ave NW, Washington DC 20009, 1.202.483.3000

Where to stay for free? We have reserved sleeping space for our group at St.Stephen and the Incarnation. We can be in the building during these times:

March 29th to March 30th, Thursday 9 pm – Friday 8:30 am
March 30th to 31st, Friday 9pm – Saturday 11am
March 31st to April 1st, Saturday 5pm – Sunday 7am
April 1st to April 2nd, Sunday 9pm – Monday 11am

Here is the information on sleeping arrangements:

Here is directions to St. Stephen

At St. Stephen there is street parking only. It can be tight; folks will simply have to look. Or pay for parking in the garage at 14th and Park Road NW — a five minute walk away.

Additional housing information from NOWDC.

We have three channels that may be used for livestreaming – please check them all out.

The majority of our livestreaming will most likely be at http://www.livestream.com/califather on Saturday, Sunday and Monday afternoon.

During other times, including Friday, one of the following two channels below will be used. We may have multiple channels running at the same time broadcasting different things so check them all out!

Here is our USTREAM channel: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/unitedoptout

Here is a second channel which may be utilized as well: http://www.livestream.com/unitedoptout?t=997514

See here for Occupy DOE Rules of Engagement

We have a permit to occupy at the Department of Education in D.C. and the following guidelines must be respected:

The hours the group will be allowed to utilize the Plaza at 400 Maryland Avenue from March 30th, 2012 through April 2nd, 2012, will be 9am until 5pm daily.

No tents or other structures can be placed on the plaza.

There will be absolutely no access to the LBJ facility unless pre-approved by the Department of Education.

There are no bathroom facilities available for the groups use at the LBJ facility.

The sidewalks leading to the entry or exit points the LBJ facility are to remain free of obstruction at all times.

There will be no standing or jumping on GSA property including but not limited to picnic tables and chairs, exhaust grates and railings.

There will be no unsafe acts that could possibly lead to an accident.

The group will remain in the plaza area nearest the bell.

The group is responsible for cleaning up all trash and other items they bring on the property.

No items will be left behind when the group breaks for activities off the property.

While occupying at the Department of Education we are allowed to bring folding chairs, tables and coolers – items must be movable and removed when we adjourn at the end of each day.

The march to Capitol Hill on Friday will proceed as follows:

The parade will form 400 Maryland Ave SW and proceed over the following route; east on C St SW to 4th St., north on 4th St to Independence Ave, east on Independence Ave to 3rd St, entering Capitol Grounds, east sidewalk of 3rd St, north on the east sidewalk of 3rd St to Constitution Ave, east on Constitution Ave to 1st St NW, cross Constitution to the event site, Taft Memorial Park where the group will rally and disband. See here for map.

Useful information from occupationeducationca.org regarding interaction with police.

Useful information from occupationeducationca.org regarding your rights to demonstrate and protest.

Information from National Lawyers Guild. We will have a legal observer on site during the daytime.

Pamphlet from National Lawyers Guild on Knowing Your Rights

NOWDC begins March 30th as well – check out their website.

Parking information in DC shared from NOWDC:

Parking inside the city falls into two categories: on street and off street. On street parking is metered and/or time limited. The best time to find on street parking is Sunday; Monday through Saturday, spaces are limited. There are many parking garages, but most downtown are fairly expensive (e.g., $12 or more per day).

Parking outside the city is best at Metro stations that have parking garages. Most of these are located well outside the city. Here is a link to the Metro where you can find out a lot more information about this. Parking at most stations is around $4.50 per day. At some outlying stations like Franconia, it is possible to leave your car for several days, at least that is what people I met at the occupation told me. To me, the Metro is by far the best way to get in and out and around D.C.

Some out of city Metro stations offer free parking on weekends.

Attention Media – here is the contact info. for all United Opt Out Administrators:

Shaun Johnson
412-965-1196
atthechalkface(at)gmail.com

Morna McDermott McNulty
410-294-3223
mmcdermott(at)towson.edu

Laurie Murphy
863-386-4806
murphylauriet(at)gmail.com

Peggy Robertson
720-810-5593
writepeg(at)juno.com

Tim Slekar
office. 814-949-5639
cell. 412-735-9720
tds12(at)psu.edu

Ceresta Smith
786-303-4785
cerestas(at)yahoo.com

There was a defence of free schools and academies. There were the predictable references to the educational and aspirational nirvana that is Oxbridge and the euphemism that is ‘challenging’ to describe the poor and lower classses. There were the reminders of “how much latent talent we have in this country” (but if only the Tories were allowed to nurture it!), the typos (“magificent seven”), the all-in-it-together mantra (“We’re all in this to help children”) and the reasoning that academic success is above all not the responsibility of anyone but teachers (“And that with great teaching – and that’s really it – we can democratise access to knowledge, find the talent in every child and make opportunity more equal.”).

There was an attempt to portray the Tories as the party of the Centre, pop-psychology references to brain science and about the mutability of the mind, and a ‘groundbreaking’ solution to the age-old nature-nuture debate: It is both nature AND nurture that determines educational achievement (“it is the interplay between what we inherit and the environment and culture in which we grow up which determines what we become.”). There was even a reference to Martin Luther King!

Apparently with enough effort, hard work, discipline and where “no excuses are allowed for failure” (in exams, you’d imagine) we can like in an MTV commercial be whatever we want to be no matter how poor or rich.

It’s all to do with high expectations, you see. What this means is made clear: all students going to HE, reading of classic texts from ancient and more contemporary literature (“Shakespearean tragedies in depth, Jane Austen, Aldous Huxley and Primo Levi”), longer school hours, “the study of Renaissance architecture of Brunelleschi and Bernini alongside the role of Archbishop Laud and Henrietta Maria in provoking the English Civil War…works by Dickens, Wilde, Blake, Larkin, Matthew Arnold and Tennyson.” This is what Gove calls “the same cultural heritage wealthier children expect as of right.”

Yet what most drew our attention was not this patronising and crude simplification of the complexity of the education process nor the independent school model of education which Gove wants to foist onto the unwealthy masses. What drew our ire was the rhetoric of change i.e. the false logic that the world is changing so fast that reform is needed.

In “The World at an inflection point”, Gove explains that, “Over the next ten years the world we inhabit will change massively. We are at an inflection point in the economic and educational development of nations.”

“Technology will change out of all recognition how individuals work, how we teach and how students learn. Millions more across the globe will go onto higher – and post-graduate education.”

“Globalisation will see the number of unskilled or low skilled jobs in this country diminish further and the rewards to those with higher level qualifications continue to soar further ahead.”

“We cannot ignore, wish away or seek to stand aside from these developments. Not least because they promise a dramatic step forward in the unleashing of talent, the fulfilment of human potential and the reach of our creativity.”

And because the current education system isn’t fit for purpose it needs an overhaul to meet this change: In funding, in human capital, in the curriculum and qualifications, in accountability and in the structures we create to drive innovation and excellence.

For “we need to have an education system equipped for that world – one which equips young people for all its challenges – and opportunities. We need to cultivate higher order thinking skills and creativity. We need to be adaptable and fleet-footed. We need to welcome innovation and challenge as a way to ensure we lead rather than meekly follow.”

This rhetoric is based on the idea that the world is changing so we need to reform. Given that the world is always in a state of flux, this would seems to give reformists carte blanche to do whatever they want FOREVER.

But is the world really changing so fast? And how many predictions of the future have ever come true? Isn’t it the fact the world rarely changes so fast that means that we can all sleep safely at night? If the world was forever changing as dramatically as Gove would have us believe we’d never get anything done for whenever we began a reform it would never be finished as we’d have to reform the reform to keep up with the pace of change (but isn’t that what happens!?).

The fact of the matter is that the rhetoric of change is akin to the rhetoric of fear. If you keep telling people that things are going to change/getting scary with terrorists it is hoped that political reforms/curtailments of civil liberties will go through without a fight. But people like us know that these rhetorics are empty and that behind them is the desire to pay off patrons and do the dirty work of vested interests (doesn’t Gove work for New Corp still?).

And isn’t it wonderfully convenient that the changes wrought by globalisation etc. etc. that Gove identifies are just slow enough for him to implement reforms and talk up the results but fast enough to justify the reforms in the first place?

There were other daft comments in Gove’s speech: the laughable idea that people aren’t attracted to teaching because of the discipline and poor behaviour rather than commonly-known pittance that is called a salary, the excessive paperwork and hours, the lack of management support and autonomy and of course the needless meddling that is Gove-rnment interference.

There was also the other laughable idea that by dramatically reducing the amount of training for new recruits, employing short-term careerist graduates instead of properly qualified, trained, already experienced and fully committed teachers, and throwing the floundering newbies into the classroom, that things will miraculously improve. This is a bad a rationale as thinking that cutting the 50% tax rate to 45% will make people pay MORE tax.

But these reforms take us back to our biggest grumble i.e. that the change that Gove identifies necessitate reforms. Why do we need a National College, Teaching Schools, the growth in academy chains and the work of organisations like the Prince’s Teaching Institute when we’ve got decades and decades of professional experience and expertise in existing and ready-made institutions of teaching and learning?

Gove talks of critics of teaching standards as if that was the common currency (“And if we embrace these changes media and political criticism of professional standards in teaching will become a thing of the past”) but that is simply a ruse. The only critics of teachers are those like Gove who want to destabilise the profession so that they can rebuild it in their own image.

There is his talk of autonomy for teachers but only if the semi-privatised academies will it (and Ofsted of course). So, in fact, there will be no autonomy, just more of the same authoritarian clap-trap of this and previous Ed Secs.

The examination system that has proliferated is the fault of the Tories, too. They privatised it and are now picking up the pieces. Where before the examination companies did nothing more than meet demand, they now compete for contracts. This has already exposed malpractice. We should expect corruption to follow: the same companies devise and mark their own exams, after all. And the idea that universities are somehow going to muscle in without a fight from these companies is simply ludicrous.

The ideology of choice drove the disastrous privatising of the examination industry. Why then do the Tories still think choice will do for schools what it has failed to elsewhere? Parents believe they do not have a good school because the system of league tables leads them to believe there are real differences between schools when there aren’t – when there are only differences of opinion, and differences of income. Gove can say all he wants about the right teaching and higher expectations making up for a single parent with two jobs to make ends meet but he’ll know this is a Good Will Hunting pipe-dream.

Perhaps the most pernicious development over the last 30 years has been teaching by numbers. If Gove was a teacher or had any connection to real schooling he’d know that this is one of the main reasons why it is so difficult to keep teachers in teaching once they’ve got a bit of experience. The inane data collection that goes on in education in the name of science is at the heart of the problem, not the solution.

Teachers then will be closer to the exits when they hear Gove explain that “We need more data not less. We must move away from reliance on just one or two benchmarks to a rich and nuanced account of achievement. Every month, week, day and hour we have data about the economic performance of the nation.”

What have UK teachers done to deserve this man?

Ofsted has been given responsibility for making sure everything is hunky-dory with schools and various educational establishments in the UK. Depending on what you read, recent headlines cast Ofsted either as the villain or the saviour of our educational times. The Three Amigos – Wilshaw, Gove and Twigg – would seem to have nothing but the utmost faith in the organisation. Teachers hate it as much as they appear to despise Gove, however.

So, given the vitriol surrounding Ofsted, we thought we’d ask the very simple question: Do they (i.e. the inspectors) know any better than the teachers, heads and support staff that they go to snoop on? The assumption obviously is that they do but is that really the case? It would seem to be a complete waste of public funds to keep the organisation going if the inspectors have no secret magic spell to conjure, and know no more than the next man. Is Ofsted then not worth the effort?

What do inspectors need to know in order to make their judgements of quality? They should know what works, but what does work? Where do they/we find such information?

A good place to start you’d think should be (social) science. Education research ought to be the place to find effective educational strategies and practices. However, education research is a hotch-potch of competing theories and methodologies and therefore not a secure foundation to make definitive pronouncements of what works and what doesn’t. Indeed, you only have to consider recent controversies over research in education – synthetic phonics, for example – to know that this isn’t a suitable starting point for declarations of facts about what is and isn’t effective in the classroom.

If education research doesn’t tell us what to do, then where next? Perhaps we could build up a fund of knowledge – a repository of best practice – which inspectors have privileged access to, which only they understand, and from which only they can make reasonable judgements of quality.

This would appear to be the current approach to what works in schools. Ofsted knows that education research has been found wanting i.e. cannot provide answers. The euphemism that is best/good practice is the ‘alternative’, of which the Ofsted website has many different case studies for us to look at. Good practices are identified, written about, and the findings used as a comparative tool with which to make quality assessments out in the field.

Isn’t Ofsted best placed to assess practices because of its proximity to what is going on? They should then be responsible for telling us what works, or so the theory goes.

But is best/good practice a more acceptable base from which to make assessments of quality? After all, a judgement is a personal thing. Surely we need judgements of best/good practices to be objective in the sense of above personal tastes for such judgements to be fair. Otherwise it makes a mockery of the inspection process, dependent as it would be on the inspector’s whim rather than the impartial knowledge they possess. There is also the potential for corruption with livelihoods and mortgage repayments at stake.

However, that there are multiple inspectors, that they change, and the fact that inspectors are not omnipresent suggests objectivity is a pipe-dream: inspections are and can only be personal assessments of educational institutions. Good/best practices there may be but these are and can only ever be the opinion of specific inspectors, never an objective fact.

It may be argued that inspectors are experienced, highly-skilled and chosen for their excellence in teaching etc. But are they? The same lack of objectivity applies to their recruitment as much as it does to the reports they write. Inspectors are a matter of personal taste.

And how is best/good practice identified if the inspectors don’t know before they go to inspect? They either know what works in advance or they don’t. If they do, then why bother with inspections at all: they simply have to relay this information to schools and no more. If they don’t know in advance what is effective, on the other hand, then how can they somehow identify it in schools?

Often the riposte will be that inspectors are needed because they, and only they, can judge what works. They are special. But are there such people? Inspectors were teachers once, after all. They then were no different to the people they now scrutinise. But maybe they offer an objective viewpoint where a head or colleague cannot. However, we have already dismissed the claim that inspectors are somehow able to detach themselves from personal taste and assume the birds-eye view.

Another response could be that there are objective standards of excellence that anyone with the necessary, advanced skill-set (i.e. expert inspectors) can properly understand. Yet the problem of personal opinion does not go away. Standards, as we have written about at length over the years ad nauseum, are only as good as the paper they are written on. Their interpretation is as much an individual decision as that of an interpretation of a good school or a good teacher. Ask a teacher or inspector to define what the standard of encouraging independent learning means, for example, and you’re sure to get a variety of different answers.

Indeed, you’d think given the amount of research, inspection and observation that has been done in the classroom over the centuries that we’d know by now what was effective and what wasn’t. But we seem no nearer that point. There is then another paradox: history tells us that the fact that we inspect, observe and research does not mean that we will find the answers, unlike in the natural sciences, but we still continue to inspect, observe and research in the hope that we will.

Do we then wait for the inspectors to turn water into wine? Is that ever going to happen? Do politicians want this to happen, moreover? After all, where would an Ed Sec and his OFSTASI be left if we knew what worked?

Does this mean then that Ofsted and the inspection regime is a waste of time, effort and money? Well, we think that without a sound, objective and scientific basis for what it does, there seems little point. We can’t go on thinking that they’ll eventually find the solution to the problem of effective education when they haven’t so far. Self-appointed experts do not a good education system make. Indeed, they may even make it worse.

Passing the buck to best practice is a clever tactic. It allows inspectors to judge others’ work and do no more than ‘objectively’ report what they see while all the while making others responsible for what works. But if it is others who are responsible, why do we need Ofsted?

Unless the point to Ofsted is not a scientific one, of course. This is pretty obvious. Maybe inspectors don’t have to know better anymore, they simply have to be seen to be in the know. It is this, above all, that probably explains why in the face of such professional hostility, OFSTASI (as it has come to be known) continues to exist.

We then have an organisation (Ofsted) that does not and cannot do what it is supposed to, masquerading as a solution to a problem that is the making of the very people who wish to be seen to be solving problems, and costing teachers, heads and support staff their jobs, their health and perhaps even worse. All in the name of quality, when in reality it is a way of keeping an eye on untrustworthy and slovenly teachers while all the time looking to do good in the eyes of the voting public.

The very unfunny joke that is Ofsted may make politico-managerial sense but with teacher satisfaction at an all-time low, strikes on the increase and persistently high teacher turnover, we think the best thing to do would be to run a happy ship, not drive the crew to mutiny with Ofsted surveillance and distrust.

“Welcome to The Student World – the only event in the UK to find out about studying your degree abroad! Whether you’re looking for an undergrad or postgrad degree this is the place to be! Join the conversation in our study abroad forum, keep updated on recent study abroad news, check out the international university profiles or come along to a The Student World Fair to meet universities from around the world who all teach their degrees in English.”

They explain that they “know it can be a bit of a challenging time helping your son or daughter find the right university place, and if they’re thinking about studying overseas, you’re naturally going to be concerned about distance, money and cultural issues that you might not have to address if they were studying in the UK.

Register for The Student World Fair and find out more about the opportunities available for your son or daughter to study abroad! It’s a completely free event at an exciting venue (plus there’s tea and coffee and a place to put your feet up while you wait!).”

However, there’s obviously a catch…for those in the UK who require some form of government assistance, that is!

The catch: “There are no student loans (in the old fashioned sense) from UK government that are available for overseas study, most students who decide to study outside the UK will be funding their education privately and rely on family and their own savings to pay for the cost of their degree.

You might be able to secure a personal loan from a private bank to help towards the cost of your studies, but remember you’ll have to pay this back with interest, usually as soon as you’ve taken the lump sum you’ve borrowed, so if you take this option, make sure you factor in the cost of the repayments every month. Talk to your bank manager to find out what might be available for you.”

Some universities (e.g. Harvard) offer tuition-free degrees to those of low incomes (and in the UK you’d imagine that would be quite a few) but this is unlikely to be the case for all other universities.

The answer is naturally to allow students the freedom to do what they want with their students loans, as you’d expect in a liberal democracy, but the UK government is too authoritarian to do that.

The MetLife Survey of the American Teacher: Teachers, Parents and the Economy was conducted by Harris Interactive and is the twenty-eighth in a series sponsored annually by MetLife since 1984 to give voice to those closest to the classroom. This MetLife survey examines the views of teachers, parents and students about the teaching profession, parent and community engagement, and effects of the current economy on families and schools.

The survey is 130-pages long and so we will only present the juicy bits. However, even these snippets should (although predictably they won’t) make us all think about the focus of education policy both in the UK and US.

The survey reports the following:

Teachers are less satisfied with their careers.

1. Teacher job satisfaction has dropped 15 points since 2009, from 59% who were very satisfied to 44% who are very satisfied, the lowest level in over 20 years.

2. The percentage of teachers who say they are very or fairly likely to leave the profession has increased by 12 points since 2009, from 17% to 29%.

3. The percentage of teachers who do not feel their job is secure has grown since 2006 from eight percent to 34%.

4. Slightly more than half (53%) of parents and two-thirds (65%) of teachers say that public school teachers’ salaries are not fair for the work they do.

5. Teachers with lower job satisfaction are less likely than others to feel that their job is secure (56% vs. 75%) or that they are treated as a professional by the community (68% vs. 89%).

Increasing job dissatisfaction, a potential exodus out of the profession, feelings of job insecurity, poor pay and a lack of community respect do not a healthy teaching profession make.

Is it right however given this disillusionment among teachers (and we can imagine that the same sentiment is shared by their UK counterparts), that the out-dated and increasingly muddleheaded and disingenuous talk of raising standards, international competitiveness and general teacher-bashing that currently passes for intelligent comment is still occupying government ministers and bureaucrats of both countries?

To state the obvious: the problem is not low placings on meaningless league tables based on international comparisons that prove nothing but a sample of students scored such-and-such in standardised exams. Nor is the problem a lack of technical prowess in the classroom. No, the problem is that teachers are unhappy, and unhappy teachers means unhappy students and this means unhappy parents.

This ever-present and long-standing reality is not hard to see – unless you are Wilshaw or Gove, of course.