Diary of a Trainee Teacher

Oh my god! I had no idea that we had so much stuff. We’ve lived in a two bedroom flat for the last two years and we are having an absolute nightmare trying to pack it all! We’ve hired a van, but we’re not entirely sure it will all fit, even with a car as well. I’m starting to understand why moving house has such a reputation for being extremely stressful.

Ah, bureaucracy, sucking the fun out of life! Does anyone else agree that making host families (every member of them) have an enhanced CRB check before allowing them to play host to a foreign exchange student might make it more and more difficult to convince parents to take part? CRB checks are time consuming and frustrating, but a necessary part of working with children. You don’t need one to be a parent or to have a family, and that’s why you go on an exchange, to live with a family. I can also see a battery of fussy parents insisting that if they have to have a CRB check then the families hosting their children should have something similar. The hassle just means that schools will find it too difficult to difficult to do and they’ll stop doing it!

I personally loved my exchanges, they taught me that these languages we slogged away at school at are not just useless lessons, but that people really did speak them. They taught me to love German breakfasts, French wine, German beer and French music. They taught me that the French spoke in France and the German in Germany have as many regional varieties as the English we speak here. The Guardian points out the many different experiences that would be missed out on by the next generation, should Exchanges go the way of the Dinosaurs.

I kid you not!

This article in the Times Higher paper highlights a worrying trend in our schools, a movement towards digital information as the only information available in schools. Google replaces librarians and their dewey decimal system and website replace books and newspapers as the source of all knowledge.  

I know I’m not the only person who loves books, many people do, and like most people my love of books and reading comes from plenty of exposure to books and libraries when I was young. By getting rid of libraries we risk marginalising books as sources of information and pleasure for a whole generation of children!

If we take a moment to think of schools purely as places where we prepare young people for the worlds of work and higher education (which I don’t, but just for arguments sake) there is still a case to be made for libraries. Using a library teaches you to sift through a mass of information to find what’s relevant. You have to do this on the internet too. When writing essays for university I frequently had my allowance of ten books out at any one time, and often had to do triage or photocopying to get the information I needed. I also copied or took notes from multiple print journals which were unavailable online, despite the fact that literally thousands of journals are. If I’d only used online sources I doubt I would have passed. By getting rid of libraries and information skills we risk narrowing the skill set of state pupils and putting up another barrier between them and the elite universities.

I always took great pride in announcing during tours of campus that our library housed ‘over a million’ books. This was something to be proud of, and often visitors were more interested in this than the computer suite right next door. My university is a very young one, but great, top 5 or six in the country every year, because it prides itself on links with business and constantly keeps itself up to date, yet it values the library, staffs it with subject specialist librarians and has just spent money redeveloping it and modernising it. Yes, there are more computers in the library than I would like, but the books are still there. 

I recently read this article on the Independent. Chris Parry, a former rear admiral and the new chief executive of the Independent Schools Council (ISC), spoke out on his view of state education and was accused of snobbishness by the NUT and of being ‘misguided’ (i.e. wrong) by the Department for Children, Schools and Families.

His views was as follows:

1. State schools are ’struggling with unteachable children, ignorant parents and staff who don’t want to be there’

2. ‘Comprehensive school pupils cannot be expected to get into top universities if they are bullied by classmates from “disadvantaged backgrounds”.’

3. ‘There are too many leaders but not enough leadership, there are a lot of managers but not enough management. There aren’t enough teachers and aren’t enough teachers in the subjects we need. It’s lacking human, material [and] financial resources.”

This seems to be a fairly accurate view of the situation, albeit very generalised. Of course schools are struggling, when inclusion forces them to take children who should be separated from other kids for their own protection, when parents insist that their little darling has done nothing wrong and ‘Miss X’ is just picking on him, and when they have teachers exhausted from working all the hours God sends for no respect. The comment about leaders has been fully covered on Old Andrews blog Scenes From the Battleground here and here, and he has much more experience in these matters than me. The TES forums to tend to support this view though. 

The one point I do have experience on, however, is the second point. In many ways mine, and many of my classmates’, success is despite the state education system, not because of it. As much as the powers that be would like to deny it, even when I was at secondary school (about 10 years ago now) it was not a good idea to do well (except at sport). 

Here are my tips for surviving state education:

In my opinion there is way too much of this in today’s society. In the opinion of many people teachers get too much money and too many days off. Why should teachers strike for a pay increase? They already earn loads. Arguments about teachers working long days and using holidays to reclaim some of this time fall on deaf ears. We work unpaid overtime too, and don’t get nearly that much holiday. Teachers should work just as hard as we do! Does anyone else see that fault in this argument? This society places too much emphasis on work! We should be working 80 hour weeks for 40 hours pay – otherwise we’re not working hard enough. This is the underlying issue. In my opinion we should all go on strike – or at least everyone should work the hours they are paid for, nothing more. This would improve life immensely.

Do people really want their kids taught by teachers who are overworked and burned out? Do they really want schools to give their children hardly any holiday – just so teachers have to work a more ‘fair’ number of days? Perhaps teachers should spend their holidays doing pointless INSET training, planning lessons and marking books…. oh! That’s what many of them already do.

I’m not stupid, I know that holidays are a perk of the job and they are one of the reasons teaching appeals to me, but I see it like school or university holidays, yes there are no classes, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t still some homework to be done.   

Recently there has been a great deal of fuss made over the fact that the elite universities are not admitting a fair number of kids from ‘bog standard comprehensives’ and even going so far as to blame the teachers for this phenomenon, but I was astounded when I read this! This ‘academic’ has the temerity to claim that working class people have a lower IQ, and therefore shouldn’t expect to gain a place in ‘elite’ universities! That this is a meritocracy, nothing more. 

I, for one, take offense at this! 

Definitions of ‘class’ are complicated, and depend on which direction you are coming from. Is class defined by culture, by income, by outlook? My grandparents were definitely working class, and this is how my parents were both brought up. Two of my uncles on my dad’s side are postmen, but the other is currently a university lecturer. My father got decent A levels and worked his way up through the ranks of a well known department store to a senior management position and later did a degree in computer programming. My mother works for a well known supermarket, where she started as an assistant, and now she’s management. This is my background, this is how I was brought up. Am I working class, or middle class?

We always had enough money, even if it was tight sometimes, and I never had free school meals, so, financially at least, we were just about middle class. 

I always had books and computers in the house, my parents encouraged me to read anything and everything, bought me musical instruments and music when I wanted to play and sent me on exchange visits to hone my language skills. Culturally, then, I am middle class.  

My parents were very definitely working class, at least in upbringing, but they were also clever, and they worked hard to ensure that my brothers and I all got a good start in life. They passed on to us the traditionally working class values of a good work ethic, an understanding of the value of money and the need to be thrifty, and most importantly a knowledge of the importance of the family network. When I was old enough, I voted labour (back when that meant something), I am accepted and loved by my predominantly working class family and I flinch when I hear something like this. In many ways I still identify with the working classes. 

I excelled at school, and found everything easy. I got fantastic GCSE and A level grades, due as much to good schooling and parental support as to my own abilities. I got these at a bog standard comprehensive in a former industrial town in the North East (incidentally, Dr Charlton is a professor at Newcastle university). I won a place at Oxbridge, and went too. 

If my dad had everything I had, he would have got into Oxbridge too. I firmly believe that. Whether he would have wanted to go is another matter entirely. The elite universities have a culture that is a mystery to the working class. They have lunch, then dinner, whereas we have dinner and tea. They have matriculations in latin, gowns in formal hall, beautiful old buildings with lawns you’re not allowed to walk on and sherry with the fellows once a term. Pimms and croquet, a hearty rowing culture and special names for their exams. They are full to busting with people entirely comfortable with this way of life, not wonder the working classes are reluctant to apply there, especially when they come from a family where no one ever lives more than a thirty minute drive from the others. That’s just the culture. Almost all the other students went to public schools or grammar schools, are widely read and super clever. You have to be very bright indeed, and very confident, to hold your own in such company. I am speaking from experience, not stereotypes when I describe this way of life. I had a great time during my one year there before I failed and moved on, but I never truly felt I belonged. This is the problem. Bright young people from working class communities don’t necessarily want this life. 

That’s just the culture. What about the money? In this era of top up fees and general high cost of living, it’s no wonder that students from lower income families would prefer to stay at home and save some of the costs of living and studying elsewhere. There was a student in my Oxbridge college who had everything paid for him, always bought people drinks at the bar, because he always had the money and had a charge card for the main book shop in town. I had to scrip and save my meagre student loan, plus what my parents could afford to give and an overdraft allowance to be able to afford books and day to day expenses. 

Academically? Oxbridge conjures up images of almost casual intelligence. Philosophical chats over Pimms, poetry readings in dark cafés and one on one tutorials with the most intelligent people in the country. This is perhaps a little daunting for someone from a Comp, who has perhaps been beaten up for playing in the band, attending a chess club or getting 10 out of 10 on a test, or whose parents believe they should get their noses out of those books and go and earn some money. 

If the middle classes do have a higher IQ it’s because they have had all the opportunities in the world to develop their intelligence. Because they have been socialised into a culture where intelligence is rewarded, not scorned. This academic believes this is meritocratic. The middle classes are smarter and therefore deserve it more. Rubbish! The middle classes have an almost unassailable advantage over the working classes. 

The elite universities are often so far removed from the day to day reality of many working class communities that it’s no wonder they’re not applying for them. They’re an impenetrable world meant for other people, for the upper classes, people with money and brains, not for them. This is the problem. These universities can admit students if they don’t apply. 

I don’t mean to say that students from comprehensive schools shouldn’t apply to elite universities, quite the opposite. The ancients in particular (Oxford, Cambridge, Durham) along with the London Universities and the major city red brick institutions provide an excellent launch into a world of work where the source of a degree is becoming increasingly more important. We need to know what barriers exist, so that we can abolish them. I hope that as a teacher I will play a small part in this, but attitudes like Dr Charlton’s can only harm the situation.  

Another situation update – I’m now officially checked and cleared. I am not a criminal! By this I mean of course that I got my enhanced disclosure CRB check back. However – I still need proof of good behaviour in Germany, to pass the French course (and I don’t know if I’m even on it yet) and to sort out a student loan. 

Just to make matters more annoying, I received a letter calling me for jury service, in early July, exactly when I’m not really available to be away from work as it’s my last month. I’m going to try and get excused, on the basis that I’m not really free in July and getting it postponed would be impossible due to the course. Oh, and it was sent to my parents house, I haven’t lived in that part of the country for several years and I shouldn’t even be registered at that address, so I’m not really available for jury service there anyway! Grr!

I seem to be ranting a lot, I do apologise. I’ll try and be sunnier in future, promise!

My university have contacted me, to ’suggest’ that I get evidence of good behaviour in Germany as I lived there for 8 months and the CRB check won’t cover it. This can take the form of a letter from my employer or a certificate of good behaviour from the authorities. To get this, I need to complete a form with basic identifying details on it, I then need to get this stamped by an embassy, consulate (£15), notary public (unknown charge) or public authority (whatever that really means) as proof that I am who I say I am and then send this, plus 13 euro to Germany to get this document! It’s going to cost me about £30 quid once postage and any bank charges are taken into account, just to prove I was well behaved, add this to the original CRB charge and I think I have a right to be a little bit peeved. I know it’s necessary to check I’m not a child-molester, but really….. this seems a little over the top to me. 

Today’s online Independent has posted this story. Apparently, the country’s top ranked universities have a problem accepting the academic merit of such courses as drama, media studies and performance and tourism, preferring such old fashioned subjects as Physics, History and Languages ……. I can’t believe this is even news!!!!! Surely this is so ridiculously obvious that anyone with two brain cells to rub together would have grasped this already.

I think that what worries me the most is the fact that our young people are being encouraged by the government and their schools to take these ’soft subjects’ and told that they are considered as being just the same as the more traditional A Levels. While I have my own ideas about the validity of these subjects, I’m not going to go into that now. The fact is that universities want certain skills and they need to be sure that their applicants have learned them. The academics themselves don’t have any experience of drama, media studies or performing arts, so they don’t know what skills these pass on. What they do know is that Physics and Further Maths A Levels means that their applicants for science will have the appropriate level of maths for their course, that applicants for Law who have French A level have no problem with strange and difficult vocabulary and that Arts applicants with an A level in English literature have had plenty of practice writing academic essays. By telling students that the top universities will consider drama on the same level as English Lit schools are potentially damaging their chances of getting into Russell Group universities. It’s all well and good saying that these alternative options are just as useful, just as valid, but until universities come around to this way of thinking, the bright pupils should continue to consider ‘traditional’ academic A levels as their route to the top. And since Languages are widely considered one of the hardest subjects to get good marks in, teachers should definitely encourage their pupils to study them!

I recently came across an interesting post in a parents forum, which I think raises questions about the nature of our education system. These words were attributed to Bill Gates, when he was speaking to a group of High School pupils, although I believe this is now known to be untrue. They are, nonetheless, interesting: