30 +1

For anyone who's a teacher, referring to your students as “my kids”, particularly for a younger cohort, is fairly typical. Just as a parent does with their own children, as a teacher, you build a rapport with your students and become emotionally invested in them. That's not only in their academic attainment and progress but their well-being and emotional welfare. Even seeing your students mature evokes a feeling akin to observing the development of your own children.

The same goes for the students who often see their teachers in a maternal or paternal role. I’ve been accidentally referred to as “Daddy” or “Dad” on countless occasions. It's unsurprising as given the duration of the school day, and the contact you’ll have with your students, as a teacher you spend more waking hours with your students than their parents do.

As every parent would probably attest, nothing really prepares you for parenthood. Nevertheless, becoming a parent when you're a teacher is probably the closest preparation you can get from a job. Where I had 30 children in my class, becoming a parent meant I now had an extra child to consider and this time I really was “Daddy”. But working in a profession that includes some features of parenting, albeit not to the same extent, would that mean teaching would be compatible with my new job as a dad?



Some might assume that teaching is a profession that gets the challenges of parenting and having a family. Your holidays usually coincide with your children's (headteachers do now have flexibility on scheduling holiday dates which makes it less common than it used to be) and schools finish at roughly the same time. Though the school day for students bears little resemblance to the working day for teachers. You’ll be at work long before and after students and working in the evenings and at the weekend is typically required. The myth of teachers working from 9 to 3:30 is one that teachers everywhere frustratingly, annoyingly and consistently dispel.

The holidays certainly help and compared to other dads, I get more blocks of time to spend with my son. Although it's not as clear cut as it would seem and most teachers spend at least a portion of their holiday working. Not to mention, while those who don't work in schools might not be able to empathise, it takes time at the beginning of every holiday to emotionally and mentally decompress from the relentless pressures of term time; not dissimilar to any other stressful profession.

That does erode your quality time with your family but it can't be denied that having a generous holiday allowance is a hugely family-friendly advantage of teaching. It also reduces the need for childcare outside of term time to an extent that most professions just don't afford.

Within term time, it's another story; one that sees many teachers experiencing a dichotomy between being a teacher and a parent. You unquestionably want to do the very best for your own child and the children in your classroom. Nonetheless, managing the task of the personal and professional competing pressures isn't easy.

Being a working parent, regardless of your job, is always going to present challenges. Being knackered from the working day, while wanting to spend time with your child in the evenings, is a fixture of most parents’ lives. Though with many jobs, at least there's the weekend. Yet for teachers, evenings and weekends are often consumed by work. There's also an emotional and mental drain in teaching that compounds any post work fatigue and an experience that only teachers and those in similar roles will really understand.

Teaching is a job with no respite - not dissimilar to being a parent - so your mind is constantly in overdrive with the endless tasks you have in addition to actually teaching and being responsible for your students. Think of the physical, mental and emotional exhaustion, and the unrivaled reward, of being a parent. Then imagine also experiencing that during the working day, but with 30 children.

Consequently, the balancing act of teacher vs parent can sometimes seem near impossible.

Excessive and unmanageable workload in teaching is generally acknowledged and well documented, and it can be overwhelming regardless, let alone once you become a parent. So what gives? No teacher wants to let down their students by doing a half baked job and no parent wants to feel they’ve neglected their children because they've been a slave to their job. It's a professional vs personal dilemma that no one should be faced with but one that is a reality for most teachers who are parents.

I understand the value of my time but acutely so now that I’m a dad. That means recognising the importance of spending time with my son. I allocate a finite amount of time for working in the evening and at weekends and ensure I leave work so that I'm home for bath time and putting my son to bed; recognising that failing to do so means reneging on my duty to play a meaningful role in my son's day and his routine. While my wife is on maternity leave, it’s also a small redress in the balance of the respective contribution we currently play in raising our son.

While at work, I work smarter but with a stubborn attitude in refusing to renege on any responsibilities as a teacher, arguably to the detriment of my well-being. Furthermore, at the back of my mind ever since my son was born, I’ve had the concern that I didn't want to give anyone the opportunity to suggest I wasn’t doing a good job now that I was a parent. Whereas had I been struggling, and in a profession where the key stakeholders are children and parents themselves, shouldn't I have envisaged that scenario being met with support and empathy, within reason, as I got to grips with being a dad?

Teaching isn't void of that empathy for parents and experiences will differ between schools and it can also be different for mums and dads. On a recent keeping in touch day, my wife (who's also a teacher) was asked by her headteacher how she felt about her return to work in the context of her new role as a mother. Conversely, there's been no similar discussion or enquiry at my school surrounding my well-being and state of mind in managing being a teacher and now also a dad. And it's been a near consistent experience for most dads I know who are also teachers. Is it because it's believed dads won't be doing much on the parenting front and it's therefore deemed an unnecessary conversation? Or is it an indication of the extent to which schools are attuned to modern parenting?

There's much progress to be made in teaching with regard to the well-being of staff in what is a highly pressured job. As a result, many teachers have been institutionalised to feel that needing support is a sign of weakness or not performing appropriately. Add a dose of toxic masculinity into the mix and I fear that this underlying attitude has also contributed to the instances where the challenge of being a dad and a teacher is ignored by schools and teacher dads themselves.

Unlike teaching of yesteryear, where senior teachers had simply paid their dues with lengthy service, school senior leadership teams now increasingly include fiercely career driven teachers. Many throw themselves wholeheartedly into their careers and eschew having a family or even a partner, a choice that should be respected as their own. But if senior leadership teams are becoming less reflective, and potentially less empathetic, of the experience of family life, how will this will pan out for teachers who do decide to become parents?

The lack of flexible working arrangements in teaching is indicative of this. It's certainly not unheard of but particularly in primary schools, where routine and consistency for the students is so important, some headteachers will be opposed to it. Although these are some of the necessary approaches if teaching is to truly become a family-friendly profession. I know of teachers that have been granted flexible working arrangements upon their return from maternity leave, which sets a great precedent for the direction teaching needs to go in. Conversely, I know of many teachers who have had their request for flexible working, to support being a parent, denied.

Teaching and becoming a dad are undoubtedly the most worthwhile roles I’ve ever had. So why should they at times seem mutually exclusive? They don't need to be, nor do parents who are teachers want an easy ride on account of being a parent. However, in roles that are generally considered as altruistic and relentless, the challenge of assuming both needs to be one that we're more aware of.

Diminishing parental responsibility is damaging our schools and our children's futures

The following was a phone conversation between a teacher and a parent of a child who should have been attending a workshop that had been organised but the child had failed to attend.

Teacher: Good morning, this is Ms Riley from Westchester School. Rashid is supposed to be attending a workshop that’s been organised for the students in his Geography class but he isn’t present.
Parent: Oh (said nonchalantly). Does he need to be there?
Teacher: Yes. Rashid’s signed up for the workshop and letters were sent home to parents advising them that students would need to attend today.
Parent: I didn’t get a letter. Couldn’t you have sent a text message? Rashid said the rest of his group weren’t going so he didn’t need to be there.
Teacher: No, he needs to be there…

And this was a conversation between a teacher and a parent at parents’ evening.

Teacher: Derek’s comprehension and his ability to engage with other children and contribute in class has become a concern. His understanding of basic instructions and information is very limited, even when spoken to in his home language, and it’s affecting his interaction with other children and his progress. Does he talk much at home?
Parent: Yeah, he talks at home.
Teacher: OK… that’s good. We need to encourage him to talk, and it’s fine if he’s talking to you in his home language, as that’ll help him with his confidence and his comprehension. Ask him questions about his day, about books he’s read…
Parent: (sighs and rolls eyes) Boss, I don’t have time to talk to my kid…

In both instances, all names and personal details have been changed. Nonetheless, these are based on real and recent examples with real parents and real teachers and they aren’t isolated instances. Instead, they are a sign of the lack of engagement and diminished parental responsibility that is increasingly present in some of today’s parents.

The shift of a parent’s responsibility being pushed onto schools and teachers, the acceptance and nonchalance towards a child’s lack of responsibility (because handing a letter to your parent is so arduous that teachers should instead send a text message) and the unwillingness to communicate with your child (one of the biggest determinants in younger children acquiring knowledge and broadening their vocabulary) all feature in sections of today’s parents. And it’s damaging our children’s futures and their attainment in school.

Firstly, it’s important to acknowledge that being a parent is not easy. For those who are parents in today’s society, the distractions upon children, and the demands upon parents, exacerbate that task in a way that yesteryear’s parents would not have had to deal with. The altering in the traditional balance of influence and control from parents to children also makes modern parenting a challenge. Essentially, society has impeded some parents from effectively parenting their children in this skewed change in dynamic.

Secondly, for anyone reading this and assuming that poor parenting and a lack of importance placed upon education is exclusively a feature of parents from lower socio-economic groups, you’d be wrong.

Poorer students and their families, particularly those that are from immigrant communities, are often much more appreciative of education because of the opportunities they know it affords them in life. As a result, education, teachers and their efforts are revered by these students and their families (this was certainly the case for my peers and I). Therefore, I don’t seek to make any sweeping judgements or reinforce erroneous stereotypes here. To do so would be folly, impossible and wrong. Rather, both the parents who fulfil their responsibility, and those who don’t, come from a range of backgrounds and not respective homogeneous groups.

The success of a school, and of its students, depends on a number of factors. Furthermore, achieving that success and how it’s measured is becoming increasingly difficult (and well-discussed on iamalaw). However, in the truest sense of success (of nurturing and encouraging the social, emotional and academic progress of students in an environment that never loses sight of their well-being), government policy, teachers and school leadership would be the typical responses to who or what can make or break this. Yet what about parents?

Parents bridge the gap between school and home. Just as teachers build upon the successes of a child’s home life, parents are positioned at the other end of this reciprocal relationship of building upon the successes at school. It seems obvious but it’s a given that’s lost on some parents and indeed some schools in their efforts to engage parents.

If at home a young child is read to and listened to reading daily, and conversed with in constant exposure to language, their orthographic store (our long term memory from which we retrieve all the words that we’ve learned to date), comprehension, knowledge and proficiency as a reader will progress far more rapidly than a child who is only exposed to these experiences at school. Similarly, this gives a child an appetite and positive attitude for learning that will put them in good stead for life. Sadly, an astounding number of parents feel that they need not play any role in supporting their children in such crucial early stages of their education let alone subsequently.

For these parents, sending their children to school is the extent of their required effort. They’ve fulfilled their end of the bargain and now it’s down to the school to teach their child everything they need to know without any input at home. That isn’t to say parents should undertake the role of a teacher but encouraging their child and instilling an attitude for learning and value for education is part of being a parent.

For some parents, it gets worse and school is ultimately a childminding service. An opportunity to be free of their children in an environment where they’re absolved of all responsibility. Again, I’m sure some might read this and with Daily Mail tinted glasses envision it to refer to ‘working class parents of broken Britain’. Wrong. Many middle class parents do exactly the same as school enables them to get on with their other priorities in life that clearly supersede their children. Indeed, they often go further as they have the means to extend that via clubs and endless tutors that maximise the time their children aren’t in their presence and minimise the responsibility they feel they need to assume.

There are of course many good parents who despite the never-ending duties of a parent, ensure that their child is on the right path. They foster the right attitude and behaviour within their child from young and support their child in whatever way they can while equally supporting the school. That includes supporting schools in their behaviour policies when a child has been been issued a sanction.

With older children, it can merely be ensuring homework is completed, words of encouragement and direction and support of the school within a home environment where education is valued. Conversely, the absence of that can make all the difference to a child’s attitude to education and their life opportunities because of it. These measures don’t cost anything and aren’t demanding on parents’ time either. Nevertheless, they can make a significant difference to a child’s attainment and the success of a school.

It isn’t just all about academic progress either. A child’s mental, social and emotional growth and well-being is arguably more important and depends as much on their parents as their teachers. If a parent is disinterested in their child’s life, that growth and well-being is going to find itself limited.

Parental engagement in schools can make the difference between a bad school and a good school and a good school and great school. Plenty of research supports the notion that parental engagement has a huge impact on attainment and behaviour. This isn’t just the attending of parents’ evenings and school performances and functions. It’s also being invested in your child’s learning and progress and sharing that goal with the school.

If you take two schools with similar cohorts in communities of similar socio-economic and even ethnic composition, both could be doing exactly the same in the way of teaching and additional programmes and support for students. Although if they have different outcomes in attainment and perception within their respective communities, it’s going to be down to the impact of parental engagement. And the school that has further engagement will yield improved results.

While I feel there are a lot of question marks over free schools, parental engagement is an asset that those set up by community groups driven by parents have from the start. The schools aren’t necessarily doing anything different from other school operating within the local education authority but they’ve embedded a culture that other school aren’t always afforded (though their supporters won’t concede that it’s that simple). The same goes for academies that have started schools from scratch or taken over schools where ensuring parental engagement is a priority.

Schools too need to do better in engaging parents. Most parents want to be involved and supportive in their child’s school life and their education. But if they aren’t given the opportunity, and where applicable the guidance to do so, then they can’t. School’s can’t lament the lack of engagement from parents if they aren’t providing the direction to achieve it.

The lack of parental responsibility that exists in today’s parents is a worrying trend that doesn’t bode well for children’s futures and is impeding attainment in schools. It’s also at risk of creating adults that project the same attitude which in turn becomes perpetual in subsequent generations.

To the large number of parents that provide the positive influence and direction required for their children, they deserve huge kudos for raising the bar in an already tough job of parenting. And for those who aren’t even aspiring to that, they’re letting themselves and their children down in an easily avoidable manner but with woeful consequences for their children's futures.

The teachers’ strike isn’t about teachers, it’s about the students and their education

Members of the NUT (National Union of Teachers) are holding the first national strike since 2014 on 5 July. The length of time since the most recent national action refutes any suggestion that the NUT, or indeed its members, are in any way militant; particularly against a backdrop of worsening conditions for teachers and students. But it also shows how members feel there is no recourse with the government bullishly refusing to address the mess they have created in education.

I’ve previously written about the current crisis in teaching and the challenges facing education as a whole are well documented on this site. As are the reasons for strike action as a last resort when union members feel the only tool they have to initiate or resume meaningful negotiations with their employer is the withdrawal of their labour. Therefore I shan’t discuss the aforementioned at any length. Although, I will reiterate that not only is teaching and education at a critical point, but that strike action is necessary as a last resort with a government that is void of empathy for teachers and students and nonchalant towards their destruction of the education system.

Ignorance and disdain for teachers from the government and sections of the media will no doubt encourage the public to think that the strike is about teachers selfishly complaining. However, what the teachers’ strike is really about is the students and their education. Just as students are at the crux of all teachers do, the improvements that teachers seek are for their current and future students and the protection of an education system that no one else seems to be protecting. Understanding that students and their education is what the strike is about, is incredibly important but a fact that is lost on so many as they instead look to lambaste and demonise teachers.

Amidst the cornucopia of problems within the profession, the teachers’ strike is centred on three main arguments of school funding, the protection of teachers’ terms and conditions in all institutions and a commitment to meaningful talks in pursuit of resolving concerns with teachers’ contracts.

While the Chancellor claims to be protecting funding for schools, in real terms, he’s frozen the funding for education while taking an increased amount of money from schools through the national insurance and pension contributions he exacts. Consequently, for every 20 teachers employed, a school has to find an extra teacher’s salary to give to the Treasury. The impact of finding those savings directly hits students and is already visible in the cuts that schools are making.

Schools around the country are being forced to adopt further austerity to ridiculous levels where many teachers will lament basic resources not being available, increased class sizes and the abolishment of specialist and pastoral posts of staff who provide immense and invaluable support to students. Meanwhile, some schools, and notably multi-academy trusts, are finding cash for bloated senior leadership teams or frivolous expenses that make a mockery of the education system and fail to benefit students. It’s all the more reason that school funding needs to be addressed along with a wider dialogue on ensuring that students are at the centre of spending.

Protection of teachers’ terms and conditions in all institutions, including academies, and talks on teachers’ contracts may seem selfish. But teachers cannot be effective without either. Running teachers into the ground with excessive workload isn’t going to help them to help students yet critics of teachers claim it’s merely a case of the progression throwing its toys out the pram. Oddly, it’s often a criticism from those who don’t work anywhere near a 12 hour day, with the stresses that accompany teaching, only to go home and work further hours. Teachers need terms and conditions and contracts that permit them being effective to their students even if no one else. Nevertheless, the status quo has put an unbearable and bureaucratic strain on this happening.

The NUT’s goal of protecting conditions being directed primarily at academies may seem unnecessary given the government decided to drop its plans for forced academisation of all English schools by 2020. But the Tories' ideological obsession with academies nonetheless continues and forthcoming education legislation will include powers for the DfE (Department of Education to force schools in 'underperforming' local authorities to be converted to academies. And with it, the spectre of academisation remains over many schools.

Many schools, afraid of forced academisation, become data-driven institutions that show diminishing regard for students’ emotional, social and even meaningful academic growth and instead focuses on grades and levels that show they aren’t underperforming by the government’s standards. Again, the students take the biggest hit as they become statistics rather than people who should be nurtured within a system that should have them at the forefront of its agenda.

If you support an education system that provides for students while putting them at the heart of all it does, you’re on the same page as the teachers striking. This strike isn’t about teachers, it’s about the students who are suffering from the government’s policies and a damaged education system. The DfE has ironically claimed that the NUT and its members are causing unnecessary disruption by “playing politics with children's futures” and sections of the media will no doubt follow with similar rhetoric. Though what many onlookers may not realise is that they’re actually in agreement with the aims and principles of the strike after all.

The primary English curriculum is destroying the notion of good writing

One of the reasons I write this blog is that I enjoy writing; the expression of ideas, opinions and analysis via the written word. It’s something I’ve enjoyed since being a child and it’s extended to my appreciation of good literature; realising and embracing compelling texts that engage the reader in the way that all good writing should achieve. Undoubtedly, grammar, punctuation, spelling and syntax all play a role in good writing and they provide the foundations for well written text. Although they aren’t the essence of it in providing that intangible quality that draws a reader in and captures their attention.

In teaching primary school children the basics of good writing, the principles of the aforementioned do need to be understood. Students need to be taught how to correctly punctuate sentences to give their writing structure and desired effect. Similarly, the teaching of good grammar is necessary to equip students with the ability to correctly structure their writing for lucidity and coherence. And as primary school provides the bedrock for subsequent education, knowledge and skills we use in our adult lives, it’s only right that there is coverage of this in the primary English curriculum. However, with the still relatively new curriculum, there’s an imbalanced focus in favour of the above and at the expense of what really constitutes good writing. As a result, it’s destroying the notion of good writing in schools and wrongly teaching children that good writing is more about spelling, punctuation and grammar than the substance that captivates a reader.

In what has become characteristic rhetoric from the DfE (Department for Education), it’s claimed that the primary English curriculum is providing a ‘back to basics’ approach with emphasis on the fundamentals of the English language. That means ‘SPaG’ (spelling, punctuation and grammar) has been brought to the forefront of writing and is considered an entity itself for assessment purposes. In fact, had it not been for the government having leaked the key stage 1 SPaG SATs paper online before the actual SATs, it would have been a further source of anxiety for seven year olds across the country along with the Maths and Reading papers they sat this term.

Writing assessments (which are teacher assessed) are also SPaG-heavy and outline much of the gauge upon which students’ progress in writing is measured. Therefore a soulless piece of writing that lacks the ability to attract its reader could conceivably be considered a ‘good’ piece of writing because it includes the SPaG features upon which writing is now assessed. This isn’t what primary school children should be taught yet they’re erroneously some of the measures of what constitutes good writing. Not only does this mislead students as to what good writing is but it also erodes the creativity and soul that should be central to any form of text.

When reading a good book, article or any text for that matter, I’m yet to be compelled by the number of contractions (merged words such as ‘don’t’ or ‘should’ve’) or conjunctions (words such as ‘because’ or ‘when’ that are used to join or coordinate clauses) used by the author. Nor have I ever remarked “what great use of a preposition”.

In my personal and professional life, I’ve never written a letter, email or report where I considered my use of expanded noun phrases or fronted adverbials in communicating my argument either. These simply aren’t the hallmarks of good writing and as adults, they aren’t attributes that we consciously call upon when writing. Furthermore, if reading the above terms was met with bafflement, you needn’t worry as they’re commonly used in everyday writing. We just aren’t forced to recognise them with their respective terms as the DfE force children as young as 6 and 7 years old to as an indication of their writing ability.

After speech, writing is one of our most dominant forms of expression and the reason why talk for writing at an early age is invaluable. The journey made by a thought that is then articulated before manifesting itself as the written word, is a journey and process that many of us take for granted. Yet for young children, it's a process that requires development via confidence, practise and encouragement that their ideas are worthy of putting pen to paper without fear of error. It's fostering the bravery that artists of all forms of expression possess and what allows our creativity to be unbridled. Though having to consider a quagmire of terms and conventions at such a young age surely hinders that and saps the soul of a piece of writing with every feature that is recalled.

As children get older, the rules of writing will fall into place and become present in one's writing. We needn't aggressively foist it upon young children when they're at an age where formulating their ideas is the most important aspect of developing their writing and language skills.

As we (or I should say the DfE) obsess over results, we also often deny children the opportunity to truly immerse themselves in a text for fear of insufficient coverage of other areas of the curriculum. In doing so, we diminish students’ ability to appreciate text as a crucial principle of reading. Not to mention, this lends itself to damaging their writing with fewer examples where good writing has been modelled and without the obsession of everything they're taught in their SPaG lessons.

Lower down in primary schools, the focus on phonics and decoding words as the primary strategy for early reading and writing illustrates the extent to which the government desires a rigid approach to literacy. Higher up the school system in secondary schools, teaching to the test, which Nick Gibb, ironically lamented, is even more rife in English lessons where texts are rattled through with an increased focus on exam question preparation and less focus on the appreciation of the text. At the behest of the government, students are therefore again robbed of the practical and academic skills of good writing via reading.

The government seemingly doesn’t know what makes for good writing and how to achieve it. Furthermore, they don’t seem to be able to meet their own definition of what constitutes good writing via the rules they’ve determined either. Nick Gibb was unable to answer a question from a key stage 2 SATs SPaG paper and Nicky Morgan doesn’t appear to be able to spell. I wouldn’t judge either of them as being poor writers on account of that. But based on their criteria, and the 'no excuses' culture that they are injecting into the English school system, perhaps I shouldn't be so kind.

Good writing has soul. It represents the writer’s ideas how they intended and engages the reader as the words jump off the page to convey opinion and arguments or evoke images and emotions. There shouldn’t be anything sterile or overly systematic about good writing but the government’s approach is creating just that.

Academisation of all English schools is a terrible idea

In what would arguably be the most radical change to English education in contemporary history, the government has announced its intention for every school in England to become an academy in the white paper Educational excellence everywhere. In doing so, they've announced their intention for an almost absolute dismantling of state involvement when it comes to English schools.

The government has said that it wants to give control of schools to headteachers rather than local authorities. Currently, the latter have oversight of the bulk of English schools and of more than 24,000 schools in England, about 5,000 are academies. With their proposed academisation of the remaining schools, a lofty task to say the least, the government claims they'd be ridding schools of those pesky local government bureaucrats. Schools would consequently have sufficient control to do what's best for students and education standards in another righteous move from the Tories, right? Wrong.

Academies are funded directly by central government rather than local authorities and have more autonomy that other state schools. They have no accountability to local authorities, thus removing a layer of checks and balances in safeguarding against inappropriate conduct and improper management of public funds. They can decide on their curriculum, length of school day and teachers’ pay, terms and conditions (the latter being an area where many academies have already shown themselves to have little commitment to or value of their staff). While academies in England were initiated by Labour, they’ve become a favoured policy of the Conservatives who have actively sought for more schools to adopt the model. Indeed, their proposal for the academisation of all schools has confirmed that beyond any doubt.

In 2011 I wrote about the rise of academies and free schools and I called the widespread academisation of schools based on what was already happening -

‘...where such demand [for academies] does not exist, it is likely that academy status will be foisted upon more challenging schools, particularly against a backdrop of the coalition government’s zeal in promoting its flagship education policy… Diminishing what should be an altruistic role of the state with regard to the provision of education and replacing it with autonomy raises several concerns. It also takes the provision of education a step closer to privatisation – a move that would pit the provision of quality education against profit.’

The government hasn't announced that academies will be able to be run for profit but its proposal does take it a step closer to that (it was rumoured that the then Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove, had sought to allow academies and free schools to eventually make a profit during the coalition government but was blocked by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg). Nevertheless, they’ve laid their cards on the table with their intention to foist academy status onto all schools.

Should the government's proposals become law, what would that mean for schools in England? Firstly, in making such radical plans they've neglected to consider who will fill the void left by the loss of local government’s role in education? It's also proposing something for which it has no evidence to support and it’s failed to consult parents, teachers and unions (the proposal wasn’t in its manifesto either). Most significantly, it's also failed to realise that academies do not equate to better schools which is the crux of the failure of such a proposal.

Academies are not a panacea to improving school standards and there is no evidence of this being the case. There are of course some good academies for whom the academy model works for their respective school and community and that should be acknowledged. Conversely, there certainly are some bad ones for whom their autonomy should be relinquished as a result.

Academisation of all schools is a hugely politicised move and one driven by ideology; a commitment to further dismantling of the state. Education should be driven by the motivation of what is best for students and in raising standards. That shouldn't include bureaucratic targets, political or ideological motivation, profit or any other drivers that detract from its primary goal. It's why the role of the state in education is invaluable as it provides and preserves much needed altruism.

Admittedly, the state can often be lacking in dynamism, is guilty of its frequent charge of being overly bureaucratic and can be sluggish in getting things done. What the state is good at however, is prioritising what really matters as it's broadly free of influences that benefit the privileged few and disadvantage the many. It's where the state's inherent altruism comes into play and why it plays such an important role in education.

Removing the state from education cannot be deemed positive. Education is already a sector at breaking point in England with untenable bureaucracy and a very present teaching crisis. Allowing schools to be free from the state's oversight will likely exacerbate the status quo and become the straw that breaks the camel's back in causing education in England to implode. Yet the government doesn't seem to care and it's partly due to who they intend to hand control of schools over to.

At present, academies can be standalone schools that have decided that autonomy is best for them. For others, they're part of chains or trusts, effectively overseeing umbrella groups that control a number of academies with similar branding and uniformity amongst all of their schools. Some academies within chains are the result of takeovers where they have been converted and rebranded under the identity of the chain while others have been ‘born’ under the banner of their respective chain and are wholly new schools. Though looking more closely at many of the chains, are they an appropriate alternative model upon which the English school system should be based on?

Candidly, many academy trusts are politicised vanity projects. They're often established by individuals or groups who claim to want to make a difference in education via noble use of their wealth and influence. Many, such as Harris Federation (which was established by Conservative Lord Harris of Carpet Right fame), tend to be run by those who the Tories would love to bestow with further academies as they reward their backers and help bolster their vanity projects. All very cosy with raising education standards somewhat of a secondary thought.

It's also important to remember that when schools under local authority control are handed over to academy chains, with each one millions of pounds of state assets in school buildings and land are handed over with them. Not in exchange for cash like traditional privatisation, but absolutely free. It's therefore little wonder that many academy chain bosses are friends and backers of the Conservative party who stand to benefit from a windfall should every school be up for grabs as an academy. A wholesale conversion of all schools to academies would amount to billions of pounds of assets being handed over to private entities in exchange for absolutely nothing. Meanwhile, state cash would continue to be handed over for the academies to spend as they see fit. Just let that sink in.

An additional problem with the academy chains is that they are seen by many as driving the destruction of education in England. So why would we allow them to run schools?

Many academy chains are considered by parents, teachers and unions to care only about results with little regard for anything else. That makes for a toxic environment to work in for teachers and can create a sterile environment for students that is void of empathy and support during their youth.

One consequence of this approach is huge staff turnover with academies haemorrhaging staff at an incredible rate that dwarfs the already high turnover throughout teaching as a whole. According to a Freedom of Information request, between 2012 and 2015, over 1000 staff left schools within the Harris Federation. And they aren't the only chain with shockingly high staff turnover. It begs the question what might all those teachers be keen to escape from if these are such bastions of educational excellence? With such an exodus of staff, they're definitely not retaining expertise, good practice and good teachers that are crucial to any good school.

The fervent and blinkered focus on external results isn't any different from teaching across the board. Though in academies it's typically pursued even more aggressively with a ‘by any means necessary’ attitude that's akin to a pyrrhic victory with students and staff taking the loss in the process. Hardly an appropriate attitude for a school.

Some may read this and think if academies are getting results with their approach, then perhaps the government is correct in wanting to give them further control. However, grades and levels aren't the only things that matter when it comes to the betterment of students. Nurture, empathy, wellbeing and good mental health matter just as much but they're often given insufficient regard. There is also anecdotal evidence of vulnerable children and SEN students, who may not achieve the best possible results, not being as warmly welcomed as others by some academies. Is that what we want our school system to be built upon? A factory of identikit students with a culture that is void of empathy and support? But it's OK because (allegedly) some them have good results…

Most would assume the government's proposal to be supported by robust evidence that would sway detractors and prove to the public that academisation is the way forward. Like anything, academies have shown to work in some instances and it can't be claimed that they're all bad. Although with good leadership, teaching and a supportive cohort of parents and community, most schools have a fair shot at doing the best for their students regardless of their status. And those aren't attributes that can only be engendered by an academy or an academy chain.

Currently, 82% of schools under local authority control are rated ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted. Meanwhile, in 2014/15, 99 schools that converted to academies went from ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ to less than good. Moreover, those against academisation have an unlikely ally in Chief Inspector Michael Wilshaw who has expressed his concerns over the performance of some academy chains to Nicky Morgan, Secretary of State for Education.

There are also precedents for the Department for Education (DfE) needing to take some schools out of the control of academy chains and prohibiting some from opening or taking over any new schools due to concerns with their performance. In 2014, the then biggest academy chain, Academies Enterprise Trust, was barred from taking on additional schools and E-ACT, the then second largest chain, had a third of its schools handed back to the government. Should a similar hypothetical scenario occur where local authorities’ education functions had become defunct as a result of the government's proposal, who would then step in if several chains were deemed unfit to run their respective schools? It's more uninformed and political short sightedness from the government. Just like a Conservative policy of yesteryear in right to buy (which has resulted in a legacy of huge social housing shortages), academisation could be another policy that sees history not judging the Conservative party favourably.

Even by 2020, such a far reaching proposal for all schools to become academies is a mammoth task and it requires support yet many are opposed to it. Teachers, unions and unsurprisingly the local government community are all against academisation and a petition to scrap the plans received over 100,000 signatures within a week. The academy chains that are favoured by the government are nonetheless licking their lips with anticipation at the prospect of expanding their academy empires. They've been waiting (and I’m sure lobbying) for this and have their prey of local authority controlled schools well within their sights. But aside from the academy chains and the government, there doesn't appear to be much support for academisation.

An intention to turn all schools into academies wasn't in the Conservative party’s manifesto so there hasn't been any gauging of support for this, or any subsequent consultation whatsoever. It's hardly democratic and it's not welcome. Teachers and unions have not had a say on an issue that they are significantly more attuned to than the government. Similarly, surely parents at least deserve to be consulted before their child’s school has such a change forced upon them? On this occasion, the Tories think they know best so they'll be making that decision for you.

Academies aren’t necessarily the antithesis of good schools but they don’t equate to better schools either. Complete academisation will nonetheless force academy status onto all schools with no regard for the implications, the amount of evidence to support the contrary and the lack of support from parents, teachers and teaching unions. Instead, the government seeks to proceed with a policy that will remove the role of the state in an area where its function is paramount while giving academy chains carte blanche to run schools as they see fit. That means diminished accountability and a removal of the oversight that local authorities have long provided in English schools.

Just as the then Conservative government abolished the Inner London Education Authority (ILEA) in 1990, the Tories are politically motivated to change the landscape of English education yet again. This time, the plans are more radical and the implications are bigger. And with that comes an even greater risk to the future of English schools and education.

Phonics only unlocks part of the code that is learning to read so why is it followed so rigidly?

For many people reading this, learning to read would have followed a similar pattern of being taught the alphabet, broadly knowing the corresponding sounds to each letter and being introduced to simple texts. Said texts would have introduced the reader to accessible and appropriate vocabulary with accompanying illustrations to support comprehension and those words would enter one’s orthographic store (our long term memory from which we retrieve all the words that we’ve learned to date). Burgeoning comprehension skills would also support having a stab at unfamiliar vocabulary and the more we read, the quicker our retrieval of words, the more our comprehension would develop and the more proficient we would become as readers. It’s how I learned to read and despite being biased, I’d like to say it was pretty effective.

Today’s teaching of reading is different and there’s been a departure from the aforementioned in favour of phonics. It cannot be said that any approach to reading is completely void of some form of phonics. Yet phonics is now king when it comes to early reading in schools and it’s the government mandated approach to learning to read.

Phonics effectively provides a code for the budding reader to rely upon in learning to read. Graphemes (written letters or combinations of letters such as ‘sh’, ‘ch’ or ‘igh’) are taught with their corresponding phonemes (the term given to sounds). These phonemes are the smallest unit of sound that can be found within a word and there are approximately 44 phonemes in the English language. Each phoneme provides a meaningful unit of sound upon which words can be constructed by ‘blending’ these phonemes. For example, blending the accompanying phonemes for ‘c - a - t’ would result in the word ‘cat’.

It might seem like a great strategy to adopt phonics in schools in providing children with a solid system that enables them to decode words and learn how to read. However, there’s a problem. Unlike some languages where the alphabet is purely phonetic, thus phonics instinctively lending itself to the teaching of how to read, English is only partly phonetic. English also has many contradictory rules that don’t make an approach like phonics fit for purpose in teaching reading. As a result, once you encounter a word that isn’t phonetic, phonics becomes pretty useless and as far as being able to decode unfamiliar text, you’re ultimately screwed. Herein lies the problem - phonics only unlocks part of the code that is learning to read. So why is it followed so rigidly in schools? And what has been the impact of what appears to be a flawed education policy when it comes to teaching strategies for early reading in schools?

For years, proponents of phonics have been pitted in a political and somewhat ideological battle against proponents of a whole language approach to teaching reading (where words are not deconstructed for the benefit of decoding and sight recognition and comprehension are instead relied upon). It’s referred to as the reading wars and it could be argued that supporters of phonics are winning with the credence given to its teaching in schools as outlined in the 2006 Rose Report. Following a review of the teaching of early reading in primary schools, the Rose Report recommended that phonics ‘should be taught as the prime approach in learning to decode (to read) and encode (to write/spell) print’. In adopting the recommendations as education policy, the government too declared their allegiance to phonics.

The advantages of phonics are that it does provide children with a code for reading and writing phonetically plausible text and to do so relatively quickly. Although in doing so, it also teaches children a strategy for writing that put candidly, is incorrect.

Parents and teachers of primary school children will be familiar with children's writing where few words are spelt correctly because phonics is so heavily relied upon. Even if a child has encountered a word and knows how to spell it correctly, the retrieval from their orthographic store is arguably hindered as their instinct for spelling is to rely upon their phonics. Consequently, words which aren’t phonically plausible are often misspelt and phonics has a direct role to play in this. Indeed, young children are often filled with glee when they’re able to independently write their first sentences such as ‘migh cat iz bloo’ or ‘wee went too a partee wiv migh bruthr and wee had cayk’ that are phonetically plausible but full of incorrect spellings that children are ignorant to. It’s great to see them writing but a few years later, we remove the security blanket that is phonics and tell them they’ve been spelling incorrectly all these years.

The focus on decoding within phonics is eroding overall literacy and detracts from the enjoyment and comprehension skills to be gained from reading. But many children perceive their successful decoding of text alone as an indicator of being ‘a good reader’. As a result, phonics can somewhat limit the promotion of reading for pleasure and the comprehension skills that are needed for reading in our everyday lives. Though surely with a greater reliance on sight recognition, children’s comprehension would be improved as they would feel more inclined to immerse themselves in a text instead of focusing on decoding it. Alas, the government seem unable to see this but perhaps it has something to do with the extent to which proponents of phonics seemingly have their ear.

Phonics programmes such as Ruth Miskin’s Read Write Inc are big business. Ruth Miskin rose to prominence as a headteacher in the 1990s in Tower Hamlets, a London local authority with a large Bangladeshi diaspora. Many of the children at Miskin’s school were EAL students (English as an additional language), many of whom would have started school with basic, if any, English. Nonetheless, she was able to boast huge success in reading which she attributed to her school's commitment to the teaching of phonics. Yet with such a reliance on phonics, many phonics detractors have questioned whether the emphasis on comprehension in early reading at Miskin's school would have been sufficiently supported. Furthermore, it's commonly accepted that while EAL students can make rapid progress and have high word recognition when learning to read, their comprehension is often less secure and Miskin's approach would arguably have compounded that.

Nevertheless, Miskin went on to become considered a phonics guru who now sells her resources and training to schools across the country. She is an advisor to the DfE (Department for Education) and is one of their favoured faces when it comes to the teaching of reading. Therefore it's hard to argue the government isn't biased when it comes to phonics.

Many have argued this relationship represents a conflict of interest (particularly as Ruth Miskin’s materials and training are used in so many schools), something the government and Miskin have attempted to refute. Though between 2011 and 2013, the DfE made over £23 million of match-funding available for schools that purchased phonics materials or training from an approved list (which Ruth Miskin material and training naturally appeared on). As revealed in a Freedom of Information Act request by Professor Margaret Clark, of those funds over £4 million was spent on Read Write Inc materials while £546,614 went to Ruth Miskin Literacy Ltd for training. As it was match-funded, the amount received would also actually have been doubled.

More recently, Ruth Miskin Training was also selected by the DfE to deliver phonics roadshow events. More money in the bank for Ruth Miskin and further reflection of just how much influence she has over the government as she pushes her phonics agenda. Even Michael Rosen, who’s generally considered a literary living legend, has questioned the apparent conflict of interest. It really can’t be argued that the government is free of bias when it comes to their favour of phonics and that bias is blindly driving education policy on early reading.

I’m not arguing we do away with phonics in teaching children to read. After all, even if subconsciously, a connection between letters and sounds must be present as readers develop. Nonetheless, we need to move away from the rigid commitment to phonics as a preferred and often exclusive approach for early reading and certainly once readers no longer require the crutch that phonics can initially provide.

Phonics isn’t a panacea to raising literacy standards. It gives children an ability to access text and to write but it’s an introductory one and should be left at just that as there is only so far it can take a reader in accessing written English. There also needs to be a dialogue and realisation of what reading is and that it isn’t merely decoding phonetically plausible text which is only applicable to a limited amount of the English language. Reading is being able to appreciate and immerse one’s self in literature, to access and understand information and to unlock and explore knowledge and enjoyment from a wide range of texts. Phonics can’t achieve that and it’s time that realisation is reflected in education policy for early reading.

Teaching is a profession in crisis; one that only teachers seem to be able to acknowledge

It's often said that the quickest way to wind up a teacher is to suggest they’re always on holiday, have an overall cushty gig at work and that they’re always complaining about conditions that other professions just accept. Though the reality of teaching today is in such stark contrast to the aforementioned that it's unreal. The Stakhanovite work ethic toward a gargantuan workload and pressures upon teachers is undoubtedly incomparable to most professions; to an extent that it would break most. In fact, it was recently reported that a banker-turned-teacher returned to the banking industry having deemed teaching too exhausting in comparison.

Teaching requires a depth of mental, emotional and even physical mettle that simply isn't required in many other professions. The policies of successive governments and the agencies that officially and unofficially do their bidding for them, worsen conditions and heighten pressure to excessive levels. Nonetheless, the government and the media seek to demonise the profession along with other public servants.

Teaching today has become characterised by heightened bureaucracy, ideologically driven policy, an intensified testing and assessment culture and an underlying misery of teachers. Consequently, the profession is at breaking point. In objectively highlighting the problems facing teaching, it is haemorrhaging staff and the number of staff leaving the profession has risen by 11% over three years. And while there are still those who seek to become teachers, those numbers are struggling to meet demand; a challenge that is compounded by the exodus of teachers from the profession.

Morale amongst teachers has hit incredibly low depths and a rapidly rising number of teachers are subject to depression and stress which has almost become an accepted albatross in the profession. And as is the case with some mental health conditions, it's commonly seen to manifest itself in physical illness with some teachers effectively being retired by the job while still in their prime.

Needless to say, teaching is currently a profession in crisis. Though unfortunately, teachers seem to the only ones in acknowledgement of this.

Many teachers work at least a 10 - 12 hour day - and that’s just while at school and excluding time working at home. Those hours at work aren’t punctuated by cups of tea or coffee, checking social media, the news or pretty much anything else like the working day is in most other professions either. Even toilet breaks can be a rarity and many teachers will ‘realise’ at the end of the school day that they’ve not been since the morning as a result of simply being too busy.

In addition to actually teaching students, managing class sizes with an average of 30 students and being accountable for their attainment, safety and wellbeing at school, there's a whole host of further responsibilities for teachers. Planning for additional adults in the classroom, marking, planning, assessing, analysing data, preparing resources, additional management responsibilities where applicable, constant meetings and administration and any other responsibilities that are filtered down from the government via senior management all feature in a day in the life of a teacher.

It’s a similar story at the weekend with work continuing then too. And while the holidays seem frequent, within the above workload for consecutive days during half termly blocks of 6 - 8 weeks, they’re needed to punctuate the pressures teachers face. Not to mention most teachers spend at least some time working during the holidays too and a work-life balance is largely non-existent.

The government and education policies are at the crux of the current state of crisis in teaching. Education has become a political hot potato for point scoring. Meanwhile, teachers are left subject to deteriorating conditions as the profession is torn down by politicians and used as vehicles in achieving their agendas such as the ideologically driven pursuit of academies and free schools.

Politicians have transformed education into a hugely bureaucratic sector that is void of support and appreciation for teachers. The latter has also signalled a diminishing of autonomy and faith in teachers' judgement which translates into a lack of trust in the profession from the government. Moreover, with practitioners being periodically observed, and regularly undertaking continuing professional development (CPD) to further their practice, the government's stance is an affront against teachers.

It's a disparaging approach that has also led to an intensified testing culture, even amongst young children, where tests are used as a gauge of a teacher's ability with no regard for external factors beyond their control. Consequently, many teachers have felt compelled to ‘teach to the test’ which was recently criticised by schools minister, Nick Gibb. Well, I wonder what led to that approach, Nick?

The low morale and feeling of unappreciation amongst teachers undoubtedly stems from the government. Yet rather than address the problems in the profession, the government remains haughtily nonchalant and refuses to acknowledge let alone address the very crisis they are arguably the architects of. Put simply, the government just don’t care. Alas, the government’s lack of empathy for teachers has also percolated through schools via school management teams.

Management in schools, faced with their own pressures and targets, feel their hands are tied to alleviate teachers of many of the pressures they’re subject to. Indeed, many teachers feel a disconnect with management, many of whom represent a new generation of teachers who have spent little time in the classroom and since completing their teacher training, have had a blinkered desire to reach senior management. It’s led to schools increasingly being run by staff who have little classroom experience and therefore an accompanying lack of empathy for the stresses that come with it. Furthermore, schools have become corporate environments with their eyes on ever-moving and increasing targets at the expense of regard for students and teachers.

With teachers’ backs up against the wall, where can the profession turn for support in reversing such a relentless tide? One would assume that trade unions would be in the vanguard seeking to redress the current state of teaching. The teachers’ trade unions remain committed to teachers and traditionally, have been staunch and effective allies of the profession. Although in light of the crisis facing the profession, their response disappointingly doesn’t appear to be commensurate in recent years.

As a committed supporter and longtime member of the trade union movement, I acknowledge and appreciate what the teaching unions have done for the profession in protecting pay and conditions. More so, I salute the tireless work that is done at local level by union representatives in representing members in individual cases but also providing a collective voice for members in respective branches and regions. The teaching unions in the UK continue to articulate the concerns of teachers. However, many teachers would sadly argue that at a national level, the unions have gone off the boil in the vociferousness of their response toward the government.

Juxtaposed with the British Medical Association’s (BMA) campaign and industrial action in support of junior doctors, the teaching unions currently appear meek and relatively mute in their support of their members. I fully support the junior doctors and they’re one of the few groups of professionals that can empathise with the long hours, demonisation and unappreciation from the government and pressures experienced by teachers. The BMA is clearly being proactive in supporting their members, significantly at a time when the government is seeking to shaft them even further. Nevertheless, while teachers have similarly long been at breaking point, the teaching unions seem relatively inactive in contrast.

I understand the considerations of industrial action as a union’s last resort and an option that no union takes lightly. And industrial action isn’t the only recourse for the teaching unions. But things have come to a head in the profession and on a national level, teachers do not feel that the unions are playing the role they have traditionally done in supporting their members. And this comes at a time when it has arguably never been more needed in contemporary history.

With the profession currently in such a state of distress, some reading this may question why so many teachers remain. Similarly to junior doctors’ commitment to their patients, teachers are altruistically committed to their primary stakeholders of their students. Despite any lamentation teachers may have, many see walking away from the profession equating to walking away from their current and future students which is no easy option for a teacher to consider.

Teachers work in a capacity where they can directly impact the betterment of their students’ lives. After all, most of us will attest to a great teacher who made a difference to our lives which is undoubtedly a privileged and hugely fulfilling position. The reward of seeing students’ progress and aspirational growth, both academically and socially, also provides a high within teaching that had long outweighed the lows. Yet those lows have increased to the extent that the once welcome imbalance has reversed; a sad and poignant reality that prefigures further departures of committed and good teachers from the profession. Teaching has traditionally provided a sufficient allure to those that want to make a difference in society. However, akin to the experience of junior doctors, when such inherent and altruistic motivation and attraction has been eroded, you know things have gone awry.

Teachers will tell you that the moments of appreciation they do receive from students and parents are one of the great features of the job that are still present in teaching. It’s too bad that such sentiments aren’t acknowledged more broadly; especially by those who can and should reverse the fortunes and perception of such a noble profession.

School support staff deserve more recognition and respect

Think of a business and its core activity. As consumers or clients, our thoughts around a respective business rarely go beyond said activity and the staff who operate directly within the roles linked to it. However, what would a business be without the staff who don’t operate at the forefront of its main activity yet play fundamental roles in the overall business? Imagine a retailer without the cleaners to maintain the cleanliness and tidiness of a store. Or without the admin staff to process orders, payments and payroll and the IT staff to maintain the EPOS till systems from which transactions can be made. Or without the stockroom staff to replenish the store’s inventory so that they actually have something to sell. Every role within a business is a cog in a machine. And if a cog is missing, the machine simply won’t work as effectively or might even come to a standstill.

Schools are no different. When you think of school, you think of the teachers. But what of the many support staff who play integral roles within the school and in the educating of the students? The TAs (Teaching Assistants) and Learning Mentors who support in the classroom academically, pastorally and in supporting behaviour management. Or the admin staff who without whom, the unwieldy bureaucracy that education is now characterised by would be impossible to navigate. These staff play significant roles in the operation of schools. Yet unfortunately, they typically don’t get the recognition and respect that they deserve.

The problem sadly starts with the ethos of schools and consequently some teachers. Inadvertently or otherwise, schools often feed teachers with the notion that support staff play a lessor role than them and it’s reflected in the way they’re treated. It’s to the extent that many support staff have assumed that principle themselves and the utterances “I’m just a TA…”, “I just work in the office…” or similar can often be heard around schools. This hardly does anything positive for morale when half of a workforce feel they’re inferior to the other half or at least made to feel that way. Schools have a lot to answer for if this is seemingly the ethos that many possess and project when it comes to support staff. Though for some teachers, the seeds for a sometimes haughty attitude toward support staff are sown even earlier during teacher training.

Particularly on graduate employment-based training courses such as School Direct and Teach First, but also those undertaking traditional PGCE courses, trainee teachers are lauded for their attainment of a place given their competitive nature and rigorous application process. Subsequently, they’re praised for their successful completion of what is an arduous programme of study and employment as a trainee teacher. And those who heap that praise upon them would be right to do so as teacher training and the NQT year are certainly gruelling.

You’re told that you are the boss of your classroom and again the tutors and mentors are right. Your classroom is your domain and you need to oversee all that goes on within it as you’ll be accountable for all that occurs. Though many trainee teachers are relatively young and enter the profession within a few years of undergraduate study. They have little experience of a professional workplace let alone managing staff. As a result, some are unable to effectively manage additional adults in the classroom due to a literal and crass interpretation of the message ‘you’re the boss’ that they’ve heard throughout their training. Indeed, some teachers actually maintain that attitude throughout their teaching careers.

That inexperience doesn’t lend itself to working with non-classroom based support staff either. Your training and observations of other schools has suggested they’re also less important. And when you get to your first school, the school ethos often supports that. It’s the beginning of an unhealthy yet perpetual relationship between teachers and support staff. Furthermore, it illustrates how and why teaching can be a profession characterised by arrogance for some practitioners who wrongly deem themselves as superior to their colleagues on the basis of length of service (which doesn’t always equate to ability) and their respective position.

It has to be said that this isn’t the case for all teachers and it would be unfair to suggest so. Nevertheless, the fact is it does exist. I’ve seen TAs spoken down to or as if they were one of the children rather than as an adult. This is despite the fact that many classroom based support staff bring with them a wealth of untapped and often ignored experience from previous careers, CPD, the local community or just life in general.

Admittedly, some TAs can undermine teachers, particularly if they’re older than the teacher they’re working with and have been at a school for a number of years. However, that’s where establishing more assertiveness in your professional relationship comes into play.

I liken the ideal relationship between teachers and additional adults in the classroom to be almost akin to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet in that the Prime Minister is first amongst equals just as is the case with the teacher. The buck stops with you as the teacher and the individual with whom overall accountability in the classroom lies with. The breadth of your role, workload and accompanying stress is wider too but you’re still a team with the additional adult(s) and your working relationship should reflect this.

Support staff in the classroom are often able to establish a relationship with students that many teachers are unable to achieve. As teaching has become an overwhelmingly middle class profession, many teachers are in schools within communities that do not reflect their own socio-economic status. Hence they’re often unable to empathise with their students’ backgrounds. In schools subject to socio-economic pressures such as those within inner city and coastal communities, and those where once flourishing local economies such as mining have since been decimated, the social challenges facing students and their families are often alien to teachers. But classroom based support staff, who often have more roots in a community than the teachers, can. Thus, they can often be the difference in connecting with students.

That connection might be in effectively supporting behaviour management with a culturally nuanced approach that gets the results a teacher sometimes can’t. Alternatively, it can be showing the necessary empathy to students in cultivating an appropriate climate for learning; one where they don’t feel subject to the ignorance of a teacher who cannot appreciate the challenges facing their family and community. In this capacity, support staff often provide a cultural and social link between schools and the communities they lie within; something many teachers and senior leadership are unable to do. Although, particularly with new academies that have foisted themselves on communities, this is overlooked by many schools.

The relationship between teachers and support staff can resemble that of Ross’ museum in Friends where Joey realises that it’s convention for the scientists and the tour guides to sit separately for lunch. Nonetheless, it’s little wonder that many support staff feel there’s a divide between them and teachers. Relevant information is regularly disseminated to support staff through the grapevine or on a very ad hoc basis. Effective communication between them and the rest of the school can leave much to be desired and that hardly fosters a sense of inclusion within the school community.

Many teachers perceive support staff to be at their whim rather than playing integral roles within the school. They often fail to appreciate that the site team aren’t waiting around idly for the call to fix furniture in their classroom or that the IT staff have a long list of jobs and coming to fix their interactive whiteboard probably isn't the only task for the day. It could be argued that teachers often have a fairly insular perspective in this regard that theirs is not the only job of importance within a school.

In the UK, Graduate Teaching Assistants have started to increase their presence in the classroom (they’ve already been a feature of North American schools). This is presumably with a view to making the TA role more ‘professional’ which on one hand isn’t a bad thing if it helps to gain greater recognition for the post. Although, some schools are seeing it as a prerequisite for teacher training. Again, that isn’t necessarily a bad idea in providing trainee teachers with first-hand experience of the classroom before they embark on their training. Conversely, there is the risk that it will attract candidates that ultimately want to become teachers rather than be TAs and therefore lack the necessary attributes and attitudes that make so many TAs great at their jobs.

Schools are essentially communities but they’re often divided within their staff which can only be to detriment of the workplace ethos. Schools and teachers need to address this as they are primarily to blame in creating the two-tier system within schools that is not only unnecessary but disrespectful to fellow professionals. Schools need to give support staff the recognition they deserve for the integral role they play within a school, often in roles that teachers don’t possess the skillset or experience for, and more respect in the process.

Ofsted isn't helping to raise standards in schools, it's becoming a hindrance

As the body responsible for inspections and regulation in the English education system, it would be assumed by most that Ofsted would be on the side of educators, striving to improve standards in school. Most would imagine Ofsted, its findings, and subsequent recommendations, would be welcomed by all in recognising good teaching and positive learning environments while addressing poor standards that were to the detriment of a child’s education.

Actually, Ofsted is increasingly perceived as being an enemy of schools and the teaching profession. It’s seen as being aloof from the reality of modern schools with its formulaic approach to inspections. Furthermore, it’s questionable how much Ofsted is helping to improve standards in schools or if it’s merely pushing a political agenda on behalf of the government.

In theory, Ofsted’s expectations should provide the benchmark and the blueprint for excellence in education. By virtue of that, its approach should be embraced by teachers and would be expected to lead to best practice in schools. In practice, Ofsted has positioned itself against schools and alienated teachers and headteachers alike. This is a stance that has arguably been furthered under the leadership of Michael Wilshaw, Ofsted’s Chief Inspector. Can Ofsted therefore be seen as playing a wholly positive role in the English education system?

Like England, English schools are varied in standards, intake and the communities they lie within. Although that should not prefigure how successful a school can be. All schools should aim for standards of excellence and it’s appropriate that a body like Ofsted regulates and inspects those standards. In no way should there be a two-tier education system where failure or poor standards are accepted because a school’s intake may come from a less privileged or challenging background. Even so, it has to be acknowledged that on this basis, the best possible teaching cannot be achieved via a one-size-fits-all approach which is what Ofsted appear to subscribe to. For a regulatory body to not appreciate or have the ability to take a nuanced approach to school inspections is inexplicable. Yet with Ofsted, it happens.

Take a school in the suburbs with a largely middle class intake of conscientious and scholarly students. The school is more likely to be able to show how it clearly meets the standards Ofsted would rightly want to see from every school it inspects. Strong behaviour management from teachers would probably not be required; hence it would be easier to show students are meeting their lesson objectives in an environment that doesn’t distract from illustrating it. Conversely, in an inner city school with a diverse intake, and where strong behaviour management from teachers might be necessary in a more challenging (but often much more rewarding) environment, that lack of distraction may not be afforded. That doesn’t mean students aren’t meeting learning objectives or that it isn’t a good school; in fact the environment probably means the teachers in said school are better, well-rounded educators. But taking the same approach to teaching as the school in the first example probably isn’t going to work. Similarly, Ofsted need to understand that it’s good teaching and standards that matter and that won’t always be identified or achieved using an identical model.

A lack of empathy with teachers, parents and students is what underpins Ofsted’s shortcomings. Often Ofsted shows itself to not understand the organic nature of schools and that particularly in challenging environments, ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ schools aren’t created overnight. And that’s no matter how much headteachers, senior leadership teams and teachers seek to emulate the target-driven approach to educating that is encouraged by Ofsted.

Ofsted’s lack of empathy was recently seen when it announced that it was abolishing the grade of ‘satisfactory’ in its inspections and would be replacing it with ‘requires improvement’. This move was said to ensure schools were not allowed to coast with average standards. In principle, I would agree as there shouldn’t be any scope for complacency in the provision of good education. But for a school that is gradually improving, albeit not quite at the required standard, that improvement should be encouraged and assisted rather than condemned as essentially failing. The tag of ‘requires improvement’ certainly isn’t going to improve the morale of any teacher or student at a school judged as such either.

The perceived lack of empathy from Ofsted lies in how disconnected inspectors are from the classroom and teaching environments. It was reported on BBC Radio 4’s File on 4 programme that some inspectors haven’t previously even taught in a classroom with some inspectors including former school secretaries or school governors. It was also reported that some inspectors had been found to be headteachers that had been forced out of their previous schools because of failing standards.

Admittedly, these inspectors are probably in a minority. Nonetheless, it suggests that the focus on who Ofsted deem able to identify good teaching may not necessarily be someone who has been a good teacher or experienced the rigours of the classroom themselves. File on 4 also reported the number of schools complaining about their inspections, and even finding errors in their Ofsted reports, had risen. There is a perceptible and growing disdain for Ofsted amongst teachers and headteachers. And if they don’t have confidence in Ofsted, it suggests Ofsted are doing something amiss.

The most common criticism teachers have of Ofsted is its ‘tick box’ approach to inspections rather than actually observing the quality of learning within classrooms. For this reason, even the most talented and experienced teachers are less than receptive to Ofsted inspections. That lack of confidence in Ofsted amongst teachers is also likely to be shared with parents who know their child’s school is performing well yet they are being told otherwise by an Ofsted report.

The demonising and devaluing of teachers exuded by Michael Gove, the Secretary State for Education, is setting the stage for a collision course between the government and teachers’ unions. However, Gove’s stance and his vilifying of teachers is seemingly in sync with Michael Wilshaw. Unsurprisingly, teachers’ unions are increasingly equally opposed to the Chief Inspector.

Wilshaw claims to be a “genuine floating voter” but if he was voting in Michael Gove’s constituency, I think I know who would be getting his vote. And with the government’s current education policy, it’s a concern that Wilshaw and Gove are on the same page ideologically. What’s more worrying is that Wilshaw, in his position as Chief Inspector, is willing to further the sentiments of the Secretary of State.

Ofsted’s influence is making teaching less desirable as a rewarding occupation and eroding the morale of those already within the profession. That isn’t to suggest a culture of complacency amongst teachers, but the damaging impact Ofsted has on schools. The increasingly sterile teaching environments, where teaching is void of emotion, personality and genuine enthusiasm, is a result of Ofsted’s influence. Moreover, the rigid, bureaucratic approach it takes to inspections, and equally expects to see in schools, has shown itself to be detrimental in only raising standards superficially.

Ofsted needs to redefine its relationship with schools and teachers from one that is adversarial to one that is empathetic to teachers and without unwarranted contempt for schools. The ‘tick box’ approach to inspections can’t gauge real quality of learning and the competency of a teacher. In fact, this has arguably contributed to the erroneous perception that mechanically executed lessons equal good lessons and produced an unhealthy obsession within schools where targets and league tables supersede consideration of actual learning. Ofsted should be meaningfully boosting standards in schools but instead it has become an albatross to genuinely achieving just that.

The changing landscape of the English education system

The 2011/12 academic year sees the first free schools opening in England. Free schools, as described by the Department for Education are ‘all-ability state-funded schools set up in response to what local people say they want and need in order to improve education for children in their community’.

Free schools, essentially academies, are funded directly by central government rather than local authorities and cannot be run for profit. Free schools also have greater autonomy than state schools and can decide on their curriculum and teachers’ pay, terms and conditions. Free schools are run as academies with communities playing a bigger role in their support and creation.

Prior to the 2010 general election, free schools were a flagship education policy for the Conservative party – clearly signalling their appetite for a diminished role of local authorities in the running of schools. Subsequently, the provision for free schools was included in the Academies Act 2010. The Act also gave existing state schools the opportunity to apply for academy status.

Prior to the Act, the coalition government invited proposals for free schools. According to the Department for Education, as of 11 February 2011 (the deadline for proposals to be received) it had received 323 proposals for the creation of free schools in England.

In principle, free schools appear to be a great idea. The number of proposals received by the Department for Education also suggests many people share that notion. In recognising the need for a school that offers the structure, teaching, values and curriculum that is right for the children of a respective community, charities, community groups, parents, teachers, faith groups and others are now empowered to seek just that. However, what impact will this have on communities and the education landscape in England?

In proposing and establishing a free school, it undoubtedly requires organisation, resources and community support – attributes typically, but by no means exclusively, found in middle class and upwardly mobile communities. Conversely, while the same desire to improve education for children undeniably exists in working class and less affluent communities, often the resources simply aren’t available to pursue such an aim with the same effectiveness as found amongst the middle classes.

Consequently, given there are communities that may find the pursuance of free schools less attainable, there is a risk that free schools will further ghettoise education in a social context. Nevertheless, this is seemingly a consequence ignored, if not realised, by the coalition government.

There’s seemingly a pattern emerging here. Upon coming to power in 2010, the coalition government invited state schools rated ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted to become academies. This was later extended to state schools deemed to be “performing well” by the Department for Education. Again, in examining the communities where such schools and their intake are likely to be derived, such policy prefigures an education system that broadly speaking is drawn on social lines even more so than the status quo.

The coalition government and supporters of free schools would seek to refute this by arguing that free schools are prohibited from maintaining an academically selective admissions policy. In middle class neighbourhoods, this arguably mitigates the risk of free schools being exclusive to children of the respective community. In theory, there is validity in this. Yet in practice, a school’s intake is typically derived from and therefore reflective of the local community. Children of backgrounds that differ from the wider community are therefore likely to be in a minority.

There is also the argument that free schools can be proposed by groups such as charities, businesses and faith groups and not simply parents and well-organised communities. These groups already have structures and expertise that can assist communities seeking to propose a free school. In communities that would otherwise find this a challenge, such groups can and should assist in achieving this where desired.

Hopefully such instances will be the success stories of free schools that truly do contribute to improving education within communities. Nonetheless, it is likely that the expansion of free schools and academies will largely reflect the social character of the communities they lie within. It is therefore questionable if such scenarios will occur to the extent that they can buck the trend.

The apparent demand for free schools and academies, and the coalition government’s fervour in promoting them, clearly leaves local authorities with a reduced remit in the provision of education. While some may argue this is simply a consequence of the desires of parents, schools and communities, there are more tangible consequences for those schools that remain within the remit of local authorities.

Academies and free schools receive their share of funding for certain services, such as special educational needs, that would otherwise be provided by the respective local authority. This is reflected in the funding directly provided to academies and free schools by central government. Consequently, in areas where state schools have become academies, it is also reflected in a reduction in grants for local authorities from central government.

In May 2011, the BBC reported that a number of local authorities have contested the government’s method of calculating the reduced grants and have sought a judicial review against ministers on this basis. There is clearly a debate to be had regarding the establishment of free schools and academies and the impact on schools that remain within local authority control.

The number of free schools and academies in England is likely to increase as parents, teachers and community groups seek further autonomy in how schools are run. In such instances, it can be argued that the government is simply responding to the wishes of local communities. Conversely, where such demand does not exist, it is likely that academy status will be foisted upon more challenging schools, particularly against a backdrop of the coalition government’s zeal in promoting its flagship education policy.

Diminishing what should be an altruistic role of the state with regard to the provision of education and replacing it with autonomy raises several concerns. It also takes the provision of education a step closer to privatisation – a move that would pit the provision of quality education against profit.

Speculation aside, the initial risk with free schools and academies is the creation and acceptance of a further ghettoised education system. If this does occur, any egalitarianism achieved in post-war education policy will slowly but surely be eroded.