Maggie Jarvis

I recently conducted a survey amongst students in my school to seek their views on many aspects of their school life. A surprisingly high number indicated that they dislike the disruptive behaviour of some students who prevent them from learning. I suspect that this view would be mirrored in a majority of schools. As we are almost never able to find suitable 'special school' places for the worst of our 'rogues', our only option is to permanently exclude them. These students are therefore failed by the existing system completely. To 'include' the slightly less problematic students we have employed a specialist behaviour support teacher who has achieved a significant degree of success in enabling them to remain in school. It is not a perfect solution however, and some level of disruption still occurs daily. Again we fail those students who want to learn. There is a need for a much more flexible system to allow schools to move disruptive students quickly off the main school site and into an environment which has the resources to address their unacceptable behaviour but still give them the opportunity to learn. Their stay there could and should be short initially but might become permanent if they are still unable to cope with the mainstream environment. I agree with you Anne, essential ingredients are properly funded support and effective working links between schools and the 'special schools'. Another major breakthrough would be to give schools the authority to make decisions about those individuals who should be moved out of mainstream classrooms, rather than to the 'experts' and 'advisers' in the LEA who don't have to deal with them on a daily basis!

I think that we teachers, being of more mature years than our students, need to look at the words we are using in this context. 'Fun' to many of today's KS3 and KS4 students means they are participating in an enjoyable, interesting and acceptable activity along with a large number of fellow students. A less 'fun' activity may be nonetheless enjoyable and interesting for some, but it is likely that these students will be mocked by others as being 'boffs' if they dare to show their interest. Remember that it isn't 'cool' to conform!! Those of us who find science fascinating may not be sympathetic with those who do not, but perhaps we need to consider that uninspiring teaching is certainly partly to blame. To make use of a variety of teaching methods to engage as many students as possible is surely what teaching is about? Appropriate 'fun' activities should therefore form part of every teacher's 'repertoire'. They are an invaluable 'sweetener' to help with the more 'meaty' factual information that we are trying to impart and if that is the way some students learn best, that is what we should be doing! My colleagues and I use and produce all kinds of on-line 'fun' stuff and many of our students find it really helps them with their learning and understanding. It is freely available to anyone who wants to use it so please have a look at the science pages on our extranet. DTC extranet - science pages

I have followed the development of the Education Forum since it was first set up and check the 'today's active topics' most days. I have not posted in many of these topics for several reasons: i) The majority of the topics are outside my areas of expertise so, as was mentioned, I suppose am 'being educated'. ii) Many of the topics are of little interest to me and go on for sooooo long. Sorry guys, but I just get bored with reading them! iii) To give meaningful replies to long posts takes too long and I have too many other demands on my time and too many other interests to spend it all sitting at my computer to do just that. Much more interest from women might be generated if posts were shorter, sharper and to the point - more like having a converstation rather than being lectured to!

In the latest edition of the TES is a statement that ‘excellent teachers will be able to qualify for salaries of more than £35 000 under a package for senior staff being unveiled by the UK government next week’. Another statement says that advanced skills teachers’ (ASTs) pay already ranges from £29 000 to £47 000. In another article a 28 year old civil engineering graduate states he is expecting to earn half his current salary when he qualifies as a physics teacher. A newly qualified teacher can currently expect to earn around £19 000. I would suggest that classroom teachers who earn more than £35 000 are not that numerous and those that earn £47 000 are about as common as hens teeth! Realistically, therefore, salaries for most teachers at the chalk face probably range between £19 000 and £35 000 in the UK. It would be interesting to hear how these salaries compare with those in other countries and what kind of duties these teachers are expected to undertake in addition to their actual classroom teaching.

Haven't seen any of this at our place! 'Bonuses' can only be awarded if the funding is there and, as you say, it isn't.

In response to John's comments: Sorry but I think this is claptrap! How do you think the Olympic games, the rugby World Cup and other such international events would fare without some kind of 'patriotic' affiliations? I do not think anyone could say these events are a threat to world peace! Rather events that boost an attitude of healthy competition - a very natural human emotion. Yes, it is. However nations have things to be proud of as well as things to be ashamed of. Surely the study of history should educate global citizens so that mistakes are not repeated? No. Teachers should make sure that the history that they teach is not biased. In other words, tell the truth about the mistakes as well as the achievements.

Your discussion has just reminded me of a project that has been underway in the UK over recent years called 'Opening Minds'. It involved a complete abandonment of the some of the National Curriculum in its present form. Instead it involves working with students in a cross curricular way, building 'competencies'. If anyone is interested in reading about this the link is here Opening Minds

Andy I am not disagreeing at all - just suggesting that there are other pension arrangements that might be considered for those of us who are already in the 'nearing retirement' bracket. If, like me and many other women teachers, you have had a career break to bring up your own children the current pension prospects do not look at all generous.

I certainly agree with that sentiment Andy - how about we get the same pergentage of final salary as civil servants - 60 80ths I believe it is! I am sure I heard that this was under discussion somewhere recently, but I doubt that it was anywhere within the government!?! That may be the case for some but I am pleased to say that my ex teacher father is about to reach the age of 90 and is still going strong. He always said he was determined to get the most out of the Teachers Pension Fund!

In response to Rob's comments ..I am unclear how you think that the feeder primary schools can have such a dramatic effect - surely all primary schools are trying to do the same as secondary schools i.e get their particular students to achieve good grades in examinations. If the result of this is that a 'good secondary school' doesn't achieve a good value added grading perhaps that has something to say about what is happening at KS3? Are the students actually making good progress? I accept that there is an issue regarding comparing KS2 levels with KS3 levels but all schools are working with this situation! How did your 'excellent schools' fare in the KS2 - 4 value added scores? If these were still 'appalling' perhaps this says something about how much progress their students are actually making over the 5 years they spend at secondary school. The one thing that value added does highlight is that schools with an intake of able pupils who, to date, have shown up well in the A*-C league tables are not necessarily maximising their students' potential.

School buildings are not the be all and end all of education but they are what we traditionally send our children into and expect the teachers to deliver and the students to absorb (willingly or not) a body of knowledge. Adult learners may or may not go to a particular building to acquire new knowledge and skills - they have the maturity to choose to be independent learners. The age of technology opens up a whole new arena for the education of both school age children and adults but there remains the issue of maturity of choices. Perhaps there needs to be a shift towards training children to be more independent learners so that they can make use of technology as Marco suggests. I do not believe that school buildings will ever be totally redundant - the social interactions between teachers and students, and between students can and should never be replaced. However, there is a case for the idea that at least part of the time spent in 'education' could be done remotely through technology, with teachers being the facilitators. Regarding the reluctant learners - perhaps parents might have to take on more responsibility?

In response to Graham's comment: ....in the education field Value Added is currently being measured by comparing the examination achievements of each child at the end of KS4 with the achievement at the end of KS2 and KS3. A school is then given value added scores for KS2-KS3 and KS2-KS4. The calculations are made based on the SATs levels and GCSE grades achieved on a pupil by pupil basis. Having been involved in supplying information for the piloting of this scheme it does mean that LEAs need to be able to collate all such information for every child so data transfer has to be spot on! I know that there will be screams of 'value added isn't just about exam grades', but they are things that can be given a numerical value and so used to produce real data. Of course schools do a lot more that get children through exams but as Lou's mentor said Whenever I have applied for jobs I have had to state my examination grades and so equally those examination grades will stay with today's school leavers throughout their working life! If they have no value then we are all wasting our time!

Whether your senior mentor likes it or not Value Added measures will be used more and more to show that schools are succeeding in providing their students with a quality education, allowing them to reach or exceed their potential whatever their backgrounds or levels of ability. I disagree that Value Added is a waste of time. The morale of the staff and students in a school which is never going to be at the top of the A*-C league tables is boosted by appearing near the top of the Value Added tables! As my school is in one of the few areas that still has grammar schools, this is particularly the case for us. We have a very good A*-C record as a non-selective secondary school, (53%) last year, but the interesting thing was that our value added scores actually exceeded those of some of these selective schools in the area! I leave you to draw your own conclusions. A*-C grades certainly are the yardstick that is used for progressing to F.E, vocational training and to many jobs. Schools should be ensuring that they maximise the achievements of every student to provide them with the opportunities to move into worthwhile post 16 provisions. That is what education is all about and Value Added gives an idea of how successful individual schools are at enabling students to make use of such opportunities!

I wonder, if things are as awful as you feel they are, why you stay there? Why not take a leaf out of your daughters' book and move on? If that is not an option then you only have two alternatives i) living with it ii) trying to do something about it Have you actually tried this as a starting point? Perhaps some would come decide to come out of the woodwork in response to your 'letters to the editor'?? I am sure that you are facing an uphill struggle on this one - good luck!

In response to Graham's post, I think that the use of internet homework is perfectly valid in just the same way as asking students to carry out 'research' for a project or extended piece of work. Old fashioned 'research' often meant using the school or public library and I don't recall teachers screaming 'unfair' at that idea, or suggesting that children were disadvantaged because they didn't have a supply of reference books at home! I have asked KS4 students to use the internet to do both research work and to complete online exercises that I have written myself (if anyone wants to have a go there is a site called www.4teachers.org). They have completed the work with a good deal of interest as it is a bit different to paper exercises often set. It has also been done by the majority of the class without the usual amount of chasing up! The provision of in school study facilities for students has been going on ever since I started teaching - why should provision of internet access be any different? In addition, many public libraries now have internet access for people to use as well! So why, at break and lunch times, do so many of our children rush to the school library with all its books and computer facilities? Agreed that children need to 'recharge their batteries' but they have different ways of doing that - just as teachers do! As long as the facilities for carrying out internet homeworks are made available at suitable times during and after the school day I see no reason why they should not be set, thus providing a wider variety of meaningful activities to add to the repertoire of study skills needed for lifelong learning.

Martin's comment... ...indeed! Of course a lot of the smells came about from experiments that are largely banned now! Many of the smelly ones were done in an open laboratory rather than in the fume cupboard, and there was no hint of problems related to handling offal in biology lessons! 'Health and safety' has a lot to answer for. I sometimes wonder how us old science teachers have survived all the exposure to the hazardous substances that we took for granted as being a normal part of our teaching. To go off on another tangent - we have had a discussion today about the value of using data logging equipment with 11 - 16 year old science students. Is it my imagination or have the 'powers that be' gone rather quiet on this after all the hype that every child should be using such apparatus? Is everyone out there frantically using it in as many lessons as possible? Is it enthusing students? Do they indeed understand what they are doing?

In response to Andy's point of view re the status of the cover supervisor: I don't agree with the view that the cover supervisor is expected to do a supply teachers job. As I said in my previous post - at no time are our cover supervisors expected to set or mark work. They are not expected to teach the class, only to supervise them while the students do work set by someone on the teaching staff! On the other hand a supply teacher is expected to be a professionally qualified person who will actually teach the students in the classes to which they are assigned and in my experience as a former supply teacher that means going into classes with little or no support from the regular staff.....how easy is that? Up to a point it may be fine if i) you are expected to teach your own subject ii) you are immediately familiar with the school systems, geography, availability of resources, schemes of work etc etc Even in one's own school it is very difficult to deliver a suitably professional cover lesson without some preparation. When most teaching staff do a cover lesson don't they expect work to be set by someone in the department? Don't they expect to be able to hand it out and the class to get on with it? Do they really expect to teach the lesson? Many short term supply teachers do not go into schools with the intention of delivering a properly prepared set of lessons. They do what most full time teachers do - expect work to be set and then sit with the class while they do it. Indeed I have known supply teachers who complain long and loud if there is no work set or the class completes it before the lesson is over! Is this what Andy would expect when he says We do have number of 'regular' supply teachers who work with us on a longer term absences and they do a superb and totally professional job. At no time would I suggest that such long term cover be taken on by cover supervisors. When supply staff are employed, however, they are paid for their professional expertise and not just to 'babysit' whereas cover supervisors are only expected to 'babysit'. Cover supervisors are part of the school's team and are available at a moment's notice, unlike supply teachers who are rarely available when the 'I'm sick' call comes in at 8 a.m with school due to start at 8.45 a.m. With regard to the wages, schools locally have advertised for supervisors at a wide variety of rates and I expect that it is a case of what each school thinks the job is worth, or what each school can afford! Supply teachers are highly expensive to employ - not only their salary but the teaching agency cut as well! The situation is not ideal at the moment I would agree but some practical solution has to be found to deal with teacher absences. Professional teachers cannot any longer be expected to do their own and someone elses job during the course of a working day. If cover supervisors provide a way forward we cannot afford to discount their potential value in supporting the profession, any more than we would discount the value of any of our other support staff.

There have been full time cover supervisors employed in my school since September 2003 and they have been very successful to date. They are very much part of the staff team and are trained and closely supported by senior staff. They were carefully selected at interview and initially they began work as any new teacher trainee would - observation of classes, familiarisation with the buildings, the staff and the routines etc. They then started by supervising only classes of younger students, then later going into fairly carefully selected classes of older students. In this way they have been able to gain experience and confidence, and the students have accepted them as being a part of the establishment. At no time are our cover supervisors expected to set or mark work. They are able to call for assistance if required through the channels set up for all teaching staff. On the occasions when there are no classes requiring supervision (yes it does happen sometimes!) they have been assisting with administrative duties through the school office. As a staff we have been relieved of much of the uncertainty about whether we would lose those precious non-contact periods designated for the multitude of jobs that seem to pile up. The key is, though, if you get a good supervisior they are invaluable but they don't become good on their own!

Andy, I agree with your sentiment that ... and note that you set homework with so much enthusiasm for its value but wonder how students would cope if all their teachers expected homework to be carried out on the basis you describe.... Equally, Adrian's students might find that they could quickly become overloaded with homework as he says that in his school.... Marco says.of his classes.. Do I understand that this is the sort of homework that you would normally set to any class? GeoDave, you say.. I recognise and sympathise with the problem of unsupportive parents, but in my experience there are a great many more who are supportive and indeed raise any lack of homework being set as being an issue of concern. Anyone who has been OFSTEDed recently will be aware that the questionnaires being given to parents and students alike specifically ask about whether homework is set regularly. Can we afford to ignore this? As for the impact of homework I have to agree with Andy's view...

I attended a meeting recently when a senior colleague said that his school was investigating whether setting homework for secondary age students had any real value, presumably with the idea that it might be abandoned in its existing format. An open discussion ensued at which the more negative views voiced included: 'What is the point if they don't have anywhere quiet to work?' 'Many of the less able don't do the homework anyway, giving teachers extra stress when they have to chase it up' ' Traveller children are around for only brief periods of time so homework is irrelevant to them' 'A lot of tasks are set just because homework has to be set - it isn't necessarily of any great educational value' 'It means so much extra time for teachers when it has to be marked - what about the workload agreement?' There were, of course, a similar number of positive views! Anyone care to express their thoughts on this one?

The whole issue of 'assessment' presents problems particularly regarding interpretation of the word itself. John's statement seems to be talking about the UK system of SATs (examinations that are endured by students at ages 7, 11 and 14 years). The results of these are published nationally as 'league tables' and are a source of regular and often heated debate at all levels within education! The idea is that this public airing of the 'achievements' of students in every state school will somehow encourage schools to 'do better', and will also inform parents so that they can then select a 'good' school for their children. The question is, are these SATs examinations actually having a beneficial effect on schools? Are they actually of use to the students? Are they of any use whatsoever to employers? In addition, UK students then sit GCSE examinations at age 16 and A level examinations at age 17 -18. The results of these are also published in league tables for all the world to see (see the DfES website!). Unlike the SATs, however, these examinations do generate nationally useful certificates for the students - something that employers understand as being a useful 'yardstick' by which to have some measure of their potential employees. In response to Adrian's comment: This scheme, which was intended as a sort of CV is now being replaced with a scheme called 'Progress File' - a more flexible and potentially more useful running CV. It does, if properly used and maintained, provide a much broader overview of any particular student and sounds to be something like the 'high school transcript'. I think that this situation is still true in some UK schools also! However, I come back to the word 'assessment' again ... the UK National Strategy is trying to address standards within schools at classroom level. Assessment for Learning is one of the key elements - providing students with constructive feedback and information on 'how to improve and move forward', and teachers using their assessments to inform their teaching in future lessons. Simply ticking work and giving a mark out of ten is no longer appropriate ... well, what use is it really in many situations? As John mentions: Assessment for Learning is, surely, about evaluating the needs of the students and evaluating the teaching that follows. A lot of money has been spent by the UK government on the National Strategy - we have to hope that it has been spent wisely on training classroom teachers! Perhaps then assessment will become more meaningful and consistent within and between schools. I was surprised at being told that some teachers have been told not to use red pens to 'mark' students' work as it gives a negative impression of the feedback from the teacher. Instead teachers are (apparently) busy buying up bottles of turquoise, purple and green ink to use instead. Will this really make a difference?

I think this is a very good point. How many of us have really thought through our current use of teaching assistants when planning lessons? They are, or can be a valuable 'resource' but they are often underused and left to 'fit in' wherever they think there might be a need within a classroom. I have just suggested to a teacher trainee that she includes in her planning how she would like to use me as a teaching assistant in her next lesson. It will be interesting to see the results.

I'm a practicing and practising science teacher at Dartford Technology College in Kent, UK. I have been teaching for a long time now and still really enjoy what I do.

Oh dear, more prescriptive stuff from the exam boards is not what we need! WE are at the daily chalk face, WE should try to be a bit more creative in our thinking of what our teaching is really about. [Personally I would prefer a "practical" assessment to be made and assessed internally by individual schools, with moderation of the work as at present. So in effect a single practical exam. At the moment most students work in groups so the coursework is often not a very good indicator of an individual's practical ability. Investigative work is currently 20% of the GCSE. So a single in-house practical exam would be worth about 8/30ths of this. A single theory paper on practical theory would be the other 22/30ths.] A more workable idea indeed. The 'skills' teaching allows students to become competent in using a wide variety of scientific apparatus and making accurate readings...surely basic 'tools of the trade' for any scientist at any level? I am unclear about the 8/30ths - how did you arrive at this figure? I believe that 'skills' should be given a higher proportion of marks to demonstrate that they have significant importance within science study and research. 'Practical theory' is already tested in many terminal GCSE papers to some extent. Do we really need an additional paper for this alone? Perhaps we should consider getting rid of some of the purely mathematical questions that are often worth an inordinate number of marks at GCSE, and don't test scientific understanding at all but simply the ability to manipulate figures and formulae!

I wholeheartedly agree with this view of the current so called 'scientific investigation' that we are all having to put our GCSE students through. It has become a totally meaningless exercise that takes up vast amounts of time and energy on the part of both staff and students, and I agree with Max that it should be scrapped in its current form. However, I do feel that practical work is a vital part of a science teacher's work as it has such a hugely motivating effect on many students. If all science was taught by 'chalk and talk', reading text books and the like, the response from classes I teach would be 'it's boring'! What would that do for the future of science? Equally, would useful scientific advances be made if there was no lab work carried out to test the theories? Our future scientists need to have practical skills don't they, so surely we are the ones who must lay the foundations for these. I am very well aware that it is easy to complain that 'scientific investigation' isn't worth doing but at the same time we, as science educators, have to decide on a more useful type of exercise to replace it as it should, surely, be considered an extremely important part of science teaching. So come on colleagues, lets do some positive thinking instead of whinging. Perhaps we might have some influence on changing the system! What about a short 'skills' examination .... ? Any thoughts (positive ones please!)?