Homosexuality in a Church School

I need to read more on the subject, but apparently the law that Maggie Thatcher-back in the days that the Tories were in power -put in place prohibiting the promotion of homosexuality in schools has been scrapped. As usual, it's all about the wording. Notice it doesn't necessary say anything about the necessity of the promotion of homosexuality in schools. Rather, it forbids anything that could be perceived to be against the promotion of homosexuality in schools. You may have heard of the famous (or infamous?) children's book "Heather has two mommies". An instance of the scrapping of this law coming into play is best demonstrated in the fact that this book cannot be banned in primary schools.

The world is changing, and even though Einstein's wonderful statement about the only constant being change, is absolutely true, I wonder if it is changing too much. I am beginning not to recognise it. Maybe the world is ending? One can only hope....

I work in a church school and it was one afternoon that a group of pupils came in whispering about an 'incident'. Without going into too much detail about it, and certainly protecting the identity of the pupils in question, I can tell you that the incident was regarding a 'lesbian' relationship gone sour. What was odd, odd to me at least, is that students were talking about the 'slap' (someone had cheated on someone - I'm still hazy on the details) but the actual gay relationship itself didn't appear to be a matter of interest. I questioned the girls in questions, and they openly admitted to being gay. Their friends openly supported them. I didn't say a word.

Now, I know homosexuality is a controversial topic, even within the church, but going by the word of God -the Bible -it remains a sin, and that is that. Seeing homosexuality in a school -amongst young children -was a different scenario altogether. We love children and want the best for them. I certainly wouldn't want any child -gay or not -to feel discriminated against or bullied because of a choice. Yet, does this mean I am not allowed to express the christian view -in a christian school -that their choice, according to christian doctrine -is wrong? More on this later...

What makes a good speaker?

School teachers, every so often, have the distinct pleasure of being the participants in what we call INSET days. Children have the day off and teachers get to come in wearing their jeans –bearing some resemblance to normality. INSET days are usually led (or facilitated) by members of the SLT (Senior Leadership Team). If however, the school is particularly lucky (and sufficiently up on funds for that particular academic year) it is graced by the presence of a guest speaker. In one such INSET (one that was entirely irrelevant and useful only for private contemplation) I got to thinking about what makes a good speaker. What engages an audience? What is that we want to hear?

I decided that there were two things to consider. One, people wanted to hear things that they hadn’t heard before or they wanted to hear what they knew, but didn’t know they knew –if you get what I mean. Let me explain, by listing the sort of responses (mental or out loud) that an audience (that was engaged) might say.

“Ah…that’s interesting. I never knew that!”

Or

“Ah, I totally relate to what he/she just said, and just didn’t know, that I knew that!”

When the response is simply: “I knew that”, you know that the speaker is being patronising or irrelevant or both.

In exactly the same way, I thing the same goes for pupils and their reactions (mental responses or perhaps more verbal ones!) to us. If we bleat on about something they know and they know they know, what on earth is the point of that? The response, and understandably, would be utter boredom, defiance, or bad behaviour as a result of a growing lack of respect. Instead, the key is to package the things they know they know, in a way that they relate to, but didn’t quite see in that context.

The key to controlling behaviour

It begins with the realization that it is impossible to control an individual’s behaviour! The only thing we can do is influence behaviour and it is this that we should set out to do. Another thing that came to me was derived from the simple analogy of a peripheral device connected to a computer. Perhaps I am stating the blatantly obvious, but it is impossible to ‘influence’ or ‘talk to’ something that you are not connected to. The computer would not be able to communicate with the peripheral device (like a printer, or scanner) unless it was physically connected via cables (coaxial, or even better –fibre optic –yes I’m an ICT teacher!). In much the same way, it is impossible to communicate (in a way that would be beneficial) with someone who you are disconnected from. Or, to put it another way, you have to be connected to something or someone in order to control it in anyway.

The relationship between teachers and children is comparable. We try to influence or control the behaviour of X without knowing a thing about X or indeed even being sure of his name! The sort of positive communication that we desire as teachers is often only achieved as the result of a well established connection. How, you may ask, do we make a connection with a pupil? (Particularly with one we want to make anything but a connection with!). The key is finding some common ground, something to laugh about, something personal and human, something real, something unconnected to how well they are (or are not, as the case may be) achieving.

Communication is never neutral

Communication –with a pupil –is never neutral. It is only ever either positive or negative. If you aren’t being positive, you are probably being negative, and an understanding of this rather obvious, but unconsidered fact, is crucial to become a more effective communicator. You might be simply telling Joe Bloggs to do something pretty standard, like “Log off, and tuck your chair in”. Even something as mundane and routine as that however, isn’t neutral. Tone of voice, body language and other factors come into it. Communication is never neutral.

Should we never say “Do not”?

My first thought was, but God did! If it was good enough for God, it should be good enough for us! (I was referring to the Old Testament and the Ten Commandments –the famous (or perhaps infamous) “Thou Shalt Nots”). If God thought it perfectly fine to tell his children, his people, to NOT do things, shouldn’t we as teachers, find it equally effective (or at the very least reasonable) to use the same sort of terminology with our beloved (or not so beloved) pupils!

The speaker went on about how surveys had shown that people respond better to positive instructions. He used the age-old (and may I say clichéd) example of how are brains are unable to not think of the colour yellow, when asked not to think of it. (I hope this wasn’t too convoluted a sentence!) Okay, but that was totally out of context, I thought. When do we ask a child not to think of a colour. We use ‘nots’ purely to establish boundaries, and emphasise rules in an absolute and unambiguous manner. How, for instance, did you tell (using the politically correct jargon) a child to stop chewing their gum? “Do chew gum, but not on school premises?”. I mean, come on.

Anyway, it was about half way through the session that the penny dropped and I found that you could indeed find all the answers to life, and learning, and good practice, in the Bible. It occurred to me that the old Testament (with its “Thou shalt nots” was about rules and laws and establishing the fact that human beings were incapable of following rules and therefore incapable of saving themselves. In stark contrast, as if to first make us conscious of sin, and then –only then –give us the solution, the new testament does the opposite. It does away with the rules (the negative language and the ‘Do not’s and changes to the language which tells us what do do, rather than what not to!

Jesus encapsulates all the rules in the old testament (so does not do away with them, but repackages them, if you like) in two simple ‘new’ rules, which involve a ‘Do’, with no hint of the word ‘Not’.

“Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and your mind, and your soul” and “Love your neighbour as yourself”

So there you go. If God knew positive instructions were the way to go, who are we to argue?

Conversation with the headmaster from hell.

I recently visited a grammar school in the county (for a job I wouldn't have taken for all the money in the world). I arrived at about 3:30PM. School was out and a seemingly endless line of smug looking pupils came through the huge wooden entrance doors. I stood -invisible perhaps -at the side, waiting in awe as not one of them had the good grace to either step aside and let me through, or do so little as smile! The headmaster -who to me appeared a smarmy, egotistical, singularly ill-mannered man -had me sit in an unneccesarily large leather chair and proceeded to lecture me about the evils of his current ICT teacher. (perhaps I will dedicate another entry to this particular conversation and the utter unprofessionalism of it all). The evil he referred to of course, had nothing to do with morality -but was entirely tied in to this thing schools use as a yardstick for success -exam results. The man went on and on, producing fat book after fat book, and photocopied document after photocopied document, to substantiate his displeasure with the 2008 ICT exam results. The evidence of course pointed to two ICT teachers (both still at the school, although one has now found a job elsewhere ) that had managed to get all their pupils a pass but not enough of them through to A*s!

During the process of the interview, the conversations we had were many, but the comments he made about his staff outshone everything else. The words "useless", "duff" and "lazy" were used. One of the other men in the interview, who appeared -for the record -to be all these things -was a little more subtle. His questions revolved around how I would go about motivating an "unmotivatable" member of staff.

I am intrigued, truly intrigued, as to how this headmaster has managed to remain so (and indeed get the job in the first place) for a number of reasons (most of which wouldn't be politically correct to comment on here). I am also amazed as to how he has gotten this far in his career without someone pointing out to him that staff are among a schools greatest assets and that a certain degree of professionalism in Education is expected if not crucial. What unnverved me most was that the interview may as well have been for a position in business development. Heads would roll, he clarified, if targets weren't met -exactly the sort of thing you would expect to happen in a cut throat sales world. Surely not in a school!

More Private-sector run schools?

One of the things that takes the joy out of teaching is the ridiculously huge class sizes that a teacher is forced to deal with. The largest class I had last year was 33. Among other things large classes don't really allow for that all important individual attention and of course behavioural or special needs compound the problem. Is opening a few more thousand schools across the country too much to ask? The answer is YES largely because....(and I speak from my huge bank of political ignorance) most schools are government funded. If I was Ed Balls (Education Minister) for a day I would call upon enterprising companies...businessmen...millionaries...(the private sector) to open schools and then I would government-fund the opening of a few more hundred schools myself! The private sector may well be better at running schools anyway. The question of fee's arises but I'd have to analyse the financial ins and outs in another blog.

Are more private-sector run schools the answer?

Pet Hate: Assessment for Learning Objectives for Pupils

I can't think of anything quite so silly than this whole "Assessment for Learning" phrase that has been chucked into education as if to say teachers in the past didn't know that 'learning' was more important than just 'teaching'. Surely the very definition of teaching -good teaching anyway -is ensuring that some sort of learning is taking place.

Suddenly all over the UK focus groups are discussing ASSESSMENT FOR LEARNING, speakers are invited to speak on it, OFSTED demands it and the head teacher re-iterates it at every opportunity with the greatest solemnity. The whole thing revolves around steering teachers away from presenting starter objectives that instruct a class to "do". Objectives, we are told, must be about what a student has 'learned' not what they have 'done'. To be clear, I am not saying that learning in a classroom is not important, but I am saying that more often than not the only way a teacher CAN assess learning is through what a student has DONE!

An example of a poorly constructed starting objective would be: "In this lesson you will complete questions 1 and 2 on Gandhi and his impact on the partition of India"

The much more preferrable alternative (we are told) would be: "In this lesson you will BE ABLE TO analyse the impact Gandhi had on the partition of India"

The first is direct. Students know exactly what they have to do, and chances are they'll do it! The second is vague, and yes, although it suggests assessment of learning rather than the accomplishment of tasks, how relevant is it to students?!

I always nod off and think of more important things when this topic is being discussed simply because it is one of those BRILLIANT IDEAS that is being over-analysed and thought-through to death. The other day we had a session in which we went through a nonsensically long list of objectives, having to comment -at length -about how well they fit in with the recommended Assessment for Learning style objectives. Yawn.....

To be fair...there are teachers that can teach and thereby facilitate learning and learning to construct perfectly structured learning assessment objectives isn't going to make a difference. Conversely, teachers that can't teach to save their lives might USE the objectives to appease the powers that be, but probably couldn't care less about learning....

As for students...they're just going to have to use up a few precious brain cells to figure out that "should be able to analyse the implications of...." really means "JUST answer the question on page 30 IN SILENCE".

Is Differentiation, Discrimination?

Imagine an adult world in which the stupid (I know this term is politically incorrect) were separated from the intelligent and society was so divided on this basis. What if those among us that couldn't naturally calculate the angle of inference in a fictitious singularity were confined to certain rooms, while only the clever could walk proudly through coveted corridors.

I suppose society, in some ways, is already segregated in this manner, but the distinctions aren't quite as obvious. One might say the clever-stupid divide we have in our adult world is somewhat subtle. In a school however, segregation isn't accidental nor will you find anyone being apologetic about the way things are. It is a matter of policy. Classes are set according to ability and that is that. In certain schools whole form groups are arranged on the basis of of Midyis (IQ-type) scores. Inevitably a number of low ability pupils will find themselves separated from the intelligent and lumbered along with students deemed to be of a similar ability to them.

Still worse, in lessons that are 'mixed ability' (ICT, Music, Geography, History etc at KS3) the principle of 'Differentiation' comes into play. OFSTED expects it and lessons plan include a little rectangle at the end in anticipation that it will be adequately filled. I am sure there are many more eloquent definitions for the term, but it is essentially when a teacher sets one standard of work to the large majority of students and a hideously low (or impossibly high) standard for those students that are do not fall under the label 'average'.

Now, if I were in a class where the entire group received one set of worksheets and I received another, my natural reaction (I assume) would be embarrassment. I -personally -would go so far to say that I would feel discriminated against, humiliated. Yet, the discrimination is not deliberate or malicious. It is just the way things are! A pupil incapable of simple multiplication is hardly going to be able to cope with a worksheet of advanced quadratic equations. Similarly, a pupil who can't spell the word "Picture" (pitcher) or "Sofa" (sofer), is going to struggle with writing a full blown analytical essay. Completing a fill in the blanks type exercise might lead to a greater sense of achievement. After all (reasons a teacher or whoever it is that comes up with these norms) we don't want to burden students with the impossibility of completing something they simply are not capable of doing.

Yet...in the clear light of day, the hard truth is that achievement is only achievement in comparison. An 'A' grade means nothing unless you are comparing it to a 'B' or 'C'.

Recently I encountered a parent (a particularly foul-mouthed one) that accused the school (and me!) of making their son feel "stupid" (she used this word, not I). On further investigation we found that her reason for this argument was the fact that her son was handed 'differentiated' work in lessons and furthermore it had been suggested that he opt for work experience rather than a hard-core academic GCSE subject. The lady did (quite quickly, given her anger) apologize and admit her accusation was baseless but the lingering question remained. The child was hurt for no fault of his own, and the school was accused for dealing with this child in the way they thought was best.

In a court of law, would the school be to blame for making the child feel stupid? We do indeed attempt to separate low ability kids and steer them along what we imagine are more suitable pathways. All said and done, the answer is yes. Do we make them feel stupid? Yes! You have to remember, the child FELT stupid and discriminated against and who can argue with what one FEELS.

There are no easy answers! Some are born clever and some are not. Some can catch a ball, and others can't. Who is to blame? I would hope that God has created every individual with a unique talent of their own which retains a certain balance in the world. An avid sportsman may not be able to do calculus in his head. A top biologist may not be able hold a tune. An accomplished artist may not be able to spell to save his life.

Perhaps the key is to remember that every child has -or should have -a talent they can call their own. If we make them feel stupid in ICT, it's up to someone else in the team to make them feel equally special in something else. The cynic will point out that there are some pupils who honest-to-God have NO Talent (except perhaps a unique ability to disrupt and cause offence!). What then? So far (as much as I hate to admit it) I haven't met a single pupil in mainstream education who is utterly and entirely talent-less. Then there was the boy who spent much of his life feeling entirely useless. At about age seventeen he started to learn the guitar; now he's a pro -it's his thing. Some talents can be developed. Isn't that also what schools are for? Nurturing the natural, and developing talents for the talent-less.

What Now?

Let's face it...There are times when you come across a pupil who is downright unlikeable. So what do you do when you have to face the creature in a classroom, when you are forced to be 'professional' when he SEVERELY disrupts your lesson (or spends the entire hour picking his nose) and then demands YOUR time in an after-school session.

What do you do!?

The after school of course...

The delusional National "Gifted and Talented" Strategy

I just spent the good part of an hour in a "twilight session" with several other teachers. (I love the pretty names they give these things!) The Aim? To discuss the school's strategy on dealing with what we now refer to as our "Gifted and Talented" pupils. Earlier on in the year each department was asked to produce a list of what we imagined were "gifted and talented" pupils in our subjects. Of course various masses of "data" provided to schools (which includes information about a pupil's verbal, spatial and mathematical ability) already suggests that anyone with a score of above a 130 or so is automatically in the "gifted" category. We were told today that the approximate percentage of "gifted and talented" pupils we could expect was 10% (for each year group). That's up on last year by about 5%!

My theory is that having "Gifted and Talented" lists which are limited to 10% of students is a load of rubbish. (I'll explain exactly why and what the more excellent alternative should be). Our current national strategy on this topic sounds good in theory but I feel sure no one has bothered to look a little more closely into why it is we make these lists, if they are useful, and most importantly if they are in fact counterproductive...

In today's world there is nothing more important than getting Education right. Getting Education right involves catering for every single student to pass through the system. Catering for every single student who passes through the system is not just about getting the brilliant ones to take exams early, the average one's to work toward achieving high grades, and the under average pupils to perhaps scrape a pass. It's about much more than that. In fact, the fundamental we are getting wrong is our emphasis on academia that is limited to written and mathematical excellence. Students that excel in these two area's are often the one's to be put on "Gifted and Talented" lists, and while it is true that they are gifted in structured writing, or mathematics, surely there is more to being gifted and talented than that?!

From a Christian perspective and even from a purely humanist view-point, is it unreasonable to conclude that EVERY child has a unique gift and talent? I am confident that EVERY pupil, given the right opportunities, encouragment and time, has SOMETHING that they will be able to enjoy, excel at, and be on a "gifted and talented" list for. I would go so far as to suggest that if we CANNOT find a unique gift or talent for EVERY child as they pass through the system, we would have failed in our roles as educators. If 90% of our children have no gift or talent to call their own, what sort of future generation are we breeding? While it is true that many gifts are genetic, there are others that can be acquired. Furthermore there are gifts -as important, if not more -than academic intelligence. Natural abilities like empathy, oral communication, leadership and so on need to be recognized on par with any other talent. We already know that a highly intelligent individual with no emotional intelligence has little hope of success in todays society.

Of course, it is also necessary for Education to ensure pupils pass exams and jump the various hoops required to get through school, but if that is all it does, we have missed what was intended to be at the very heart of the process of learning and being at school. We would have missed its main purpose. The purpose that involves allowing each child to find the one thing he or she is excellent at. To focus on 10% and their gifts, and ignore the untapped talents of the other 90% isn't a strategy -it's a tragedy! Did "Every Child Matters" change to "90% of children with no obvious gifts matter less"?!

In conclusion, I would suggest that, if we are to keep lists at all, a new sort of list should come in to play. One that is inclusive of all students. A dynamic list that may change, that is monitored and that seeks to "find" and then "list" gifts and talents for every single child. I'm not saying it's easy, or even feasible with the workloads and responsibilities that teachers have already. What I am saying is that a strategy should be developed with the 'best possible outcome' in mind. A strategy should be about achieving (or at least aiming to achieve) a target of a 100%, not just 10!

If you're a teacher maybe you're thinking of a particular student who couldn't possibly have a gift or talent...

Maybe that's what Education is really about. Caring enough about those insignificant students (over and above getting them to achieve their target exam grades) and taking the time to help them find their purpose in life...

Friend or Foe? Getting the Balance Right

One of the hardest things about teaching is getting the balance right in a classroom. On a human level, one's gut instinct is to reach out, be kind, forgiving and eternally optimistic. My personal inclination is to simply be what they call a "push over", the sort of teacher who never gets angry, is always insufferably nice, the proverbial (or Dahlian) Miss Honey. In my first ever teaching role at Oxted School, my reputation preceded me. I was known and introduced (by students) as the "nice teacher". While this worked -to an extent, my teaching strategies inevitably changed. In my second year, my form group noticed the change. I remember overhearing one of them in conversation. "She used to be nice, but she's turned evil!"

When I look back at when I was in school and university, I find that the teachers I respected most -the one's that made the hugest impression -were the 'strict' ones. The one's I feared and liked in equal proportion. The one's that I wanted to impress. The one's who maintained a certain distance. Firm, Fair, but most of the time downright frightening.

I now know, after a few years of being in education, that the strict, sufficiently distant, appproach is undoubtedly the best. The only problem is with that approach, you don't always get to be...nice. And that's a shame. 99% of students in any given classroom don't have discipline issues and when we expend most of our energy focusing on behavioural strategies, this fact is often forgotten. Still, it's the only approach that works -unless you had a class that was 100% perfect and that, in my experience, is very rarely the case.

The key then (for me anyway) is to be downright frightening (in a firm, apporpriate, and perhaps even midly humourous manner) to the entire class, but kind, compassionate and understanding on a one to one.

The class as a whole cannot be treated as an individual. That's where most teachers go wrong. A Class must be controlled. A certain degree of fear (the sort of fear that makes one want to do their best) is necessary for control.

I sometimes am overcome with a wave of pity (love, nearly) for some of my classes. They sit there in absolute silence -if that is what I ask for -and it's hard not to want to 'favour' them a little. And so they are occasions, I let the discipline slack a little -allow them to talk, overlook it if they're a little late. But the moment you do that, you're setting yourself up for certain failure. Give an inch and they take a mile. Be consistent with discipline and standards. When students know the boundaries cannot be tested, they are content to cooperate within them. When you suggest that they (the boundaries) may in fact be flexible, they're going to want to know how far they can go...

So, in conclusion:

A Class, as a whole, cannot be treated as an individual. There must be rules, discipline, standards and a clear structure. When it comes to the individuals themselves the rules can be temporarily laid aside to make room for relationship. A relationship in which a student knows you secretly believe in them, that you aren't in fact evil, and that classroom fear aside, you would bend over backwards to help them should they need it....

Isn't that what God did for us? He laid aside the rules, to make room for relationship -a relationship with Him. Subsequently, in a relationship where there is mutual respect, the rules automatically come into play. God dealt with humanity in a similar manner. The old testament is about rules, rituals and structure. The new testament is about relationship and revelation.