Black teachers and pupils and academisation - some issues

Back in the 1970s/80s I was involved in campaigns against racism in London schools. This had many facets including attitudes towards black pupils, disproportionate numbers of black pupils in SEN and Disruptive Pupils units, ethnic differences in examination entrance, a mono-cultural curriculum and not least discrimination against black teachers.

In this Guest Blog Dalian Adofo looks at current issues regarding the academisation of education:

2013 has been an interesting year for the state of UK education, we have witnessed a youtube video go ‘viral’ laying bare all the contradictions and misrepresentations put forth by the current Education secretary, Michael Gove. There has also been independent production of multiple documentaries highlighting the enforced conversion of many schools into Academies even with resistance by teaching staff and the local communities they serve. In most cases the only justification for conversion to Academies have being that provided by Ofsted after a school inspection.

The resistance to Academies is not so hard to understand, how is education a commodity? The body of knowledge to be acquired can be commoditised yes, but the process of learning as well? It does not take much to realise that we all learn at a different paces based on different cognitive, social and other factors, hence why teachers by default are required to differentiate the learning process to give all students the opportunity to progress sufficiently in their learning.

It is therefore wise that we question the impact imposing targets and performance management directives as tools to measure ‘work efficiency’ will be in such an environment for learning. How will these pressures to perform, part and parcel of the Academies model of education, affect teaching and learning in the long run?               Will teachers be working to ensure they meet targets and keep their jobs or take time out to provide for individual learning needs and requirements, not forgetting the longer hours of work and more paperwork to complete by teachers.

Newspaper coverage from outlets such as the Independent has highlighted the despair and low morale of teachers from surveys carried out by organisations such as the National Union of Teachers (NUT), so the main question is, why is the Government not listening? And is it not obvious who teachers will ultimately be exerting such frustrations on, and will it be a positive impact on learning? I strongly doubt it.

Evidence from the US where the Charter schools model provided the inspiration for our Academies, shows that some of these institutions, usually in highly impoverished inner-city areas, are abandoned within a decade by their investors presumably because their investments has earned returns so it is time to move on.

But what about the wellbeing and development of the child, or does the money matter more? Is this the type of education we want for our children? Or is the suggestion that this is the type of education that children from such backgrounds deserve?

The other disturbing element to the Academies is the lack of Black (in the political sense) staff in senior management positions and as regular staff. Data from the recent Black Teachers Conference suggests that increasingly, non-White staff are being ‘replaced’ with White peers using the same performance management processes that are meant to encourage ‘efficiency’ and ‘high performance’. Rather bizarre?

It is rather disheartening that one of the stated objectives for introducing Academies is to improve standards in inner-city schools yet there seems to be no impetus to keep staff who best reflect the student demographic itself. It is interesting that every year hundreds of non-white individuals will successfully endure and pass teacher-training courses across the country, yet somehow when on the job they are deemed ‘inadequate’…how is this contradiction being addressed by the Government?

And if indeed, we are to entertain the ridiculous notion that non-whites are somehow inadequate in comparison to their white counterparts, then what measures has the Government introduced to ensure that this section of its populace can excel to the ‘desired standards’ once in employment? From the evidence presented at the conference, such ‘enforced removals’ are not strictly for non-whites either, even though they are in the majority. What measures then is the Government or Ofsted implementing to ensure objective measurement of performance rather than what is seemingly subjective judgments informed by nepotistim and/or favouritism?

Entertaining that idea that social standing, class or ethnicity puts one in better stead to educate children is as elitist as it is racist, and utterly preposterous- certainly not a notion to be entertained in a nation priding itself on its democratic values. What will a person from the leafy suburbs of Windsor have in common with a child from the ‘concrete jungles’ of Stonebridge, Brixton or Tower Hamlets?

How will that individual inspire the child to succeed, where is the area of commonality, shared experience and empathetic understanding of the child’s needs beyond the transference of knowledge?

My PGCE at the Institute Of Education clearly outlined the role other pertinent factors play in learning beyond the acquisition of knowledge- how important ethnic, cultural, religious/spiritual and social factors amongst others, played in motivating children to succeed. How can this vision of ‘raising standards’ for these ‘deprived’ children be realised if the only role-models they can find in their school are the cleaners, janitors and meal staff?

What exactly are we trying to get them to aspire to then- just being white and upper-class as the standard of achievement? Suffice to say, we are no longer in the days of empire, the sun set on it long ago, and for the state of education to be enriching for all, it has to grow to appreciate the important roles varied backgrounds and individuals can play in making it an inspiring experience for all involved in the educational transaction. Whilst all these political, economic and social games are being played, we must not forget the most important factor in all this- the children, and ask ourselves is this the best course of action for their future? Is this the future we want for them?

Readers may be interested in this research about black teachers in the UK LINK

Labour also fail to grasp the significance of Gove's education revolution

Following the Green Party Conference's  failure to approve a full review of its education policy, in consultation with teacher organisations, parents' groups and students, it appears that the Labour Party has also failed to grasp the full extent of Michael Gove's neoliberal revolution.

The following account has appeared on the Left Futures website LINK

The debate on the education section of the NPF report, on the first day of Conference, was opened by Peter Wheeler (NEC). Six delegates spoke: three prospective parliamentary candidates and three union delegates (GMB, Unison, Unite). Stephen Twigg replied to ‘discussion’. No teachers, local authority councillors, educational campaigners or university educationalists took part. This session lasted 36 minutes.

Although the nominal purpose of the session was to debate the two sections of the NPF report devoted to education no one spoke for or against anything in the report. It was a debate in name only. Had the speakers read the education section of the NPF report? Did they approve its contents? We will never know.

An innocent observer could be forgiven for wondering why the party that came to power saying that its three priorities were education, education and education could only find 36 minutes of its annual conference for the subject. Such an observer might also be forgiven for wondering how it was that all the Labour Party’s complex policy-making machinery could result in educational material for conference that passes no comment on the transformation of education under the Coalition. Schools have been removed from local authorities and made into “independent” units – often under the aegis of powerful private sponsors. Local Authorities are being progressively removed from the sphere of education and private operators play an increasing role, but none of this seems to figure in Labour’s concerns.

How is it that Labour can present policies on education which do not deal with these problem? The answer has to be that Labour does not think that such things are problems. Labour policy differs from that of the Tories/Coalition on matters of detail (which is not to deny the importance of some of those details) but on basic principles it would not be possible to get a cigarette paper between Tory and Labour Policy.

In opening, Peter Wheeler for the NEC said that Labour wants cooperation in order to produce the best education while the Tories favour division and competition. And yet the reality is that Labour and Conservatives believe that the way forward is to make schools into independent units competing for parental choice. He said that only Labour authorities were resisting Coalition policy. Sadly this is quite untrue. Some Conservative Councils have put up more resistance to Gove’s reforms than some Labour Councils.

Of the three union speakers two spoke about the importance of teaching assistants and the Coalition cuts forcing a reduction in their numbers. This is a good point but there is nothing in the NPF report about this. One speaker called for the abolition of tuition fees in FE/HE but this point was simply ignored as if it had never been said – such was the nature of the ‘debate’.

The prospective parliamentary candidates tried to raise enthusiasm with talk of Labour as the “Party of Aspiration”, denunciations of the Tories on childcare and rising child poverty, the demand for quality apprenticeships and the claim that the economy “must be powered by the many and not the few”. However, this was all speech making to move conference along and none of it had the slightest implication for the NPF report which was supposed to be under consideration.

Stephen Twigg replied to the preceding non-discussion. He talked of growing child poverty and Labour’s plan to provide child care as of right from 8.00 am to 6.00 pm. He denounced the use of unqualified teachers and claimed that Labour’s “mission” was to “place power and wealth in the hands of the many not the few”. This radical sounding statement (which has no reality in Labour policy) was immediately offset by an elitist discussion of opportunity. Success for Stephen Twigg seems to be measured by getting to a “top university” (a phrase he used three times in his eleven minutes on the podium). It seems not to have occurred to him that if a small minority of universities are designated as “top”, then by definition the great majority will not go to them. Someone should tell him that if you focus obsessively on “the best” you forget the rest.

Finally Stephen Twigg repeated Labour’s commitment to providing high quality apprenticeships for all those who do not go to university although he did not tell us how this would be achieved beyond saying that firms with government contracts would be required to provide quality apprenticeships.

For anyone following the dramatic changes to the educational landscape in England the whole debate would have had a strange air of unreality. None of the major political issues of the Gove revolution in our schools were even hinted at. For the moment Labour is still set on the educational course and the educational philosophy set by New Labour. It is a path to fragmentation and division in education. Its basis is in neo-liberal ideology and as far from a democratic and socialist perspective it is possible to be.

COPLAND’S IMPROVED A LEVEL RESULTS: A LESSON FOR GOVE AND OFSTED?

Guest post by Mistleflower

By my reckoning, the successful Copland  6^th form students who  achieved creditable and  ‘significantly improved’  results at A level this year  enjoyed their 7 years of secondary  education presided over by managements made up of :  first,  a bunch of (alleged) crooks led by a man knighted for ‘service to education’; second, a local Head brought on for a few weeks when the alleged malfeasors had suddenly to be substituted; third,  another  local Head on temporary loan for a season; and, finally,  a longer-lasting Leadership team ultimately deemed ‘Inadequate’ by Ofsted and put on a free transfer after failing to restore the school to its former glory after a difficult 3 seasons in the lower leagues. (The current management duo were drafted in too late to have had any influence on the A level results in question).  Despite all this disruption and disturbance, these Copland 6th formers seem to have flourished in their time at the school.

 Could it be that  Michael Gove, ever on the lookout for a new wheeze and a cheap headline,  will see Copland’s  improved A level results  after the school’s  unusual management journey as a potentially winning formula which he will announce at the Tory party conference  is soon to be rolled out in (state) schools across the country?  Could it be that LA  Directors of Education are  at this very moment being urged by DfE clones  to headhunt gangs of  fraudsters to help begin the ‘turning round’ of ‘failing schools’?  Have all Ofsted inspectors been ordered to produce the names of 10 ‘Inadequate’ Leaders  by noon on September 1 or face being declared ‘Inadequate’ themselves to their eternal shame and that of their children, Yea Even Unto the Tenth Generation?  Are teams of these newly-rehabilitated ‘Super-Inadequate ’ Leaders to be parachuted in to ‘failing’ schools across the nation, to begin the process  of driving up their A level results in time for the next election but one? Could it be that South Brent will soon be held up as an example of  educational ‘good practice’ in the same way that Gove has previously cited as relevant exemplars the educational systems of  Singapore, Finland, Guam,  Kyrgistan,  Vanuatu,  North Korea and the Gilbert and Ellice Islands in the days of Arthur Grimble (ask your grandad) ?

Or…………. might it just be, in fact, that these successful  Copland A level students worked pretty damn well over a period of 7 years in a school  that had been robbed blind by corruption, that was physically falling to bits, that was badmouthed by their friends and by some parts of the press (though nobly supported by others),  that was betrayed by its local authority, that was woefully mishandled by incoming ‘Leaders’ who seemed to have been briefed that the same staff who, on their own, had lanced the boil, were not really themselves  the victims of historic criminality  but were, in fact, the problem?

And could it be that these staff carried on teaching these students pretty well  over these same 7 years, trying not to be too distracted by having to spend time doing stuff the governors, the local authority or the fraud squad should have been doing   (detection, financial auditing, evidence gathering , taking witness statements,   accusation, publicising, and then union  action endangering their own livelihoods and career futures)  in order to bring to an end the haemorrhaging of millions of pounds of Brent taxpayers’ money?

 Could it be that these teachers continued teaching these students  by  using the same guiding  principles which had brought them into teaching in the first place: a respect for learning,  an affection for their students and a belief in the potential that learning has to change their students’ lives?   Could it be that they gave only weary lip-service to the  ‘Strategies for Delivering a  Good to Outstanding Lesson’  spouted at them on  INSET days by various  Leaders,  most of  whom were themselves demonstrably  incapable of producing anything approaching  the thing which they seemed to imagine  their status in the management hierarchy  gave them the authority to pontificate on?

Might we not ultimately conclude, therefore,  that the most important thing in any school has nothing to do with ‘Leadership’ and everything to do with the organic relationship between teachers and students. That the mantra taught in Leadership School ,  ‘I Am Passionate About Making a Difference ‘,  was never more than  a tired formulation , convenient for contestants on The Apprentice and  those who lack the imagination to invent their own platitudes, but one which barely conceals the barely-hidden fear of all Leaders  that maybe ‘Leadership’, in the sense that it is encountered in many of our schools, ie separate from and ‘above’ the organic teaching relationship which  is the essence of effective education , is no more than a self-serving dead end;  that most ‘Leadership’  ultimately doesn’t make  much difference at all to anything?  And might we not hope that  at least a few of the more talented individuals who have gone down the Leadership road might now see the error of their ways and  find their way back into respectable employment: as teachers?

Well done to those Copland students. You did a great job in exceptionally difficult circumstances.

Well done also to those Copland  teachers.       And, if you’ve still got a job, keep up the good work.

No Olympic legacy at Copland as Ofsted leads to sports day cancellation

Just the day before Copland Community School was to hold its eagerly awaited sports day it was cancelled by the interim headteacher who has been in post for just two weeeks. The PE department, staff and students had been planning the event for weeks.

One year after the 2012 Olympics it appears that the idea that the Olympics 'legacy' would motivate young people and enhance the status of sports in schools has been trampled into the ground.

In a letter circulated to staff  on Dr Richard Marshall's it was  stated  that because of Ofsted the school's priorities had  to change and that it was now busy 'on this new agenda'. This had made it necessary to postpone sports day until next year.

In my view, one issue that is often missed is the impact of negative Ofsted judgments and schools being put into special measures on students at the school. Feeling bad about your school and its teachers and facing negative comments from friends who attend other schools impacts on the morale and self-esteem of students.

I understand that Copland students have been circulating a petition in support of their teachers in the face of this negative publicity. The sports day decision is likely to alienate them further and perhaps will be interpreted as some kind of punishment for the school's difficulties.

Sign petition for student amnesty at Metropolitan University

This Coalition government is making a pig's ear of education policy with the news this week that a number of free schools that have been rushed through now not opening in September, leaving children without a school place, and the collective punishment of students for administrative problems at London Metropolitan University.

A petition has been launched on the latter issue which states:

We believe that it is completely contrary to natural justice that students should be punished for problems emanating from their University.

We therefore demand that the UK Border Agency agree to an immediate amnesty for the international students at London Metropolitan University affected by the Agency's decision to revoke the University's ‘Highly Trusted Status’. This would enable them to continue their studies while the problems at London Met were addressed.

We believe that the UKBA's decision is a disproportionate reaction to a situation that could be addressed without the recourse to such drastic action. The UKBA's decision punishes thousands of students who are entirely innocent of any alleged immigration breaches and sends a disastrous message to the rest of the world that UK higher education is not accessible to international students. Its actions threaten the immediate futures of thousands of London Metropolitan students, as well as the future of the University, and casts a huge shadow over the very valuable contribution that international students make to the culture and sustainability of UK higher education.

Sign the petition HERE

How will students change the face of Wembley?

Victoria Hall opposite Wembley Park station, opening September 2011

Wembley Park will soon have more than 2,500 units of private student accommodation.  Some of the accommodation replaces plans for  family housing that has become less viable in the current recession.

Under Construction:
Victoria Hall (Wembley Park) - opening September 2011 436 beds
Quintain iQ (Planning area W05) - under construction, opening 2012 660 beds
Planning granted:
Dexion House, Empire Way - 661 beds
Yet to be finally approved:
Quintain NW Lands- up to 880 beds

Total beds:  2,636

The accommodation, run by private companies, will be aimed at students attending the University of Westminster's Harrow Campus and the central London universities such as Imperial College, Kings, SOAS and the LSE.  The Council argues that it will still be able to meet its housing targets.

The Dexion House scheme also  involves the construction of a community swimming pool on the site - a welcome addition to Wembley amenities.

The Council suggests that the presence of students will boost the local economy and put a figure of £4m on annual living costs and spending of Dexion House students.   Much will depend on whether the students use the accommodation as dormitories and socialise around their college or whether they do that around Wembley. If the latter  there could be considerable changes in terms of restaurants, cafes, pubs and bookshops. The council also argues that the students will contribute by volunteering in the community and will enhance the image of the area as a safe investment.

Politically they could make a considerable difference. Tokygnton ward in which all the accommodation so far will be situated only has a population of 11,800.