Reap what we sow

Finally parental behaviour is being seen as a major influence in a child’s conduct at school. NASUWT president Amanda Haehner said today’s children are being brought up by parents as if they’re “little princes and princesses”. Parents she said need to set a better example so that their children’s behaviour in school will improve and allow teachers to teach.

But don’t hold your breath into thinking Haehner’s idea is the panacea for better behaved pupils and less stressed teachers. No there’s a lot more going on than parents by themselves will ever solve.In the past parents, Ofsted and successive ministers have all sought to blame teachers for unruly classroom behaviour. Indeed Ofsted didn’t pull their punches of reproachfulness towards their scapegoats. In January 2006 inspectors said a school in Kent was “inadequate” due to “The amount of unsatisfactory teaching in the secondary section being too high and generating too many instances of unsatisfactory behaviour”.  

These principles arose from Ofsted’s 2001 report into ‘Improving Attendance and Behaviour in Secondary Schools’. The report implied poor pupil behaviour was solely down to a teacher’s ineffective classroom management, lesson content, planning and lesson objectives. At no point did the report indicate that students were in any way to blame for disruptive behaviour. Such an unforeseen consensus between Haehner and Ofsted mitigates individual delinquency while at the same time continues the blame game. Nevertheless the new focus comes as a welcome relief to teachers especially as commonsense suggests parents are the root cause of delinquent children.

Undoubtedly parents do have a significant role in socializing their children into recognising what is right and wrong. However contemporary parenting focuses on children as ‘friends’, consequently parents are more than willing to acquiesce to the demands of their infants at the expense of saying ‘no’. A point not lost on the NUT boss Steve Sinnott who recently said some parents needed advice in how to say ‘no’ to their children. Paradoxically, though, it is parents’ very lack of self-discipline which might be causing children to act like spoilt brats.

The Guardian’s Justin Cartwright looked the way some adults behave and described it as the rise of ‘new infantilism’. Adults’ tantrums occur when they don’t get what they want it happens all the time. We all to frequently witness adults behaving like pseudo- babies when they throw their metaphorical toys around in airports, supermarkets, ‘reality’ TV shows and tackling the beleaguered traffic warden. Our children watch in fascination as the virtues of patience, courtesy, self-restraint and self-denial change currency for impudence, avarice and self-indulgence. 

Avan Offer’s book ‘The Challenge of Affluence’ blames this contemporary dynamic on prosperity. He argues that “affluence breeds impatience, and impatience undermines well-being”. Offers point is that the rapid pace of innovation and market democratisation means individuals are placing a high value on immediate satisfaction which is displacing the concept of effort and commitment towards achieving long-term goals.

Recent studies by the Association of Teachers and Lectures found children are imitating these values by dismissing any notion of deferred gratification. ATL researchers found a significant proportion of children thought academic success was pointless compared to what instant fame offered them.   Aren’t we all, in one way or another, immersed in a culture of instantaneous fulfilment. From the internet, to credit and relationships, we all want it instantly. And our children, sometime referred to as Generation Y, are deluged by this consumerist ethos of gratuitous gratification from parents, peers and the multitude of media and computer platforms.

A couple of years’ ago Dylan Jones, author and editor of GQ magazine chaired a web-chat for Washingtonpost.com regarding the attention deficit created by the iPod culture. They concluded the iPod process of instant selection had helped to displace the virtues embedded in vinyl record culture, that of patient anticipation as you waited for your favourite track. iPod processes of ‘frivolous selection’ are analogous to the selective processes evident in our ‘instant society’ which ultimately corrodes any notion of reciprocal obligations. Consequently the society we have engineered means our children grow up in a culture more akin to Dick and Dom in Da Bungalow.

Therefore isn’t it expected that after the Easter holiday the UK’s classrooms will fill up with a barrage of frantic, lively, manic teenagers constantly eager for the teacher to instantly ‘shuffle’ onto the next part of the lesson because they’re already bored with the current one. Is it really the children’s fault when they all they’re doing are behaving like consumers? Similarly is it the teachers’ fault if they can’t deliver exciting lesson day after day? And aren’t adults simply doing what the free market demands of them? So maybe the only people to blame are ourselves; collectively we created the consumerist culture these children live in. Simply making parents the new scapegoats does nothing to solve the challenge facing teachers on a daily basis and only hides our collective responsibilities to our children.

Class divided

 Calling for smaller class sizes is more than a convenient slogan – smaller classes are the mechanism for improving attainment (Peter Wilby, Inside track, 31 March). Computer-aided learning and teachers’ assistants?

Come on, that might apply in the private sector, but certainly not the state sector. Yes, state schools have teaching assistants (one per class) but usually they stop at Year 9. As for computer-aided learning, these resources are shared. Some schools are lucky to have 50 computers between 1,500 pupils, and so sometimes you’re lucky to use them once in a school year.

I teach in the state sector and achieve outstanding GCSE and A-level results in classes of 30. Yet I know I would do even better for every pupil if I had smaller class sizes. Wealthy parents are astute enough to realise this. That is why they send their children to fee-paying schools. Privileged parents use their economic advantage to purchase better teacher/pupil ratios and the associated benefits.

The smaller the class, the more time a teacher has with the individual child, hence the better their attainment. That is why the unions and some politicians go on about it. Indeed, that is why Jim Knight’s parents sent their son to Eltham College. Need I say more!

Published NewStatesman letters April 3rd

Class size furore continues

The furore regarding class sizes in state schools continues to rubble on in relation to my growing indignation over the issue.

Peter Wilby questioned the motives in this week’s New Statesman while John Redwood MP rallied his support for Jim Knight on his recent blog. Though I’ve never really agreed with much John Redwood politics (but who am I anyway) I must say I’ve always admired his powerful intellect, resilience and steadfastness in holding fast to his beliefs, a rare virtue this day and age. Unfortunately so many contemporary MPs are driven by their careers, (or wallets) rather than their beliefs and values.

Notwithstanding these musings I’ve included below the comment I posted on Mr Redwood’s blog because I feel so passionate about the role of class sizes in education. I’ll admit as with so many things in life, it’s always too simplistic to reduce them to one singular cause nevertheless I believe the following……

“Calling for smaller class sizes is more than a convenient slogan they are the mechanism to improving attainment in the state sector. Jim Knight is like a lot of commentators and politicians as they seem to live in a different universe to the rest of us. Unfortunately the majority of people live in the real world where things aren’t perfect and so class size matters more than they appreciate.

John without sounding rude you ‘visit’ schools you don’t teach in them. Yes no doubt deliver fascinating talks to captive audiences especially in the privileged sector. Try delivering your talk to a mixed ability class in a better than average comprehensive school. Then do it four my times a day without feeling exhausted and trying to captivate the indifferent.

I teach in the state sector and achieve outstanding results in GCSE and A level in classes of 30. But I know I would do even better for every pupil if I had smaller class sizes. Wealthy parents are astute enough to realise this. That’s why they send their children to fee-paying schools.” Privileged parents use their economic advantage to purchase better teacher/pupil ratios and the associated benefits. The smaller the class the more time a teacher has with the individual child hence the better their attainment. That’s why unions and some politicians go on about it so much John. Indeed that’s why Jim Knight’s parents sent their son to Eltham College – need I say more!

Size matters!

Maybe the NUT’s Steve Sinnott ought to give Jim Knight a much needed maths lesson so he could refresh his mind on the power of ratios? The larger the student/teacher ratio, the less time a teacher has with students, it’s that simple. Many parents, like Mr Knight’s, recognise this and send their children to fee-paying schools where the teacher/student ratio is significantly smaller and overall attainment is better.

On listening to Jim Knight you’d think there’s a queue of fee-paying parents trying to send their kids to schools with class-sizes of 70. No, obviously not, nobody in their right mind would do that. So why then is this privately educated MP (Eltham College) trying to convince the state educated majority that learning in large class sizes is alright? My guess is it’s more to do with the ratio of privileged minority teaching the majority their place.

© Copyright Chris Thompson (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original and leave this notice in place.

An edited version of the above was published in Guardian letters