In the majority of cases, though, your school stumps the cash for you to go because, even if you don’t get a copy of the forthcoming exam paper, these meetings give you a vital insight into how to improve your pupils’ grades; something your career, your pay packet and your school’s future depend upon. The main function of these seminars is simply to translate exam board jargon, often so bewildering in official documents, into friendly English.

The scales have fallen from my eyes in a few of these meetings. For example, a few years back I taught an A-level English language course and my students had been getting consistently poor results in one unit; I’d read and re-read the bumpf – the mark schemes, the examiners’ reports – but it hadn’t helped. Then I attended a meeting and was told a few key things, among which was the importance of fostering genuinely personalised responses among my pupils; and the examiner explained how to do this. I changed the way I taught and was rewarded with considerably better results.

This anecdote is significant in the light of the furore caused by the Telegraph’s undercover reporting. On the whole, exam boards are not telling teachers exam questions so that pupils can be spoon-fed the answers, but quite the opposite. They are reassuring teachers that the questions are predictable, in order to try to persuade them that students will get the best marks if they come up with their own ideas rather than producing copy-cat generic answers to what are essentially generic questions.

This “cloning” is happening because all GCSEs and A-levels are now marked by measuring the degree to which pupils meet the relevant assessment objectives (AOs); these are essentially the key subject skills. Exam questions are shaped by the AOs; this means the questions are rarely surprising. For example, in my own subjects, English and media, I feel confident about the types of questions that will be asked in the exams, even if I can’t be sure of the exact wording.

An examiner could therefore point teachers in the right direction – perhaps misinterpreted by the Telegraph as telling teachers the questions – without feeling that he or she was saying anything new; most teachers would have guessed what questions were going to come up anyway.

Exam boards have put a renewed focus upon “personal response” (somewhat ironic considering their questions are anything but). This is a noble aim but I’m not sure the current regime of exams is delivering the originality of thought that we all want. Exhaustive academic research into this area was conducted by the Assessment Reform Group in schools. Its report, Fit for purpose? seriously questions the validity, reliability and cost-effectiveness of our national assessment system, finding it to have a negative impact upon the quality of teaching in classrooms, pupil motivation and “genuine” standards. While I don’t agree with everything the group says, I think its powerful, evidence-based arguments have never been taken seriously enough by the powers that be. Let’s hope this latest debacle leads on to a more serious debate about the role of exams in our schools.

Related posts:

1. Exam boards are failing our pupils
2. Tory free schools will spread inequality
3. Child Language Mock Exam Question 2 by FGI/Myszor

An explanation of Exposure:

Pathetic Fallacy in Exposure:

Structure and Para-rhyme in Exposure:

Alliteration in Exposure and Spring Offensive:

The background to Exposure:

An explanation of Spring Offensive:

Related posts:

1. The role of families in war poetry; Spring Offensive; In Flanders’ Field and ‘The Falling Leaves’
2. Wilfred Owen’s poetry — a Prezi with links to YouTube explanations of the poems
3. The Machine Gunners — Teaching Activities, links and videos

Related posts:

1. Using personal experience to improve your writing
2. A presentation on the problems with Free Schools
3. An introduction to A2 Media Studies OCR, Collective Identity

This is her explanation of how she came to write the book:

Related posts:

1. Composed on Westminster Bridge — an explanation for GCSE English Literature Podcast
2. My YouTube videos which explain Wilfred Owen’s Exposure and Spring Offensive
3. “You are an arrogant, young man”

But first, a definition: to understand where I’m coming from, it helps to understand the word “yob,” which is Victorian slang for “boy,” and has come to mean anyone (usually a young man) who is loutish in his behavior, whether this is in the way he talks, his verbal abuse, or in his physical aggression.

Like many secondary-school teachers, I’ve encountered my fair share of teenage yobbery. When I first started teaching in Stepney Green, east London, not far from where some of the London riots took place, the kids at the school would run up behind me and hit me on the back of the head, frequently yelling abuse or mocking me. My classes were riotous during my first years; objects were regularly thrown, abusive language was commonplace, and, during one lesson, all the furniture was pushed out of my room. At another school, the teenage boys would often fire pea-shooters at me when my back was turned; some threw pins, other put ripped cans on my chair. Vandalism, theft, and verbal threats were everyday occurrences. As teachers, we became hardened, perhaps even brutalized, by the atmosphere; either you left, or you put up with it.

During my first decade as teacher I learned that your classic yob in school looks for “special occasions” which give permission for them to be particularly foully behaved: school trips, break-times or even certain lessons. The worst behavior I’ve seen often occurs on last days of term. I’ve just published a novel, The Last Day Of Term, which depicts one of these nightmarish days; threaded through it are things I’ve seen first-hand and stories culled from colleagues. The departing pupils shoot fireworks at their teachers, causing one of them to have a heart attack, and they smash the glass façade of their shiny new school. The chief instigators are a gang, led by a charismatic leader who stirs everyone else up to cause mayhem.

This is exactly how incidents like the London riots happen: a few persuasive yobs use a particular event as justification—in this case it was the police shooting of Mark Duggan—and exhort their mates to “kick off.” These London gangs are doing on a much larger scale what they do habitually: parading their strength. A yob, as opposed to a genuine criminal, is a dramatic figure who wants to publicly show his power; he wants the TV cameras to see how great he is. That’s the whole point. Criminals, on the other hand, are secretive, because their criminality is simply a means to an end, usually money. While yobs may want to steal, that’s not their primary purpose; their ultimate pleasure is knowing that they’re feared.

Nowadays, schools are getting very adept at dealing with these characters. The school where I first was regularly physically and verbally abused as a teacher is now one of the most improved in the country. The useless head I worked for was sacked and now it’s run by a no-nonsense, hard-line teacher who doesn’t tolerate misbehavior. He and his senior management go around the school constantly with a loud megaphone and pull any miscreants out of lessons. Above all, the head finds out why these children are being so difficult. Sometimes it’s because they’re very weak academically, sometimes it’s due to poor parenting, or, with others, it’s simply that they’re a bit wild. The academically weak ones are obliged to attend “catch up” literacy and numeracy classes; the mentally disturbed are found counselors; the “naughty ones” get long detentions. No wonder the school’s results are now on a level with some of the best comprehensives in the country. These kids are exactly the same as the ones that I encountered, and when they’re outside school, trouble still occurs. In my experience, it doesn’t necessarily follow that well-educated disaffected youths are better behaved than ill-educated ones. On the contrary, the better educated your alienated teenager, the bigger the problem for society.

You could argue that their improved education has possibly made our young people savvier — and angrier. Burdened with debt, unable to enjoy the wealth of the older generations, and with poor job prospects, our “kidults”—as the seminal film about English yobs, Kidulthood, dubbed them—yearn to be famous, sexy and successful; to be the new Tinie Tempah, Plan B, or Jordan. And yet deep in their hearts, they know this is an impossible dream. As a result, our young people are alienated like no generation before them. A resident from Clapham, Jeremy Yates, says that the youths attacking his presumably well-off part of town shouted: “you are rich, we are poor” and “we rule London tonight, not you.”

Related posts:

1. Yobs on the job
2. The hippest, edgiest pop stars attended state schools! (Only the wimps went to private schools)
3. Why are “free” schools getting so much money when most schools are seeing their budgets cut?

Observer columnist Barbara Ellen and teacher Francis Gilbert debate whether children and parents would benefit from a shorter summer break

Barbara Ellen: Francis, I would always have argued that school holidays are too long. For parents, that is. A case of: “My child, I would fight a lion for you, but if you ask me to play another game of Connect 4, I may have to suffocate myself with Moon Sand.” Now, with Michael Gove proposing shorter breaks for free schools, the feeling is growing that school holidays are too long for children, too. Leastways underprivileged children, who hold their own during the academic term but fall behind every summer because they miss out on the stimulation and structure better-off parents are able to provide throughout the holidays. It’s disadvantage piled upon disadvantage – how is this fair?

Francis Gilbert: Barbara, the summer holidays are the great gift of liberty that we give to our children – and curmudgeonly parents and politicians deprive children of their liberty at their peril. The summer hols are a prolonged period in which our children can find out who they really are and really be themselves – without the restrictive rules and regulations of school to confine them.

Yes, I concede your point that we know that poorer children can suffer a “dip” in their academic performance over the summer, but this issue is much more complex than it first appears. In some boroughs, such as Tower Hamlets, where I live, the poorest children’s academic performance has actually significantly improved in recent years for a number of reasons, one of which has been the improved provision that the borough has provided during the summer holidays.

Activities such as tennis, canoeing, trips away and film-making are all now offered free of charge during this time. The point is that the activities are voluntary. I firmly believe that giving children this choice about what to do really helps them establish a firmer sense of identity and autonomy. Poorer children have benefited massively. Let’s help all areas provide this wealth of activities that raise aspirations rather than locking children up in school all summer.

BE: While I applaud the efforts of Tower Hamlets, sadly this is not the norm nationally. As a rule, disadvantaged families must fill the weeks by themselves, and cash-poor, time-poor parents cannot provide tennis, film-making or canoeing. Which is why, as borne out by US research from as far back as 1968, poorer children fall behind during the holiday period, while the better‑off thrive, both academically and in terms of hinterland. As for children “really being themselves… without restrictive rules and regulations”, this may have been true of our summers, but does anyone allow children to wander free and unregulated any more? In the 21st century, parents (or carers) are omnipresent. Times have changed, shouldn’t school holidays?

FG: I’m glad that we’re both agreed that it’s vitally important to raise the aspirations and achievements of our poorest children but I’m not convinced that shortening the summer holiday is the answer. The reasons why children from poor backgrounds do badly at school are complex; social, economic, psychological and educational factors all play a role. Pinning the blame on summer holidays is facile.

It’s also worth pointing out that 80% of our children are not living in poverty. Are you saying that they too should be staying at school longer, despite the fact that they all want to keep the summer holidays as they are? Indeed, when I discussed the issue with my pupils – rich and poor – they were so incensed by the notion that their freedom would be curtailed that they made some “protest” posters in response, saying things such as they would have nothing to look forward to during term-time and that shorter holidays would make them unhappier.

BE: Francis, well done to your pupils for their posters, and their spirited defence of summer freedoms. However, it’s all a question of framing. Children may feel “free” in summer, and that’s great for them, but for many parents, the overlong holidays are a headache and an expense.

Not only are you supposed to provide non-stop entertainment for weeks on end, now it seems there must also be an element of “home-schooling” and “self improvement”, lest your child be one of those who fall behind. Isn’t this the government backing away from the problem as if it’s nothing to do with them?

The expected result would be the more moneyed parents running around, keeping up with the tutoring, extra-reading, rural walks, library visits, chosen sports, et al. Meanwhile the stressed poorer parent hasn’t the time or the cash to compete. These parents are unable to add what amounts to “education-lite” or “holistic boost” to their summer “to do” list. So, unless you’re lucky enough to be in a borough such as Tower Hamlets, the poorer families have no chance.

I agree that there are many complex ingrained and toxic reasons why poorer children fare less well at school, and these need addressing with great urgency. I also sympathise with schoolchildren and of course their overworked teachers, who are desperate for the respite of the long summer holidays.

Then again, “Hard cheds!” as we used to say in my comp playground. Just because something has always happened one way, it doesn’t mean it’s always going to be the best way. A problem has been identified, and if there’s a chance that amending it would hugely benefit underprivileged kids, removing just some of the hurdles they face, then shouldn’t we at least give it a go?

FG: Barbara, we’re really getting to the root of the matter here because your response ultimately raises a crucial question: what are the respective roles of parents and teachers in this modern, high-octane society?

As a teacher, I do think that many parents need to stop panicking about being bad parents. Your list of things that parents should be doing with their children is depressing because underlying it is the notion that parents should be “instructing” their children – that they should be surrogate teachers – rather than providing the love and attention that our children desperately need. It’s actually abdication of responsibility because many parents substitute activities for love.

I’d like to say to a lot of parents I come across: “Forget all that nightmarish ‘hothousing’ advice that clogs up the press, and just pay some attention to your child! Talk to them about what they’re interested in, share meals with them, enjoy being in their company…”

That’s enough; the summer holidays are a great time to chill out, no matter how rich or poor you are. Leave the teaching to the teachers.

After the hols, I get my pupils to write a letter to me telling me about themselves and what they’ve done in the summer. Having done this for nearly 20 years, I can predict the life-chances of my pupils not by how “hot-housed” they’ve been, but by how happy they seem in their letter. The happiest children speak about enjoying the supposedly mundane things in life with their families: going shopping, cooking dinner, tidying up even! Their letters glow with love.

The summer holidays should be a time when parents rediscover or reaffirm their love for their children. As John Lennon sang in the quintessential summer of 1967, “All you need is love…”

A protest poster produced by my pupils

A more detailed argument about why we must save our summer hols

Related posts:

1. Let’s support the summer reading challenge and get every child reading!
2. Is extending the school day the key to raising standards?
3. Is extending the school day the key to raising standards?

The government’s decision to drastically downgrade the value of vocational qualificationsis deeply troubling for teachers like me, and must be sending many schools and colleges into a tailspin of despair.

At the moment over half a million teenagers are studying vocational qualifications, which count as the equivalent of a number of GCSEs for the purposes of the school league tables. For example, students doing courses like a National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) diploma in building and construction will gain the equivalent of a number of GCSEs – sometimes as many as six – if he or she passes the course, and this will correspondingly count on a school’s league table results. The government is now saying that such courses will only count as one GCSE, despite the fact that they occupy far more curriculum time than your average GCSE, involving as they do constant “on-the-job training and assessment”.

Vocational qualifications have been set up so that they develop things like students’ numeracy and literacy skills, their ability to problem-solve and to communicate effectively. These are all key skills that employers are crying out for. Furthermore, vocational qualifications aren’t “cowboy” qualifications, snuck in by the backdoor to boost school league-table results; they were scrupulously monitored by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority so that rigorous standards imbued every course. Vocational qualifications were the equivalent of a number of GCSEs with some justification.

Sadly, though, this government clearly doesn’t value the 4,827 vocational qualifications on offer: what this announcement effectively means is that vocational qualifications are going to be junked by the vast majority of schools and replaced with more “respectable” but much less engaging academic courses.

This is a tragedy for all our young people because many teachers increasingly feel that a lot of our “academic” GCSEs and A-levels, whose content and approach were developed in the Victorian era, are just not suitable for our pupils anymore. Even our most “academic” students find them offputting. I see this first hand through teaching an “old-fashioned” qualification, English literature, and a more vocational one, media studies. Contrary to the myths generated by ill-informed journalists and politicians, media studies is a rigorous and demanding subject, which not only develops “academic” skills such as analysis, but also gets students actively learning because they make their own films, newspapers, blogs and websites. In stark contrast, with English literature I am increasingly seeing students who resent reading literature that seems to them hopelessly out of date and irrelevant – despite my best efforts to prove otherwise. The vast majority of students dutifully jump through the hoops set for them by the exam, but are they are really learning much? I worry not. They’d all learn a lot more if they were doing a vocational subject such as media studies – and they’d enjoy it.

Alison Wolf, the government’s expert on the issue, said in her review of vocational education: “Good vocational programmes are … respected, valuable and an important part of our, and any other country’s, educational provision.” If the government’s own expert thinks this, why are they devaluing these vitally important qualifications?

Related posts:

1. Five reasons why Media Studies is a great subject
2. Why does Gove believe dead languages and Ancient History are more important to learn than the Arts, R.E, Sports and Technology?
3. Are the government’s claims that it’s saved funding for school sport a sham?

I find headlines like this depressing because they actually tell us very little about what is really going on in schools. I suspect, though I certainly can’t prove, that government cut-backs have probably had an effect on children’s behaviour because valuable support such as having pastoral staff being paid to do things like make home-school contact and support teachers have been drastically cut recently.

Having engaged in various media debates about behaviour over the years, I’ve increasingly come to the conclusion that it’s impossible to generalise about behaviour in schools. My novel, that I’ve just published, The Last Day Of Term, details a fictional inner-city school which contains some very bad behaviour — there’s a major riot which leads to the death of a teacher — and yet, I think I make it clear that some teachers conduct very orderly lessons even within this context. The fact is that children who may be very poorly behaved with one teacher or in a particular context, actually behave well in others.

I’ve seen children rioting in some of the top schools in the country, not because the school was inherently poor but because the teacher just couldn’t keep control. Usually, the worst teachers are the ones that blame everyone — the system, the senior management, the curriculum etc — except themselves for the poor behaviour in their classrooms. Katherine Birbalsingh, the ex-deputy head, who is currently making a living out of saying all of our schools are riven with poor behaviour, seems just such a (ex) teacher.

But it gets more complicated than that. Even in lessons where some children may be running amok, other children may well be learning a lot. I’ve taken lessons like this myself; basically, I’ve realised that it’s useless trying to admonish certain pupils constantly, and far better to concentrate upon pupils who are willing to learn. This has worked better than trying to be “strict” and running detention after detention for pupils. So I’ve got the good pupils working in groups and given the more difficult ones exercises which they can cope with, learn from in a meaningful fashion and work on autonomously. The atmosphere hasn’t been very strict but it’s worked in the long run because there’s more of a positive vibe. One positive effect of a classroom where things are a bit “riotous” is that pupils know they have to do the work for themselves, that they have to work independently, that the teacher isn’t going to spoon-feed them. What educationalists call “deep learning” can really occur in them because the pupil and teacher have to encourage autonomy and intrinsic motivation. Teachers who are very strict can create the “surface” appearance of genuine learning, but often pupils feel too frightened to ask if they don’t understand and tend to imitate the teacher rather than genuinely learning about a subject themselves.

Related posts:

1. Can computer games help children to learn to read?
2. The worst classroom bullies? Politicians
3. State schools: are they failing our children?

I attended the Teach First Awards this Thursday and interviewed some of the award winners afterwards. The ceremony was your average award winning affair: lots of praise for sponsors and quite a bit of back-slapping. I like the Teach First programme because it has at its heart the idea of promoting good teaching — which is surely what it’s all about — but it’s worth remembering that even if Teach First becomes the largest graduate employer in the country by employing over a 1,000 graduates, it will still amount to less 1% of the teaching workforce. Teach First’s impact, while important, is always going to be small. Its value is perhaps more symbolic than anything else. This said, I do believe we have a lot to learn from its best teachers. I shot some video footage on my Flip camera and put together this short film about the key elements of good teaching, based on what the award winners told me. The winners interviewed on the film are:

Primary Excellence Award – winner: Kate Barron, from Manorfield Primary School, Tower Hamlets, London

Janette Butler from P&G who presented the award said: “Kate spent a great deal of time in the beginning of the year setting relevant and ambitious visions and goals for her students. She enthused them about writing – even starting a ‘Young journalists’ Club where they created their own newsletter for the school.  This participant worked tirelessly to help her students progress. In just one example, she focussed on a boy who over the years had fallen far behind. With her help, this student began to make progress – for the first time in four years.  As his confidence grows, this young man’s results are continuing to improve against all expectations…including his own.”

STEM Excellence Award – winner: Joshua Eisenthal, Physics teacher, Capital City Academy, Brent, London

Peter Silcock from Credit Suisse who presented the award said: “Joshua consistently identifies underachievers and analyses reasons why they aren’t progressing, using others to help him apply new interventions to raise his pupil’s attainment. He has put a lot of time into his year 13 physics class this year, most of whom have applied to study physics at university. One of his pupils under direct coaching and mentoring applied to Oxford and has been given a conditional offer. If he achieves the required ‘A’ level results he will be the first pupil at the school to gain a place at Oxbridge.”

The Excellence Award – winner: Fiona Docherty, Business Studies teacher, Walworth Academy Southwark

Glenn Earle from Goldman Sachs who presented the award said: “The nominations for Fiona all describe dedication, commitment, drive, modesty and sheer hard work in all areas of school life, which set her apart.  As a business teacher she treats all her students as young business people, shaking their hands as they enter the classroom.  She sets exceptionally high standards and is relentless at ensuring her pupils progress. As a result they have achieved well above their target grades.  In fact five of her students achieved A stars in their GCSE mocks – considerably higher than predicted. Her colleagues say she has raised the aspirations of her pupils by organising trips to multi-national companies as well as organising after school activities….an inspiration not only to her students but to other teachers at the school as well.

Related posts:

1. Have government policies failed to teach our nation to read?
2. How to analyse a poem: a Gilbert vodcast on “The Sick Rose”
3. Kelly gives Labour its best day this term

For an English teacher like me, this is the Holy Grail: if one of my pupils actually enjoys reading, then everything else follows; happiness at school, success in the classroom, and, even if takes time, good exam results. The Summer Reading Challenge website is brilliant because it enables parents, teachers and anyone interested to find librarians who can come into schools or community centres and help get children reading. Most importantly, it’s all about enjoyment and finding books that children like — because they are out there! Good librarians know how to get even the most reluctant readers digging books.

This info from the website: “The national Summer Reading Challenge, coordinated by The Reading Agency, is run in 97% of UK public libraries. With 760,000 children aged 4-11 taking part, the Summer Reading Challenge is the biggest national reading initiative. It runs in libraries throughout the summer holidays, with incentives, activities and events designed to create a real buzz around children’s reading. The challenge is simple – to read six or more library books over the summer.”

Check it out now!

Related posts:

1. Are the school summer holidays just too long?
2. Don’t panic about your child’s schooling!
3. The National Scandal! Teaching Reading — my correspondence with Susan Godsland at the RRF