In loco parentis
Anastasia De Waal, 2 November 2009
A recent poll conducted by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL), exposing the extent to which school staff have been wrongfully accused of malpractice by pupils, problematises the government’s circuitous route to establishing safe and settled classrooms.
The revelation that 28 per cent of teachers have faced false allegations was published just days after Education Secretary, Ed Balls, announced the full implication of Home School Agreements (behaviour contracts signed by parents on behalf of their children). Originally designed to “strengthen the school’s hand with regards to the parents,” this desperate attempt to boost the accountability of parents rather ironically provides parents with a secure platform from which they can prosecute schools over disruptive pupils. Schools are passing the buck to the parents, only to have it passed back to them.
Two questions arise: given the leverage parents now have, can we expect the number of misleading allegations against school staff to rise? And, just as potentially devastating, to what extent are we undermining the authority of those professionals in charge of children in the classroom?
In a review of the ATL report, sociologist Frank Furedi writes, “Education works best when it is underpinned by a genuine intergenerational conversation. Ideally, through such a conversation, the experience and wisdom of the adult world is transmitted to children.” Unfortunately for the unyielding bureaucrats in the system, pushing pieces of paper backwards and forwards does not constitute a conversation. Tackling the challenges unruly pupils present requires a secure collective responsibility between the school, parent and, most crucially, the child. The current scenario where the child appears to have been lost amongst the paperwork is surely the ‘malpractice’ which we ought to be most worried about.
By Annaliese Briggs
Excellent point by Matt Knott.
The sooner that teachers feel as though they are influencing policy the better.
Highly problematic of course. IMO, we need to remove the Unions as the default body for teachers making their voices heard.
Peter Davey has obviously not taught in comprehensive schools. Yes poor (or average) teachers should not be tolerated but this is not the issue. Nor are bad parents. The issues and behaviours of pupils that enter schools have not changed over the last twenty years. Most teachers I have come across are extremely able individuals who taught because they loved teaching and were very good at it. Many left because of the lack of political will to stand up to poor behaviour instigated by Government policy dictated by think-tanks top down from the cabinet office through Ministries. The effect has been appalling not only in terms of education but also in the form of crime on our streets.
Unless teachers are valued and listened to and given the powers to maintain basic discipline no progress can be made. Along with this must come a higher status for teachers in the form of more accountability and better rewards in terms of pay and the satisfaction of doing a good job not held back by school led cowardice in the face of bullying and harassment by pupils. Schools should be given more freedom to run their own affairs within the law of the United Kingdom (with EC legislation held back by a Sovereignty bill) which actually gives powers to Headteachers to deal with indiscipline in their schools. The General Teaching Council registration should be independent of Government and policy advisors and should be a pre-requisite for all teachers in the UK not just state employed. This will bring a focus to their deliberations in favour of the delivery of better pupil education (at the expense of social reform).
The debate on this issue is extremely poor. It is about time that it got better. Its importance is extreme in for the future of this country.
The lack of pupil discipline that teachers have to put up with in comprehensive schools makes me extremely angry. They are treated almost with contempt (and their salaries reflect this) by policy makers, politicians and academics. Never are they actually asked about policy. Why do they put up with bullying and harrasment on a daily basis by pupils who the state decree cannot be touched? Surely the consequences are educational failure all round?
I once engaged in some correspondence with one of my old teachers, concerning the quality of teaching provided by my (Senior) School.
In a surprisingly frank reply, he admitted that there were some (very) “square pegs in round holes” at Bournemouth School, but that, short of their being convicted of either embezzlement or the sexual abuse of their pupils, it was “effectively impossible” to remove any of them.
There was an article on education in the “Daily Mail” a week ago, which included a mention of an English teacher so incompetent that none of her pupils gained the relevant certificate, but who could not be removed because she enjoyed the backing of the NUT.
Perhaps we could have a new kind of Home School Agreement – one where the School promises the parents that it will do all it can to educate their children.
Since teachers are, as your article suggests, calling for more justice and fairness in their dealings with their pupils, they must surely welcome such a move forward.