Teacher knows best?

Maybe I’m thinking outside of the box here, but surely the people who know education best are those entrenched in it? The front line. The actual teachers and head teachers.

Instead, policy is set by the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, formerly one half of the Secretary of State for Education. This position is currently held by one Edward Balls, who’s an economist. Not a teacher. He never has been – as far as I can discover – involved in the teaching profession other than by being a student.

So, given the decline in educational standards that’s pervaded our system for the last dozen-or-so years, what on earth makes him think he’s right in what he does and that teachers shouldn’t be listened to when they’re discussing their own profession? I’m not saying teachers aren’t as good, or as dedicated. I’m saying the infrastructure they’re forced to work within is screwed and makes their jobs far harder than they should be.

The current news story is one of the two main teaching unions deciding to boycott SATs exams for 11 year-olds next year. From their professional point of view, the exams are a waste of time and serve only to feed league tables – something our current government loves and has adopted for many of the public services.

Thing is, I agree with them. Exams are fine in certain circumstances but when trying to prove the worth of a school they’re utterly pointless. It’s easy to train someone monkey-fashion to pass exams, especially 11 year-old children. Instead of being taught about a subject, teachers are forced to teach them how to pass a certain set of exams. This narrows the educational spectrum massively and serves no purpose for the children whatsoever.

All you have to do is look back to the 60s when we had an educational system to be proud of. Exams were hard. I defy anyone to compare a 1965 O-level in maths and the 2009 GCSE equivalent and tell me that they’ve not become easier. Leaving aside the Imperial system used back then (I admit that would make things more difficult in itself) but the breadth and depth of the subject matter is far greater in the older papers than the current ones.

In a bid to make our schools seem better, we’re making things easier for children. Seriously, what is the point in ensuring that 30% pass with A-grades (or whatever the figure is) if we’re managing that by lowering the standards? Part of the reason we have to lower the standards is that teachers currently have to waste so much time coaching children through exams every other year.

We already live in a society where children (and adults) are handed things on a platter. By making schooling easier, we’re ensuring the production of generations which feel they don’t have to work that hard – if at all – to achieve what they want. Generations that’ll settle for what they can get with minimum effort.

No wonder the country’s in a complete mess. If something’s worth having, you have to work for it.

Now, I just want to make it clear that my criticism here is not levelled at teaching staff or the pupils themselves. It’s at the system, and at the government(s) that have created this system. As with much of our social infrastructure, the whole thing needs torn down and redesigned. Remember that old “back to basics” promise we were given? Why can’t we have that?

And isn’t one of the most basic things taking a person from within an organisation and promoting them to the top – simply as they have a lifetime of experience from which to draw? So how’s about making an ex-head teacher the next Secretary for Education?

Or is that too much like common sense?