Where are all the men?

An article in this week's TES highlights a problem I have been aware of for a long time. There are not enough men teaching in primary schools. In my class at teacher training college, of 28 trainees only three were male. Of these three men brave enough to enter such an intrinsically female-dominated profession, two were P.E. specialists. This imbalance is one found across the country, with one in ten primary schools having no male teachers at all.

Much of the problem is to do with old-fashioned perspectives of gender roles, something that is even seen by those men that manage slip through the net. The TES refers to Carl Pattison, who is the sole male teacher in his school.

"He has been mothered by female teachers and gets extra helpings from the kitchen staff, but then he is six foot tall. As payback, he is expected to sort out electrical equipment and do any heavy lifting."

There are certain expectations, even in today's society, of what is 'men's' and what is 'women's work.' Teaching of young children is traditionally seen as a female role, and the figures certainly reflect that. Men who do choose to go into the profession often face teasing and prejudice from other men, ranging from being labelled as gay, to being called a paedophile. Whilst the latter is a very extreme reaction, it is true that parents often feel less comfortable with male teachers. This is especially true with teachers of nursery and infant children. Why this is, there is no real logic, beyond maybe the intrinsic stereotypes we all live by.

This is something, however, that needs to be addressed. Primary aged children need role models of both genders, particularly young boys, who frequently struggle at primary school with subjects like Literacy. Carl believes boys find it easier to relate to him as a man, and can share his experiences to help inspire them.

"He talks in class about his dislike of literacy lessons when he was at school, and reckons his choice of reading material – football magazines and autobiographies – can appeal to boys who are turned off by books."

Men in the classroom bring something new to the table; a different perspective, a different style of teaching. This is definitely something that needs to be encouraged.

On the other side of the fence, the BBC today reports a survey showing that, despite a rise, there is still a disproportionate number of female headteachers in primary schools.

"The NCSL's Women in Headship study found that 87% of primary school teachers are women but only 67% of heads are."

This is yet more proof that the gender divide is alive and kicking in our schools. If this does not get resolved soon, then we will end up educating a new generation of children with equally limited views of what that could and should achieve. How to sort out this problem, I do not know; maybe the Training and Development Agency for Schools will shed some light when they publish their research in September. We can but hope.

Admission of failure?

So, last week was so-called "Super Tuesday", or "A-Day", the time when parents of 11-year olds across England found out if their child was accepted into the secondary school of their choice. The government's beloved mantra of 'choice' was well and truly tested, and if last Tuesday was an 11-plus, would have undoubtedly been sent to a Secondary Modern. One in five did not get their first choice of school, but that isn't even the main story. The real sting in the tail was when Ed Balls was forced to admit that some schools were found to be charging parents to secure places.

This shocking revelation was almost a case of life imitating art. The BBC1 schools drama Waterloo Road showed the head of an unpopular inner-city comprehensive school, paying middle-class families to send their gifted children to the school, in an attempt to inspire the more underprivileged students. This seemed an implausible notion, pure fiction, yet at the opposite end of the scale the practice has been proven to occur.

This is an appalling state of affairs, yet some experts believe it is inevitable. Anne West from London School of Economics has investigated admissions procedures.

"Where schools are responsible for their own admissions ... some are likely to use whatever means they can to select their own intake"

There is a certain logic to this, because obviously schools will want to make their lives as easy as possible, and choosing the 'best' pupils will help them achieve their targets and ultimately secure more funding. However, a situation where children are being turned away from the school nearest to them, because they do not come from the 'right family' is something best left in Victorian days. David Laws, schools spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, thinks that the increase in specialism is the problem.

"Ministers should remove the back door power of selection from schools, such as specialist and foundation schools, and concentrate on making every school a good school."

One TV news reporter actually said something akin to children being forced to attend schools which were "simply not good enough." The focus should not be on everyone getting their choice, but to make sure are no 'bad schools' for children to be 'stuck with'. Teachers are trained to the same standards; schools are Ofsted inspected and targeted to the point of death, so why there are still 'good' and 'bad' schools, I am not certain. But I'm sure many teachers teaching in challenging schools will have plenty to say about that and put me right.

However, I am not against specialism or selection per se. I went to one of the few remaining state grammar schools, and think they do the world of good for children with an aptitude for the more academic subjects. Taking the test was entirely voluntary, so there's no pressure on those whose skills lie in other areas. There are sports colleges, language colleges, technology colleges, ICT colleges, music colleges and vocational academies. Why should there not be the choice of a school that excels in academic subjects? Gifted children frequently struggle in comprehensive schools because doing well is seen as 'showing off'. In my opinion, making all schools equal is not the right way to go, as all children aren't equal; they have different needs, which different schools could meet. Choice is a good thing in theory, it's just the practicalities that need ironing out.

Mickey Mouse Studies

In 2003, then Higher Education Minister Margaret Hodge branded certain degree courses, such as Media Studies, "Mickey Mouse" degrees. Five years later, research has been published suggesting she may have been justified. The QCA report aimed to compare standards between subjects at A-Level, to decide once and for all whether some were 'easy options'.

Although the report itself found "little evidence that the A-level subjects sometimes described as 'soft' were any less demanding than their more established counterparts", the headline most of the papers chose to go for, was some form of "Media Studies is easy." Indeed, there was a 'slightly' lower standard of work expected of students in Media Studies at grades A and E compared to those achieving the same grades in English and History. However, the study did not take into account coursework, some 40% of the marks! The only place in the mainstream press I found that picked up on the unreliability was the Guardian's 'mortarboard' blog.

"According to Cambridge Assessment's research director, the QCA book on comparability was "high quality", but the report was a "highly defective" mixture of unreliable results and contradictory assertions.

This is the real story - that the research is so poor. But will anyone heed this complaint? Sadly, what is most likely to stick in peoples' minds, confirming unfair assumptions as it seems to, is that media studies is somehow less worthy. Is it?"

That is an interesting question. Public perception tends to be that yes, Media Studies is an easy ride and doesn't actually mean anything. The more classical subjects such as the aforementioned English and History are seen to have more depth and substance to them, and a qualification in them to be somehow more impressive. However, in today's world, the media has an infinite amount more power and influence in society than any Emily Bronte novel or William Blake poem. The key themes of life and love, triumph and tragedy, sex, drugs and religion can be as easily analysed through a catalogue of screen offerings, as through the works of literature. As History defines the past, Media defines the present. How this can be seen as unworthy, I do not know.

Saying that, there was a specific reason I chose not to take Media Studies myself; it is seen as a joke by the very industry its students hope to by employed in. The full title of my degree is "New Media Journalism with PR", yet when I'm asked I drop the "New Media" prefix. It somehow has more gravitas, although changes nothing of the nature of the course. This writer in the Independent sums up the attitudes of many media professionals I have spoken to in the past.

"Journalism is just a trade where the gifted, the average and the incompetent sit side by side in the same office producing work of varying quality. Least of all is it an academic discipline, though undertaking a demanding course in something else at university is the best preparation for it. Were I still an editor, I wouldn't offer a job to a graduate in media studies; I would always prefer that the applicant had been tested in one of the older disciplines"

As a fast-moving young industry, these old-school attitudes about the subject may die out in a matter of years. Until then, Media Studies is certainly not the easy option; for those who want a career in the media, it may be the hardest option of all.

(For those interested in the full QCA report you can find it here.)

Educating into debt

The Guardian this week published statistics showing Universities to be in a state of serious debt crisis. Some, such as Manchester University, owe as much as £12.4million.

Despite this, Phil Harding, chairman of the British Universities Finance Directors Group, doesn't seem at all worried. He said, in the Guardian:

"I think we are borrowing with a degree of confidence and a reasonable expectation the cap on tuition fees will either come off or be lifted so that universities will be able to charge higher fees."

So, the plan is seemingly to spend now in anticipation of increased income from students in the future. The wisdom of this is questionable. With fees already in excess of £3,000 per year, is it fair to expect students to pay so much? An Equifax study last week estimated the average student starting university this year will graduate with £30,000 of debt. Yet the strategy still appears to be to solve institutional debt crisis by causing individual debt crises. We are educating our students into debt and that cannot be good. With consumer indebtedness at record levels, the culture of borrowing is one that should be counteracted, not encouraged.

The Liberal Democrats have a different theory about funding of higher education, which often makes them popular amongst students. Speaking in The Guardian, their higher education and skills spokesman Stephen Williams said:

"Universities should be making a plea for extra central government funds rather than anticipating passing the bill on to future students."

This standpoint makes more sense to me, as individuals shouldering such massive burdens of debt before even considering a mortgage, is surely undesirable. Donald MacLeod in the Guardian makes the point that "on the average graduate salary of £18,000, repayments are £5.19 a week. In that sense, it's more like a tax." If that is the case, then why not just rebrand it as a graduate tax? The Sutton Trust report claims that it is the perception rather than reality of debt that is deterring poorer students from University. As someone who has spent periods as a full-time taxpayer as well as a student, I would have no problems with paying extra tax to support future students through Higher Education.

Thames Valley University, where I am a student, was noted in the Guardian piece as one of the worst indebted. The Guardian reported the debt at £5.8million, whereas the Times Higher Education Supplement quotes a deficit last year of £6.5million.

Yet today, it was revealed the institution is undertaking a restructuring programme that will include a £60million spend on estates. Questions of priorities arise when, from a student's perspective, it appears money is being spent on repainting corridors when people struggle to find a functioning computer in certain faculty buildings. Within this development budget, is included a £6.7million grant from the government. It will be interesting to see if the results provide the 'value for money' the government demands from its public services.

A Culture of Change

Mention the phrase ‘new initiative’ to most teachers, and you’ll see them visibly recoil. Yet this Wednesday, Ed Balls announced the latest in a seemingly unending line of initiatives that would undoubtedly revolutionise teaching. This time, the target was ‘culture’, a subject hard to define in any circumstances, not least within the prescriptive confines of the standardised National Curriculum.

Each pupil should experience a minimum of five hours per week ‘high culture’, so say the Government, although how this should be delivered is anyone’s guess. The Telegraph seems to imply the introduction of a daily ‘Culture Hour’, presumably in the same vein as the Literacy Hour, would be the Government’s intention. Although a cultural framework similar to the National Literacy Strategy (NLS) would be extremely difficult to construct.

For once, in fact, the DCSF are being very vague about what they expect schools to do. The guidance given on launch of the scheme, simply states schoolchildren should experience:

“Five hours of arts and culture a week, in and outside of the school day. This will include the chance to:

· perform on stage and attend top quality performances, exhibitions at museums and galleries, and heritage sites;
· get hands-on experience of the creative industries including film making, radio and TV;
· learn a musical instrument, and take part in a musical performance in front of an audience;
· produce creative writing and appreciate authors and how they work;
· learn about - and practise – new media and digital art; and
· develop art and craft skills.”

Very little of this is new content, with at least the final four examples already forming part of the National Curriculum in Literacy and English, Music, Art and ICT. Despite this, there has been a huge reaction from teachers, who feel their timetables are already stretched. Speaking in The Guardian, NUT General Secretary Steve Sinnott said:

"We still have an overloaded curriculum, particularly in primary schools. Its clutter needs to be stripped out to enable schools to be culturally creative."

Having experienced firsthand the struggle to deliver the intensive curriculum in primary schools, this is a point which I fully understand. However, the benefit of bringing so-called ‘high culture’ to those whose background and finance usually exclude them, is a massive one. The arts are historically incredibly elitist both as a patron and inside the industry. Initiatives, however ill-thought-out, that attempt to break these barriers and allow children into a world they didn’t know was open to them, can only be a good thing.

Some, however, such as Simon Heffer in the Telegraph, do not see any benefit whatsoever to such schemes.

“How was it that we had Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton or Wordsworth without their having the inestimable benefit of Arts Council poetry workshops?”

This frankly ridiculous argument, continued throughout the article and echoed by many another middle-class commentator, seems to completely miss the point of what the scheme aims to achieve. There will always be prodigies, talents and revolutionaries within our society; those who rise to fame and fortune with no help from the state or any others. However, funding access to the arts for everyone is about showing young people they have the opportunity to do something they never realised was an option. Opening up children’s minds and inspiring them to a myriad of possibilities – isn’t that what education is supposed to be about?