Education, Education, Education
Wednesday, 14 November 2007
I spent today at a Coursework Standardising Meeting, which sounds very important and serious and intellectual, but is actually something you are forced to attend if the coursework marks you awarded last summer to your GCSE pupils are considered by some random external exam moderator to be a bit higher or lower than they should have been, in line with the frankly airy-fairy criteria set by the exam board. Having been sent there in the first place because a few of my marks were judged to have been too high, I have just spent a day practising my assessing skills on a sample of anonymous GCSE Music candidates and have somehow ended up marking them all more harshly than the aforementioned random moderator did, so I'm now far more confused than I was in the first place. But never mind. These meetings are a brilliant opportunity to meet other teachers of your subject who work in the same area, and you can compare notes, have a bit of a moan and share ideas with each other, so I had a really good day. The one problem I have with these jolly communal gatherings is that when you start talking to other teachers whom you haven't encountered before, one of the first questions you are inevitably asked is 'Where do you teach?'.
Now, despite having taught in an independent girls' school for three years, and having spent four years in the state sector before that, I still feel a twinge of shame and guilt when I admit to fellow teachers that I work on 'the dark side', and I'm having a bit of a hard time working out why this should be the case. When I made the decision to leave a very challenging state school in Gateshead to go and work in a girls' independent school, you'd have thought I'd announced my intention to become a member of Westboro Baptist Church from the reactions, veiled and otherwise, of some of my colleagues. My favourite line was 'Oh, come on, you're not in your new school yet!' when I wondered out loud at a meeting whether we might perhaps want to try and encourage a few more of our pupils to wear regulation black shoes instead of the scruffy trainers which so many of them understandably preferred and got away with wearing on a daily basis for no reason. The thinking behind my incredible suggestion was simply that the uniform rules dictated that the pupils wore black shoes and not trainers, which presumably had something to do with having pride in one's appearance and one's school. The colleague in question obviously had a huge problem with my imminent defection to the independent sector, and he wasn't the only one. An enormous number of teachers seem to be of the opinion that you are completely 'selling out' if you even entertain the thought of teaching in a private school, and despise those who do so, seeing them as traitors to the education system and perpetrators of the ever-divisive class system.
However, I also have both friends and colleagues in the teaching profession who refuse to so much as cross the threshold of a state school and intend to spend the rest of their working lives safely in the private sector. In fact, thinking about it, I can only call to mind the names of three friends at most who have spent a significant period of time in both types of school (and six months of teaching practice doesn't count, by the way), so as a result I am starting to wonder: Are private schools evil? Should I feel guilty about working in one (and even worse, enjoying it?) or can I hold my head up with pride next time I attend a Coursework Standardising Meeting and fall into conversation with someone who teaches at the roughest comp in Newcastle and gets her car tyres slashed there on a regular basis? And do state school teachers have any right to judge me for my career choices, or do we all get up in the morning to go off and do equally worthwhile jobs?
I've heard all sorts of arguments from all sorts of folk on this subject, and you can't always predict what different people's opinions will be, but they tend to be based on one's own background and experience. It seems that a lot of teachers who were themselves educated in the state sector end up working in a similar school, never countenancing any other possibility. Equally, many privately educated teachers sail straight onto the staff of their alma mater after completing their PGCEs and remain there for years, teaching Latin (which you'd be lucky to find taught in any state school nowadays) and coaching the rugby squad on which they once played as teenagers. So yes, there's something of a division there between the two sectors, perpetrated by both people. Of course this isn't a universal trend, but it's certainly discernable as a pattern in my experience. It's easy to think that the state school teachers just have more of a social conscience than their independent counterparts, but isn't it possible that some of them are just choosing to remain in their comfort zones, to which they are already used and in which they, personally, will flourish? I think it's quite likely that my own opinions about private education in general, which have ranged from total opposition (four years ago) to a feeling of uneasy misgiving (recently) are rooted in my years at a non-independent grammar school and the fact that no member of my family has ever paid to receive a secondary education. No doubt the idea of working in a private school sits more easily with those who went through the same system themselves. But that doesn't make one right and the other wrong.
A lot of people worry that the mere existence of the private sector reinforces the class-related divisions that unfortunately still exist in British society, whatever Tony Blair might have told us to the contrary whilst he was Prime Minister. Put simply, 'posh' or 'upper class' people apparently send their children to an independent school because they can afford to pay for it, whereas the rest are stuck with the free option because they can't afford it, and since you get what you pay for, the private school chaps are bound to come out the other end with a string of As and a place at Oxbridge, and at least a few of the state school lads will be kicked out aged 16 armed only with a well-established drug habit and scant possibility of a decent job. Private schools are exclusive, elitist and selective, creaming off the intelligentsia of society who will eventually become wealthy City bankers, live in fabulous houses and of course continue the cycle by sending their posh offspring to independent schools, where they will captain the First XI and learn how to be ghastly, braying, arrogant Conservative voters, just like Daddy. If only the independent sector didn't exist, we would all lead a far more equal existence, which is only fair, isn't it?
Well, I'm not sure about that. Of course, in an ideal world, we would all have the same brain capacity, number of opportunities, amount of money... except then we'd all be the same. Which we're not, are we? Let's face it. Everyone is born into a different set of circumstances, into a particular family, with a range of as yet untapped talents, personality traits and inherent difficulties. As a Christian, I believe we are all equal in the eyes of God, and should be treated and regarded as having the same level of value by others. This does not mean we are all destined to get the same GCSE results or do the same job or develop the same skills, does it? I think it's fair to say, in the light of that assumption, that one type of school is not going to suit every single person, which is why I and many others are dubious about the idea behind comprehensive education. It's a noble thought, and I've taught in two comprehensive schools myself, but it's incredibly hard to successfully draw out the potential of Gifted & Talented pupils, those with Special Educational Needs and kids of average ability when you're teaching them all at the same time and in the same way. My subject is not one that many schools (independent or state) are prepared to stream, so I end up teaching pupils who have attained Grade 6 Piano alongside others who think Music is a complete waste of time and would rather be kicking a football around outside, and so behave accordingly. Differentiation and especially tailored worksheets notwithstanding, the amount learned by everyone is reduced as a result, so I have not drawn out the full potential of anyone, so the net result for each child is less successful than it might otherwise have been. And, by the way, none of those children are fooled into thinking that because they are sitting in the same classroom that they must all be equally good at the subject, and they don't magically develop the same amount of self-esteem as a result - quite the opposite happens, in fact. I would happily volunteer to teach a class of the most disaffected, behaviourally-challenged Year 9s imaginable, if it meant I could set myself and them some achievable targets and deliver them the material in an enjoyable and accessible way, whilst the 'Music Geeks' (as such pupils are affectionately referred to by a friend of mine!) beavered away in a different classroom and learned to transpose and harmonise melodies. This doesn't mean I value the musically talented pupils more than the others, or wish to deliver them a 'better' standard of education. It just means I recognise the need to educate all pupils in an manner suitable and appropriate for them as individuals, given that they appear in front of me with an already-developed attitude towards and aptitude for my subject. I can and will do my very best to draw out the undiscovered potential of all children, but that's not an easy task when half your pupils are swinging from the ceiling and the other half are patiently waiting for you to explain the concept of key signatures to them. Since this does happen in schools all over the country, it seems to me that the only answer is to provide a full range of different schools which suit the equally diverse range of pupils which are in need of educating. One size does not, and never will, fit all, and there is no point in pretending otherwise. Class doesn't come into it, really. I don't have a clue what class I belong to, since I don't speak like the Queen, prefer to drink terracotta-coloured tea, say 'napkin' as opposed to 'serviette' and am in the habit of buying white rather than coloured toilet roll (see Kate Fox's 'Watching the English' for an apparently definitive list of guidelines, and prepare to be more confused than you were before you started!), so how can I be reinforcing the class system by dipping a toe into the independent sector?
The bottom line is, education has to be all about the needs of the children who are being served by the school they attend. I know a boy who has spent the last few years being fairly unhappy at a large comprehensive school, and has just been transferred by his parents to a comparatively small single-sex independent school. The fact that it is independent is largely irrelevant; the fact that it is small and pastorally very aware means it suits that particular child far better than did his previous school, and he is already flourishing in his new environment. Because he is happier, he is far more likely to develop a positive attitude towards the concept of school in general, which means he is more likely to fulfil his potential, which surely should be the whole point of any educational establishment. I myself teach a few girls who would probably end up becoming largely overlooked in an enormous mixed school simply because they are shy and quiet and wouldn't naturally wish to draw attention to themselves, but who can be encouraged and nurtured in an environment with smaller class sizes and given opportunities they wouldn't otherwise have the courage to take for themselves. They stand a greater chance of succeeding academically and socially because they are being educated in an appropriate environment for them. At the same time, it's important not to forget that Wayne Rooney went to a Liverpool comprehensive, and it doesn't seem to have done him any harm career-wise. His talent was obviously nurtured as he grew up, and he has succeeded without the 'advantage' of a private education. But at the same time, let's not dismiss David Cameron merely because he went to Eton, as so many seem to be doing - the thing to ask ourselves is whether or not he is potentially capable of running the country properly based upon his policy ideas; we should refrain from lingering on the notion that he can't possibly live in or understand the needs of 'the real world' just because his parents paid for him to go to school. Perhaps it was the best place for him at the time, given his own needs. Perhaps it has drawn out his potential sufficiently to create a very good Leader of the Opposition, and perhaps one day of the country. Whether or not this would have happened anyway had he attended his local comprehensive, we can never know. We have to take him as he is, with his sum total of merits, and not brand him a useless toff without listening to what he has to say for himself first.
Every school, irrespective of whether or not one has to pay to attend it, has its own individual priorities, strengths and challenges. Many state schools have behavioural issues with which to contend, but many others do not. Some private schools, it is true, produce the most appallingly arrogant young men and women, but plenty do not. Not all independent schools are academically selective, so their results are not necessarily better. Many state schools have far better facilities on offer than their private counterparts. I have seen examples of excellent and dreadful teachers in equal measure in both types of school. Generalising is not easy when it comes to highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of the two sectors, or even when discussing mixed versus single-sex education. Your daughter may learn more effectively if she's not in a class alongside a load of boys, but will she end up being unable to relate to men properly as a result? What's the 'right' solution? The simple answer is: there isn't one. You just have to trust yourself to make the best decision for your child, whatever his or her individual needs might be. And your older son may have very different needs to that of your younger daughter. Could you hold onto your left-wing principles in all conscience if your cherished child was deeply miserable in the enormous local comp and you knew she'd be far happier in a small girls' school? What are you going to do if there isn't a handy state version down the road?
It's true that a lot of parents send their children to independent schools simply because they wish them to benefit from small class sizes. Many of these parents stretch themselves financially because they believe they are investing in their child's future by paying for something that the government has so far failed to provide. I completely realise and appreciate that this is not an option to many parents who simply can't afford the thousands of pounds per year that it costs to educate even one child privately. But in the same way that the option private health care allows NHS patients to move to the front of a queue more quickly than they might otherwise have done, independent schools do at least help to keep class sizes lower than they might otherwise have been. If the government could find a way of providing many different types of school for the many different types of children that exist, instead of insisting upon throwing them all in together and hoping for the best whilst somehow failing to recognise that we're not all the same and should not be educated as such, perhaps there would be far less call for independent alternatives. And it is surely the responsibility of all teachers everywhere to try and impress upon their pupils that we all have the potential to contribute in a valuable and meaningful way to society, instilling them with the perfectly accurate notion that doctors and street-sweepers are equally important in life and should be regarded as such, rather than fostering the terrible and divisive attitudes of either self-importance or chip-on-the-shoulder defensiveness that you often perceive in undergraduates of Durham University and its ilk, where the fact that one person is state-educated and another is privately-educated can become a real social issue for the first time in their lives. Is this naivety on my part? Probably - but surely it is also possible if those responsible for educating the young people of today stand united instead of looking down their noses at those who are working in a slightly different environment with slightly different people. Every child needs educating, irrespective of whether or not their parents have chosen to pay for the privilege, so I think I can probably square it with my conscience for the time being.
