It cannot have gone unnoticed that I am not exactly a fan of OFSTED - the government's schools inspection body. This is because I believe that its raison d'etre is primarily to stay in existence, rather than promote higher standards of education. Speaking as someone who has been on the receiving end of OFSTED's attention over many years before retirement, it's good to have the chance to turn the tables - and I know that many of my friends and colleagues, still serving, support me in this.
Well, OFSTED has made yet another sensational (not to mention scandalous) discovery. It seems that the UK is slipping in the international league tables in standards of Literacy. A full account of this can be read HERE.. This outrageous matter has been found out, by pure coincidence, shortly after the appointment of the new OFSTED supremo, Sir Michael Wilshaw. Sir Michael has impressed the government by his ability to walk around a playground, telling pupils off and stopping them from hugging each other. Having such unique talents,he is clearly the man needed as Chief Inspector for Schools.
All well and good, but I have to point out the question that no-one ever asks: if Literacy standards are so bad in our schools, why has OFSTED not noticed before? Even by OFSTED's own data, the slippage has been underway since 2009. Why has the watchdog not been watching? And who, if anyone, has been watching the watchdog?
What really concerns me is something more pressing than statistics, which are always questionable anyway. I am bothered about the effect that all these "discoveries" are having upon the morale of ordinary classroom teachers, who, despite what you might read in the Daily Mail, are overwhelmingly hard working, caring people. I know that they will be dismayed by yet another attack upon them and their status in the eyes of the public. If you are told repeatedly that you are not doing a good job, then you can get to believe it. As I have pointed out in previous posts, OFSTED pressure has already led to teacher suicides. This latest issue, timed suspiciously shortly after the appointment of Sir Michael, will not help.
I would like to see the teacher unions asking one post-budget question: why have there been no cuts in the OFSTED budget? Less pressure from this self-serving body can only result in happier teachers, more settled schools, and an improved education service for all.
Thursday, 22 March 2012
Monday, 12 March 2012
Gay Weddings and the Church
In case you missed it, there has been a controversy lately, concerning gay marriage. The Roman Catholic Church has spoken out against it, in the face of the government's declared intent to legalise same sex unions, and is clearly out to resist this move. Two leading Catholic prelates have issued a letter to be read in churches, in which they say:
"The roots of the institution of marriage lie in our nature. Male and female we have been created, and written into our nature is this pattern of complementarity and fertility. This pattern is, of course, affirmed by many other religious traditions. Christian teaching fills out this pattern and reveals its deepest meaning, but neither the Church nor the State has the power to change this fundamental understanding of marriage itself."
As might be expected, this has upset a lot of people outside and within the Roman Catholic Church. Equalities minister Lynne Featherstone has said that the government is entitled to introduce same-sex marriages as a "change for the better". She has also said that the church does not own marriage (it seems she was misquoting the Archbishop of Canterbury). Other outraged groups include the gay charity, Stonewall, and the organisation for gay catholics,Quest.
I have no intention of repeating the arguments and events of this matter, but, out of a wish to be fair to both sides, I would like to join the debate with a few observations of my own.
First, I would like to point out that the three great monotheistic religions are not, and have never been, tolerant of homosexuality. "Everybody knows this" (or do we?), but a few quotes are worth repeating. From the Old Testament, we get:
" If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus, ch20, v13).
And then, from the New Testament:
"For this reason [idolatry] God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error." (Romans 1, v26-7).
Finally, the Koran:
Qur'an (4:16) - "If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone".
So, for Jews, Christians and Muslims, it's really not a good idea to be gay. And for hundreds of years, these three monotheisms have been rather unkind to homosexuals of both sexes.
However, I have to say that we cannot dismiss the objections of the churches (principally the Catholics, admittedly) as simple bigotry and homophobia. When the Archbishops express their opposition to gay marriage, they are correct in their intrepretation of Christian doctrine. We may not agree with what they say, but we cannot condemn them simply for holding different views from the rest of society. As John Stuart Mill said:
"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
In conclusion, I would like to ask a question. Since the three monotheistic religions are hostile, from first principles, to homosexuality, why do so many gay people even want to be practising Jews, Christians or Muslims? It would be better for gay people to celebrate their unions without concerning themselves about ecclesiastical approval. The opinions of senior prelates can safely be ignored - especially when so many of us - straight and gay - do not belong to the Roman Catholic Church anyway. As for gay catholics, I wish them well with their struggle to liberalise their church. They are the people best placed to challenge the prevailing theological viewpoint of the RC Church on this issue, and they will be the people who change it.
"The roots of the institution of marriage lie in our nature. Male and female we have been created, and written into our nature is this pattern of complementarity and fertility. This pattern is, of course, affirmed by many other religious traditions. Christian teaching fills out this pattern and reveals its deepest meaning, but neither the Church nor the State has the power to change this fundamental understanding of marriage itself."
As might be expected, this has upset a lot of people outside and within the Roman Catholic Church. Equalities minister Lynne Featherstone has said that the government is entitled to introduce same-sex marriages as a "change for the better". She has also said that the church does not own marriage (it seems she was misquoting the Archbishop of Canterbury). Other outraged groups include the gay charity, Stonewall, and the organisation for gay catholics,Quest.
I have no intention of repeating the arguments and events of this matter, but, out of a wish to be fair to both sides, I would like to join the debate with a few observations of my own.
First, I would like to point out that the three great monotheistic religions are not, and have never been, tolerant of homosexuality. "Everybody knows this" (or do we?), but a few quotes are worth repeating. From the Old Testament, we get:
" If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus, ch20, v13).
And then, from the New Testament:
"For this reason [idolatry] God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error." (Romans 1, v26-7).
Finally, the Koran:
Qur'an (4:16) - "If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone".
So, for Jews, Christians and Muslims, it's really not a good idea to be gay. And for hundreds of years, these three monotheisms have been rather unkind to homosexuals of both sexes.
However, I have to say that we cannot dismiss the objections of the churches (principally the Catholics, admittedly) as simple bigotry and homophobia. When the Archbishops express their opposition to gay marriage, they are correct in their intrepretation of Christian doctrine. We may not agree with what they say, but we cannot condemn them simply for holding different views from the rest of society. As John Stuart Mill said:
"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
In conclusion, I would like to ask a question. Since the three monotheistic religions are hostile, from first principles, to homosexuality, why do so many gay people even want to be practising Jews, Christians or Muslims? It would be better for gay people to celebrate their unions without concerning themselves about ecclesiastical approval. The opinions of senior prelates can safely be ignored - especially when so many of us - straight and gay - do not belong to the Roman Catholic Church anyway. As for gay catholics, I wish them well with their struggle to liberalise their church. They are the people best placed to challenge the prevailing theological viewpoint of the RC Church on this issue, and they will be the people who change it.
Wednesday, 7 March 2012
Supply Teaching, Privatisation and Cheap Labour
In view of the recent proposals by some local authorities to privatise the police, I thought it a good time to describe my own current experience in a privatised sector of education - supply teaching.
I retired from full time teaching in July, and, like many other retired teachers, set out to supplement my pension by doing supply work. Now, as it happens, I was a supply teacher twelve years ago, before I took up my last permanent post. At that time, in 2000, I was working as a local education authority (LEA) supply teacher, and received, after stoppages, about £110 a day. Now, after stoppages, I receive just £70 a day. By my reckoning, this amounts to a 44% drop in take-home wages over 12 years.
This is happening for two reasons. One is that I am still paying 40% income tax on my earnings, as I was when I was teaching full time. After April, I shall be on a lower tax band. Nevertheless, what I receive then will still be substantially less than my earnings back in 2000.
Lest I be accused of self-pity, let me say that I am well aware that there are many people worse off than I am. My heart goes out to my colleagues who have worked supply for years and seen their living standards drop - and their work dry up because of the cuts. I also know that there are hundreds of thousands of unemployed people who would happily take any job that paid them £70 a day. But this is not the point I wish to make.
Supply teacher pay has dropped because of one main reason - privatisation. Over the past decade, the supply teaching sector has been taken over by Supply agencies, who run their businesses for a profit. They make their profits by taking a cut from the daily pay of every employed supply teacher. That is why supply pay has fallen so much since 2000. The agencies compete with each other by offering their staff to schools at different daily rates of pay. As schools manage their own budgets, they tend to hire the cheapest supply teachers possible, which, in turn, adversely affects supply teachers' pay and conditions. Probably the worst off supply teachers are those who take on long-term supply posts in schools. This means they have the same workload as a permanent teacher, but with less pay and inferior working conditions (such as no sick pay). This can only be described as "cheap labour", and is only of benefit to younger teachers who are seeking permanent posts. Oh, and of course, the benefits it brings in supply agency profits and a reduced wage bill for schools.
So - what can we all learn from this? Well, it's pretty clear that privatisation does not work in favour of the workforce - any workforce. And that, I admit, is an understatement. Public sector workers, who are facing a third year of a pay freeze, would do well to be vigilant about their terms and conditions. This government of ours, with its strong monetarist leanings, is obviously out to attack all state services and their employees and replace them with private companies, underpaid labour and insecure working conditions. As I hope I have shown, the writing is on the wall.
I retired from full time teaching in July, and, like many other retired teachers, set out to supplement my pension by doing supply work. Now, as it happens, I was a supply teacher twelve years ago, before I took up my last permanent post. At that time, in 2000, I was working as a local education authority (LEA) supply teacher, and received, after stoppages, about £110 a day. Now, after stoppages, I receive just £70 a day. By my reckoning, this amounts to a 44% drop in take-home wages over 12 years.
This is happening for two reasons. One is that I am still paying 40% income tax on my earnings, as I was when I was teaching full time. After April, I shall be on a lower tax band. Nevertheless, what I receive then will still be substantially less than my earnings back in 2000.
Lest I be accused of self-pity, let me say that I am well aware that there are many people worse off than I am. My heart goes out to my colleagues who have worked supply for years and seen their living standards drop - and their work dry up because of the cuts. I also know that there are hundreds of thousands of unemployed people who would happily take any job that paid them £70 a day. But this is not the point I wish to make.
Supply teacher pay has dropped because of one main reason - privatisation. Over the past decade, the supply teaching sector has been taken over by Supply agencies, who run their businesses for a profit. They make their profits by taking a cut from the daily pay of every employed supply teacher. That is why supply pay has fallen so much since 2000. The agencies compete with each other by offering their staff to schools at different daily rates of pay. As schools manage their own budgets, they tend to hire the cheapest supply teachers possible, which, in turn, adversely affects supply teachers' pay and conditions. Probably the worst off supply teachers are those who take on long-term supply posts in schools. This means they have the same workload as a permanent teacher, but with less pay and inferior working conditions (such as no sick pay). This can only be described as "cheap labour", and is only of benefit to younger teachers who are seeking permanent posts. Oh, and of course, the benefits it brings in supply agency profits and a reduced wage bill for schools.
So - what can we all learn from this? Well, it's pretty clear that privatisation does not work in favour of the workforce - any workforce. And that, I admit, is an understatement. Public sector workers, who are facing a third year of a pay freeze, would do well to be vigilant about their terms and conditions. This government of ours, with its strong monetarist leanings, is obviously out to attack all state services and their employees and replace them with private companies, underpaid labour and insecure working conditions. As I hope I have shown, the writing is on the wall.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
