Dr Goodscholar puts down her cup of coffee to welcome me into her office. She looks like image of middle-aged intellectual respectability, as she peers over her half-moon glasses. Her office is decorated with posters and paintings showing images of the classical world. I consider that a good starting point:
“Can I ask why does a boys’ comprehensive in one of the poorest areas of the country teach Latin and Greek? Wouldn’t Modern Foreign Languages be more usual?”
She smiles, although her eyes show some impatience, as if she’s been asked this question many times before.
“We do teach Modern Foreign Languages. In fact we enter more students for French, Spanish and Punjabi GCSE than any of our neighbouring schools, far more than we enter for qualifications in Latin or Greek. We don’t believe that every boy will benefit from a classical education. Only those in the top stream, those who will be attending a good university would benefit. I’d hate to think that the doctors, academics, teachers and clergy of the future would be without the benefit of being able to read Plato, Aristotle, The Vulgate or the New Testament in their original form.” She shudders at the thought of an insane world where academics and professionals are ignorant of even the basic cornerstones of western civilisation, then continues:
“The aim of our curriculum is to stretch the most able, while ensuring that all have the most intensive academic education possible.”
“Shouldn’t you be providing vocational education? Not every child is academic”
“Vocational education?” she exclaimed “Does this look like a factory to you? Do you think we are training car-fitters or hairdressers? We are a school we are here to educate, not train.”
“Surely that can’t be appropriate for all the boys? Surely the academically weak would be better off learning a trade?”
“Why? Do you want your gas-pipes fitted by an illiterate? Do you want your restaurant meal cooked by somebody who can’t convert Fahrenheit to Centigrade or understand how germs spread? We do help place some students in college courses where they can learn a trade. But while they are in the school the emphasis is on learning to read, write, calculate and appreciate the best of human knowledge and this nation’s culture. Those who are academically weakest are given the most extensive training in English and maths. That’s how they stop being the academically weakest.”
“There must be pressure to find less academic pathways for them”
“Of course there is. Not a week goes by without some fool suggesting the illiterate and innumerate can become the next generation of skilled craftsman without going through the agony of becoming functional adults first. But whenever somebody does suggest this to me I ask them if they would be prepared to let their own children leave school unable to write or do simple maths and not one of them has said “yes”. Vocational education is something people only advocate for the children of others. Now come on, I’ll show you why this school gets the grades it does.”
I am led back outside to the corridor. The school’s Faculty of Letters comprises of the departments of English, languages and classics. Dr Goodscholar indicates a classroom from which I can hear the voice of boys chanting verb conjugations. As we glance in the back of the classroom I am surprised to see students sat at individual desks focused on a seated teacher who is leading them:
“Je aie. Tu aies. Il ait. Nous ayons. Vous ayez. Ils aient.”
“It likes like something from another era”, I say. “It’s what I’d expect to see in a Victorian classroom”.
“An era where boys able to quickly master many languages were needed in order to run an empire. We might not have an empire now but I see no reason why we should aspire to teach them how to order an ice cream rather than identify and use all parts of speech.”
Dr Goodscholar then leads me through to the Humanities faculty. A sign declares that we are in is the department of theology and religion. I can’t help but notice as I glance into the classrooms the diverse nature of those teaching the classes, an Asian woman in a veil teaching stood in front of a board displaying key words from Islam, a tall black man with a booming African voice declaring loudly on the doctrine of the Trinity, a Sikh man in another classroom, and one teacher whose accent, beard and dress strongly suggest he might be a Rabbi. Dr Goodscholar realises what I have noticed:
“It is our philosophy that nobody ever learnt to understand a religion from somebody who doesn’t believe it themselves. We don’t expect anybody to teach about a religion other than their own.”
“Isn’t that hard to organise?”
“Yes. But we’d rather make that effort than waste our boys’ times being taught lists of festivals or colouring in pictures of deities they can’t even name.”
In all the classrooms I see boys are sat at individual desks facing the teacher who is stood or sat at the front. At first it seems that, except for those silent classrooms where boys are doing written work, in every lesson the boys are being lectured by their teachers. It is only after I linger outside a history lesson that I realise that many of the teachers aren’t giving lectures, they are answering questions. I hear one boy asking what effect religious upheaval had on the general population of England, and another ask about Shakespeare’s religious allegiances. Their teacher answers both questions in detail, clearly talking from extensive personal expertise.
We leave the Humanities faculty, (I ask if there are any Geography lessons but I am informed that the school doesn’t consider it to be a proper subject) and walk through the Faculty of Mathematics and Science. I notice that a lot classes seem to contain a large mix of ages.
“We try to set as far as possible by ability rather than age in most of the core subjects. There are exceptions, we find that it helps to have a certain amount of maturity to cope with particular topics, but on the whole we see no reason to hold students back on grounds of age.”
Suddenly the sound of year 10 arriving to my lesson awakes me from my dream. The Oldandrew Academy and its academic ethos fades back into the recesses of my mind as the crowd of students forming around my desk bring me back to reality with their abrasive greetings:
“Why do you have to be here? I hate this lesson?”
“Gimme a pen!”
“Why do we always have to do work in this lesson?”
“Gimme a pen!”
“Are we going to have a fun lesson?”
“Gimme a pen!”
“Where’s my book. You’ve lost my book. I can’t do any work if you’ve lost my book”
“Gimme a pen!”
“Can I sit next to Jordan?”
“Gimme a pen!”
“Why did you give me a detention, I’m not doing it?”
“Gimme a pen!”
“None of the other teachers make us do work every lesson.”
The Two Discipline Systems
November 24, 2007Luke 16:13
Orwell (1948)
In my experience schools have a split personality where behaviour management is concerned. There are two discipline systems. There is a theoretical one, that appears in the Staff Handbook and anywhere a school governor, a job applicant or an OFSTED inspector might get to read it, and there is the one that actually exists in the day to day running of the school.
The theoretical system will usually follow the following pattern to some degree:
The actual system is usually more like this:
Of course maintaining two contradictory systems at once is difficult. How does a headteacher tell somebody about the theoretical system in their job interview and the real system once they’ve got the job without seeming insincere or delusional? How do SMT follow two masters, the theoretical discipline system and the actual discipline system? The answer is that it takes a certain amount of “doublethink”. Usually this is done by considering the theoretical system to be a genuine system but one that bad, unprofessional teachers have to use due to their poor relationships with the children and weak behaviour management skills. The actual system, by contrast, is much more lenient because able teachers are so liked by students that they barely have to enforce the rules and therefore this much more casual approach will work. Once this philosophy is accepted it soon becomes clear that every teacher enforcing the rules rigorously, or worse, expecting school managers to support them with enforcing the rules, is incompetent and unable to relate to children. Children can only be found to have broken the rules due to inadequate teaching. Enforcing the rules is simply a symptom of being bad at behaviour management. It becomes more acceptable to complain to management that students have upset you than to report that they cannot be stopped from breaking the rules. Euphemisms help with the process of doublethink. Allowing misbehaviour becomes “strategic ignoring”, inconsistency over the rules becomes “flexibility” and appeasement becomes “building relationships”.
I suspect practising doublethink in this way may be bad for one’s psychological health. Long serving members of SMT can become completely detached from reality. As well as the delusions that the teaching staff are to blame for everything and that anybody who reports a problem must also have caused it, some members of SMT even begin to imagine that they are actually making a positive difference to the lives of the students in their schools.
References:
Orwell, George, Nineteen Eighty-Four, 1948
Share this:
Like this:
Posted in Commentary | 21 Comments »