What’s the problem with part-time teaching jobs?

//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js

It’s been over four months since I left my last post because the option of (true) part-time wasn’t available to me (although if I wanted to take a 33% cut in salary scale I could have dropped to a teaching contract for the rest of the year)

I recently visited a local secondary school and was told the SENCO is part-time (0.7FTE) so you’ll have to make an appointment for when they are back at work. The head made it clear that she had inherited part-time staff and it wasn’t her choice. I can understand some of the issues with part-time leadership posts but should this extend to teaching posts?

Twice I’ve dug down into the vacancies advertised in the TES. I appreciate that fewer part-time jobs are probably advertised nationally than full-time jobs but the figures are startling.

In my first sample, 18% of jobs were tagged as part-time. Of all the jobs advertised, 14% were secondary part-time jobs. Of all the jobs advertised, 1.5% were for part-time secondary science jobs. On drilling down into the science jobs further, several weren’t teaching jobs and many schools advertised for part-time/full-time hoping to snag any science teachers looking for work (but they had a full-time gap to fill)

I returned this week and looked again. Of all the jobs advertised, 18% were tagged as part-time. Of all jobs advertised, 12% were secondary part-time jobs and 1.1% of all jobs advertised were part-time science jobs. (As a comparison, there were ten times as many full-time science posts)

It gets worse because many of the jobs advertised as part-time were wrongly labelled and the actual number of genuine part-time jobs is much lower.  Of those part-time jobs advertised 0.5/0.6 contracts seem to be the most common.

We hear that industry loves part-timers. They are flexible, some workers are even on zero-hours contracts so is this true? A quick search of Indeed shows nearly 19,000 jobs within a 25-mile radius of me. Of those jobs only 16% are part-time, this reduces further when you search for science-specific jobs, so the dislike of part-time workers extends beyond education.

Are schools banking on a reduction in workload improving the recruitment situation? (I would have stayed in the profession if my workload could have been reduced, the fact that I was replaced with two members of staff says something about that workload!)  With a profession haemorrhaging teachers and suffering from a recruitment crisis, can we really be so short-sighted as to ignore the huge pool of teachers out there who don’t want to or who can’t work full-time?

Image © chris riebschlager under a Creative Commons license

Advertisement

Are teachers on Twitter living in a echo chamber/filter bubble?

The Oxford Dictionary gives the definition of an echo chamber as “An environment in which a person encounters only beliefs or opinions that coincide with their own, so that their existing views are reinforced and alternative ideas are not considered“. Similarly, the Oxford Dictionary defines a filter bubble as “A situation in which an Internet user encounters only information and opinions that conform to and reinforce their own beliefs, caused by algorithms that personalize an individual’s online experience.”

These terms are increasingly used interchangeably since both have similar meanings. Many teachers on social media tend to fit into established cliques, self-selected because they have similar viewpoints. Twitter and social media will recommend that you follow new people similar to the people you already follow. When you search on Google it will return results that are personalised for you based on what it knows about you.

Since I left teaching I’ve come to rely on connections that I’ve made, although I hope the projects I’m working on now are based on what I know as well as who I know. As I’ve stepped back from the classroom I’ve paid more attention to what happens on social media and who talks to who. When I’ve been out and about at conferences I’ve looked at who knows each other offline, and at how often these relationships continue online.

Some of these teachers meet up at conferences and Saturday events and cement these relationships and viewpoints.  This isn’t a criticism of either people or their networks but it makes me question if we (myself included) might be missing out on a wider range of viewpoints because of this.

This weekend I was reading the introduction to a recently published education-related book in which the author thanked some colleagues who had contributed advice. Of course, these colleagues were part of a wider network on social media.

So does this matter?

I try to follow most people back on Twitter (apart from those who follow only to boost their follower numbers or their sales)  and I enjoy reading a range of viewpoints. I wonder if having a following of teachers, most of whom teach the same subject and to the same age range of learners, means that I’m limiting my own exposure to alternative viewpoints and ideas.  I’ve started following teachers from other subject areas and phases to see how this changes the ideas in my Twitter feed and in turn my own ideas.

I’ll keep you posted!

The new BTEC level 1 Applied Science – is it for your school?

The team at Pearson have been busy updating and promoting their new level 1 BTEC qualifications. This follows a move to the new assessment framework in line with other BTECs but is it a good qualification to use with your lower attaining students in the same way its predecessor was?

I’ve sat through webinars and read the material on the website  – I hope I’ve not got the wrong end of the stick! I’ve focused on the appropriateness and relevance to students in a school setting – I don’t know enough about FE to comment.

So what’s changed for the better?

• Differentiation – now three levels of pass so is likely to appeal to a wider range of learners.
• The focus of the qualification now makes it more suited for students who have completed ELC or GCSE (In my last school we didn’t offer science to P16 due to the lack of a suitable qualification)
• More of a focus on practical skills (and it’s still 100% internal assessment)

Barriers to adoption by a school

• The new assessment regime makes this qualification less suited to students with SEN than the old version. There is an expectation that students are working more independently and there will be less scaffolding than allowed under the original level 1 BTEC. That poses serious barriers to many level 1 learners. In line with the revised level 2 BTECS, feedback is different and Pearson states “Feedback from the initial work should tell the learner WHAT is missing but not HOW to achieve it”.  There is a special retake process but this can only lead to a pass grade.
• The qualification still doesn’t carry performance measures or count towards progress 8. In this situation, you have to stop and ask yourself what qualification is most appropriate to my learners? If they are unlikely to pass GCSE Science or on the border-line of a pass, this qualification is unlikely to be for them.
• For KS4 learners, ELC is co-teachable with GCSE whereas this qualification would not be. The new L1 BTEC would be best taught to a discrete group, most likely at KS5 (and not many schools offer a P16 pathway that isn’t A-level)
• There is overlap but not coverage of the GCSE specification content. This qualification was not written to be a GCSE replacement but an alternative qualification for students aged 14 and over.
• Although a level 1 qualification, some of the tasks are quite challenging and require a different teaching approach to ELC and GCSE

So where does this leave the qualification?

Whilst interesting, this is a niche qualification that most secondary schools will skip past for the reasons detailed above. If this qualification interests you and you would like to find out more, the link to the  BTEC L1 page is here.

Saturday CPD – a wonder for busy teachers or a millstone around their necks?

I read with interest today a blog post written by Debra Kidd announcing that the forthcoming Northern Rocks event will probably be the last.  For those who haven’t attended one before, Northern Rocks is one of many teacher organised CPD events on a Saturday (with excellent feedback).

Debra makes some interesting points in her blog post, concerned that teachers could be worried about missing out and in doing so, increasing their own workloads. That got me thinking as, through my role as regional secretary for the ASE, that I could be part of the problem as we organise CPD on a Saturday too.

So why do we organise CPD on a Saturday? We organise it because people come. It’s because teachers are finding it increasingly hard (and I don’t recall a time it ever was easy…) to get out of school on a weekday. Many schools restrict CPD, only paying for CPD that has direct links to the school development plan.  Teachers have fought back by organising their own events on a Saturday, where time is given freely and costs to be covered are minimal. As an ASE member, I give up my time to organise CPD and sometimes to present as well. We try to restrict our events to half a day because we know a full day is a  huge commitment.

Comments I read today on Twitter are making me question my stance on Saturday CPD.  I hope Kristy doesn’t mind me stealing her tweet to quote here, but her comment struck a chord and made me reflect on how I feel about Saturday CPD.

Good points in here. I can only manage 1 or 2 Saturday events a year & the rise of hobby CPD happening on a weekend worries me. Favours the footloose & fancy free who don’t have kids/elderly parents etc. We work enough, our CPD should be important enough to be in our working week https://t.co/uECfR0o2z9

— Kristy Turner (@doc_kristy) March 11, 2018

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

I used to work long hours on school days (even Fridays) and I spent my Sundays planning lessons on top. I was reluctant to attend many CPD or education related events because a Saturday was my only day off, the only day I got to spend with my family and most importantly my only time to stop and recharge.

Are we, as Kristy suggests, creating a two-tier culture within education – those who have time (not by choice) for CPD and those who do not? If that is the case, how far does this division go? Could it potentially affect recruitment (for example as part of a selection process) or could it influence pay decisions?

Are we creating an underclass of teachers, who through no fault of their own, are being denied CPD as the expectation shifts to one where teachers are expected to attend CPD in their own time?

CPD should be a core entitlement of any profession. It’s so important that schools have five days set aside for CPD so when did expectations change?

Perhaps I exist in a bubble. Many of the Saturday CPD events are publicised on social media, and the presenters and attendees occupy the same bubble (which anecdotal estimates put at 3-5% of teachers). Perhaps most teachers are oblivious to these events and so don’t feel they are missing out?

I hadn’t worried too much about this in the past as our regional science CPD events typically pull in under 100 delegates. There were relatively few Saturday CPD events in my area but as I’ve spent more time researching I’ve found more and more on offer on a Saturday with teacher-led conferences, subject association led CPD and even trade shows like the BETT show and the Education Show at the NEC. I do worry that we could be approaching a point of no return and that Saturday CPD could become the norm rather than a personal preference.

Update: Since I wrote this article it occurred to me that this issue goes further than Saturday CPD.  I’ve seen more and more books published for teachers – books on how to teach, manage behaviour, differentiate and so on. Books written for teachers, often by teachers or ex-teachers. What they all have in common is a price tag (£15 seems to be the average price) that could prevent teachers with a limited budget from buying them. These books are shared on Twitter, teachers who have read them are quick to say so and there quickly starts another missing-out culture.  Since Christmas I’ve seen perhaps a dozen books that I would like to read which amounts to nearly £200 in value (and I haven’t even considered the time it would take to read them all!) Sadly I’ve had to say no to most of them, and I do wonder what I’m missing out on. Were I at the start of my career I might have felt under more pressure to part with my hard-earned cash.  I know some schools have a CPD library – is that a solution or will that reduce sales to the point that authors don’t see a return on the time they invest in writing?

Image © lhammersmith

Why don’t we want to take staff out the classroom for CPD?

I know, since I recently left a senior leadership post, that schools are finding finances are tight at the moment. I know that schools are struggling to keep the staff they have. This means that funding costs for CPD are going to be tight – quality CPD costs money and then there are cover costs on top. I also know that individual teachers are under more pressure than ever to teach good lessons, deliver results and to help students achieve target GCSE grades.

That made me think of the parallels between investing in CPD and seeking advice about how to invest your money. Last year I saw a financial advisor and paid for his advice – I did this because I had two options. I could leave my money in a standard deposit account or take advice about how to invest my money to make it last me to 60! To get a better return on my money I had to pay for some advice from an expert. This is a similar decision to choosing to invest in CPD for staff, it should be a no-brainer but that isn’t the case in some settings.

The graph shows survey results from real middle leaders (I asked them myself!) It is interesting to note that the number one barrier to engaging in CPD is taking staff out of the classroom. I’d be willing to bet that good quality CPD for a teacher could outweigh the detrimental effect of missing a single lesson (or even a couple). Unfortunately not wanting to take staff out of lessons can be a rather short-sighted approach and one which could have wide-ranging and long-lasting repercussions.

Of course, another option which only the most forward-thinking schools have embraced is to timetable CPD time for all staff. School leaders in these schools already appreciate the value of quality CPD and this post isn’t directed at them.

As a member of a regional committee of the Association of Science Education, we run a number of CPD events for our members (and those that aren’t). We run our CPD on a Saturday morning to allow teachers who are willing to give up their personal time to attend. This isn’t an ideal situation but removes barriers to CPD for those who want to take part. You can find a full list of ASE regional conferences here.

 

Double or triple science? – questions your department should be asking

Combined science or triple science? Schools have been faced with this conundrum for years and debate over which pathway is best for which students is nothing new. The BBC published an article (with a nice interactive map) in 2015 suggesting that the curriculum offer varies according to where you live in the country including the number of science GCSEs you (can?) take.

The debate has continued with data analysed by Education Datalab of the 2016 results showing that pupil premium students are less likely to follow a triple science route (and an interesting relationship between KS2 data and rates of triple science entry). The data should not be surprising to anyone who has worked in a science department where entry decisions have been made.

Another worthwhile read is “Stratifying science: a Bourdieusian analysis of student views and experiences of school selective practices in relation to ‘Triple Science’ at KS4 in England” by Louise Archer, Julie Moote, Becky Francis, Jennifer DeWitt and Lucy Yeomans.  The paper concludes that very few students have a genuine choice over their choice of science qualification and this is largely down to the school.  The study also found that socially disadvantaged students were less likely to study triple science (this was quite pronounced).  The students involved had the perception that triple science was only for the ‘clever kids’ and not for them (which diminished the status of core science and BTEC science)

The debate over double and triple science was brought back into the headlines following the speech given at the ASE annual conference by Amanda Speilman.  Amanda said “And in most of the schools we visited, the option of taking triple or double science GCSE – and as a result, some key stage 5 courses – was almost entirely dependent on student results and overlooked pupils’ own aspirations. I get very upset about schools that only allow a pupil to study a subject if they are expected to get a grade C or certain level. It shouldn’t just be about grades; studying a subject is important in its own right.

This is such a waste of our talent. It means that too few pupils, especially the more disadvantaged ones, are sufficiently challenged and too many have their education and career options unnecessarily limited. Making sure there is a challenging science curriculum for all pupils, with clear pathways into a career, further or higher education, should be a priority for all secondary schools.”

At a meeting of heads of science last week we were discussing the entry policies of different schools.  Countywide data suggested a huge variation in entries between core/applied and triple. Of course, the choices are reduced this year with the introduction of the new science specifications. Whilst the discussion progressed I wrote down a series of questions that I could be asking of heads of science if I were representing Ofsted or a local authority.  It may be useful to consider how you would answer these if asked?

• How much curriculum time do you give to triple science? Is it the same as other option blocks?
• Do you use after school or lunchtime classes to fit in sufficient time for triple? If so has this affected outcomes?
• Do you have an entry policy for triple/combined science? How do you ensure that lower attaining students are not left behind?
• How does your tracking data inform curriculum choice and exam tier (and pathway) of entry? How do you evaluate the success of this policy?
• Who makes the decision about curriculum choice? SLT, the science department or your learners?
• How does the choice of triple relate to P16 destinations (or study options at P16?)
• Do you use KS2 data to inform your processes? Do you do this for the benefit of your students or for progress 8?
• How do you ensure that interested students aren’t barred from taking triple science?
• How do you stream/organise the curriculum groups? Is it the same for triple and other options and if not what message does it give the other students?
• How does the ethos of the school relate to policy for entry – is there a link?
• Do you have students that follow less than three of the separate sciences? Is this mixed with computer science? How does this work for students?
• How do you prepare students for the triple exams? Is this the same for double and triple routes?
• How do you choose numbers for each route? Are you capped by subject teacher availability? Does the timetable limit the numbers for triple and force students to follow a double pathway?
• Does availability of other subjects that share a bucket with science for progress 8 affect the choice of double vs triple?
• How do you divide staff time by science teacher? Do you have the strongest teachers or subject specialists teaching triple science? How does this affect the results for double science?
• If students have more than one subject teacher, how do you ensure that skills are taught across all the disciplines and given the same status by all teachers of science?

I hope you find these discussion points useful.

Should I renew my membership of the Chartered College of Teaching?

//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js
Like many others that I mix with online and offline,  I am already an active member of a subject association and a member of many other education networks. I like to think that I’m fairly well informed about key issues in education.

Through the Association of Science Education I get subject-specific advice, access to regional and national CPD conferences at reduced rates, I get access to a network of science teachers, I get my Chartered Science Teacher status, I get two science-related magazines and I even get my professional insurance.  This is my benchmark of a professional organisation.

When I joined the Chartered College last year I saw it as taking a punt. I didn’t know what I was going to get but it was only £29 for me to join, so I signed up and became a founding member.

Time flies and a year later I find myself being asked to renew (although the price has crept up to £45, 65% more than I paid last time). I reflected on how much I’ve used my membership (it’s why I’m still a member of the National Trust, I visit their properties and car parks enough to justify the membership fee).

So how have I gained (or not) personally by being a member of the Chartered College?

• I have received two (?) journals over the last twelve months
• I’ve received a lapel badge and a notepad with the Chartered College logo on.
• I once downloaded some of the summary materials from the University of Bristol (although this isn’t listed as a membership benefit any longer)
• I’ve twice accessed the research database, once to write a blog post and once to research a presentation proposal.
• I didn’t go to the annual conference – I couldn’t justify the cost plus the train ticket (more than the conference fee) to attend
• I am already a Chartered Teacher at a fraction of the cost – I don’t see the recognition through the Science Council as being any less meaningful
• I have only just discovered my ex-MAT is on the list of CCT founding networks…

Since I joined last time, my career path has taken a sudden and unexpected detour from the chalk face and although I’ve got more time to make use of the benefits they still haven’t been that useful. I love the Chartered College and all it stands for but in times when money is getting increasingly tighter for all in the profession, I join others in having to consider this purchase carefully before I make it.

Is your membership up for renewal? What decision have you made? How did you make your decision? Should I stay or should I go?

Image ©ICMA Photos

The rise of the identikit school is not good for learners with SEND

//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js
It had been a long time since I visited the city where I went to university. In my memories the streets were vibrant and I remembered lots of small independent shops where everyone skipped around smiling (ok so I may have exaggerated this last one…)

I recently got the opportunity to revisit (after over fifteen years) and expected things to be just as they had been in my memories. Of course, my rose-tinted glasses now have ordinary glass in and I saw things how they are at present. It’s a sad reflection on our society that one city centre looks much like another, with most of the shops belonging to large chains and the only differences between towns and cities is how the same shops are arranged.

The same thing is happening to our schools and the government is embracing it as a positive thing. With the expansion of local multi-academy trusts (MATs) the same trustees/directors/governors may control most of the schools in a given area, and depending on the scheme of delegation, the schools could end up being extremely similar

On first appearances this may seem extremely positive with similar branding, sharing of good practice and a similar ethos. Naturally, these similarities extend to the treatment of students with special needs and schools tend to apply the same policies that have ‘worked’ elsewhere. For us, that meant a constant stream of referrals coming from schools that wanted rid of their special needs students. It got to the point where we could read the referral and guess the academy chain the student had attended previously.

With the schools in a given area being under the control of a relatively small number of MATs, and with the government’s desire to see the growth and expansion of existing MATs, there is less and less room for individuality between local schools.

Where does this leave learners with special needs who don’t fit the mould? I’m sure many of these schools would like to brand themselves as inclusive but they are unable and unwilling to cater for all but the least severe of needs.  The future of inclusion could be at risk and start to take a very different direction over the coming years and the government and local authorities seem powerless to do anything about it.

Have you seen similar in your school (mainstream or special)? Do you worry about the future of inclusion? Leave a comment below.

 

Image © Keith Hall

An open letter to the ASE – seven years later

Nearly seven years ago I wrote an open letter to the ASE which you can read here.  I complained that the ASE wasn’t listening to members and wasn’t delivering what science teachers wanted. I had many responses, some public which you can read in the comments and some private which you can’t! The resounding response was for me to become involved with the ASE and help steer it in the right direction.

So have I done since?

• I am now the regional secretary for the East Midlands and help organise CPD events for members (and non-members) in our region. These are linked to hot-topics or changes to the curriculum which members are asking for
• I’ve been involved more with the ASE at a national level. I’ve been a past member of their assembly (now called education group) and also a member of the publications committee. I’m currently a member of the 11-19 committee which meets three times a year and discusses topics like SEN, the new GCSEs and science teacher retention.
• I’ve attended several annual conferences and this year I’ve presented at the ASE conference for the first time (on behalf of the 11-19 committee).  I’ve joined the organising committee for the annual conference next year which will be held at Birmingham University.
• I’ve submitted articles for EiS, SSR and the ASE website, some of which have appeared in print.

Of course, the ASE hasn’t rested on its laurels over the last seven years:

• The structure of the ASE has been streamlined to make it more responsive to members and secure its future
• A new CEO took the reins and the ASE has a much higher profile, with the ASE appearing on the national news several times and communicating better with its members through social media (including launching the excellent #ASEchat)
• The ASE has successfully promoted professional registration with more and more members signing up (I was awarded Chartered Science Teacher status in 2011)
• The ASE has produced some excellent materials to support science teachers such as the excellent language of maths in science and the language of measurement.
• We’ve had some excellent Presidents and Chairs of the ASE in the last seven years, with another excellent candidate waiting in the wings as Chair-Elect. These have helped to further strengthen the ASE and refocus it on its core purpose of improving the quality of science education for all
• A new website is due to launch within the next two months

To some extent, the people who responded to my original post were right.  The more involved you become, the more you stand to get out of the ASE. However, there are still many science teachers who are not members and the challenge is to communicate the benefits of membership to those educators. With the loss of local authority influence and the rise of the multi-academy trust, it is getting harder and harder to reach individual science departments and therefore individual teachers.

This slideshow highlights some of the benefits of membership, if you aren’t a member have a look at what you are missing:

Are you a member of the ASE? What do you value about your membership? If you aren’t a member what is it that stops you signing up?

Moving away from a data intensive tracking system

I was inspired to write this post by seeing (again) this question from @teacherhead at a recent presentation

Love this question from @teacherhead at #CPTSA18 pic.twitter.com/qhFswmyGYs

— Helen Rogerson (@hrogerson) February 3, 2018

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Educators who follow me on Twitter know my dislike of data collection – it’s the primary reason I left my previous job as a deputy head. The main reason these systems are introduced is linked to accountability to governors and those up above.

What we as teachers (really) want is students to achieve their potential and do their best in exams at KS4/5. What the school wants is the highest possible progress 8 score (especially now it takes only a couple of clicks to rank all the schools in an area by P8 score!) and for students to hit their targets. Hopefully, these two align but that isn’t always the case…

Unfortunately, we go about this process in a rather laborious way. We collect data at termly (or even half-termly!) intervals on current and predicted grades. We ask teachers for evidence to support this data and so teachers have to fit in extra tests, exam questions and other assessments. All these assessments need marking and grading so we take classroom time away from teaching and learning (how much of this assessment data is used formatively?) In addition, we add to the workload of teachers and so the exodus of teaching staff from the classroom continues.

It’s common to hear the phrase “You don’t fatten the pig by weighing it” and anyone who works in education understands its relationship to what happens in the classroom.  So where do we go from here? How to move away from a culture that has become so intrinsic to school processes that school leaders can’t imagine a life without it? (When I started teaching, data manager was a job that hadn’t been thought of yet!)

So how do we replace data in the accountability cycle? What system do we use instead of (half)termly data drops?  One process that we used in my last school was to hold pupil progress meetings, we called ours i4 meetings (a name borrowed from another school)

• Information gathering
• Identify where you can make a difference
• Intervene systematically
• Impact measurement

You are able to run the whole process with or without assessment data. The only place a complete picture of a student will exist is in the subject teacher’s mind.  It’s called professional judgement and draws on everything that happens in the classroom, on knowledge of the individual and their circumstances, and on student performance with familiar and unfamiliar assessment material (note not necessarily test scores!)  As part of the process you can discuss who is performing below potential and what the school can or can’t do to support (interventions) When you run the next series of meetings you can determine impact. We tried this system using subject groups and using pastoral/year groups (in a small school the difference is the staff present, not the student groups)

This isn’t a perfect system and requires that there is trust in decisions made at all levels. What’s the alternative – spending teacher time testing students (weighing them) so that you can input data into a spreadsheet that has little impact?

I’d be interested to hear what schools have done that worked well and also contributed positively to the work-life balance of staff.