This September, for the first time, primary school teachers will be given “Directed Time” for PPA - Planning, Preparation and Assessment. For half a day each week “paraprofessional” classroom assistants will deliver lessons prepared by the teacher.
A spokeswoman for the DFES said that educational standards will be the same as, if not better than, they are now.
So what standards would those be then?
When assessing lesson quality, OFSTED looks for:
planning that is accurately cross-referred against the syllabus;
a “Starter Activity” that is engaging and relevant;
lesson objectives that are clearly displayed and understood by the students;
a variety of individual, small group and whole class tasks;
a purposeful plenary conclusion;
and evidence that the students were “on task” during the lesson.
If it finds all these things, then the lesson was a successful educational experience. And the child has learned something valuable.
(Note for Americans: if you haven’t already noticed, I am being sarcastic. Re-read the above paragraph with an appropriately scathing tone.)
The theory here is that if the teacher plans the lesson properly then delivering it is simple and doesn’t actually require the presence of a university graduate earning something in the region of £30 grand. But in the words of Eddie Mair, it is “educational alchemy.” If the principle was sound, then schools should employ no more than two or three qualified teachers to spend their entire time doing PPA, and the rest of the staff should be made of up TAs to occupy the classrooms - at half the price.
And while we’re at it, why not let the police stay in their offices completing paperwork and let community wardens, CCTV & GATSOs provide the high-profile crime prevention measures that our communties need? The shortage of doctors can be made up by permitting nurses to write prescriptions, and traditional nursing duties can then be performed by hospital porters and volunteers. Come to think of it, we don’t need priests either! Church wardens and lay readers can do almost all of the job; the Eucharist can be consecrated in bulk by bishops, delivered to parishes by DHL (Delivering Holy Lunches) and given out by Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers. (”Make mine a large one - I’m taking some to my sick grandmother.”)
There is literally no limit to this idea. Why pay an accountant to audit a company’s books when an accounts clerk can be taught to do the same job for a fraction of the price?
But now I am being silly. Auditing accounts is a vital and serious responsibility with millions of pounds and professional reputations at stake - whereas what happens to kids in classrooms doesn’t really matter at all.
For the majority of human history education has been about nurturing and developing young people. Between the master and the pedagogue every activity in a child’s life was supervised, having first been scrutinised for its effect on developing minds and bodies.
Only since the 1988 Education Act has that scrutiny been more concerned with the embellishments to classroom activities than with the actual question of what the child is being educated for, and whether anything of any substance and benefit is taking place.
Socrates famously showed the relationship between learning and personal development when he taught a slave the fundamentals of geometry. Education is a virtue, but, as Socrates demonstrated to Meno, the slave’s lesson in geometry wasn’t an education, but a little bit of unconnected learning. Learning the skill didn’t help the slave one little bit - as Meno observed, it only confused him even more.
There is a difference, then, between Socrates’ Elenchus, the interaction between teacher and pupil through which the child is drawn out to become the virtuous, educated adult, and the Sophistry which does not teach true virtues, but only teaches about them. Virtues are not taught with medium-term planning, or ingenious starter activities or even a visible and easy-to-read display of Attainment Descriptors. That is Sophistry.
When successful education takes place in an English classroom today, all the criteria that OFSTED seek are incidental to the processes of education. A pupil can learn just as effectively from a skillful teacher using nothing more than wits and a chalkboard (or a stick and the dust of an African plain) as from a teacher with an interactive whiteboard, descriptor charts, differentiated worksheets, “traffic lights” and the very latest trendy techniques learned from a consultant during an “INSET” session at the Holiday Inn.
These new “initiatives” in education are the worst kind of snake oil. Government witch doctors have defined education as the measurable transfer of simply defined skills and knowledge, and are busy setting out the approved methodology for achieving this demeaned goal. No justification has ever been offered for this incredibly arbitrary philosophy - but, as with all other ideological fads, if you aren’t with the programme, you’re against it.
And if you’re aganist it, you obviously don’t want children to succeed in schools.