NEWS FOCUS SecEd: On Your Side


Are you working 9.6 hours overtime?


ONCE AGAIN teachers have found themselves at the top of the Work Your Proper Hours league table, which lists the professions that do the most overtime. Work Your Proper Hours Day is the day when the


Pete


Henshaw Editor SecEd


average person who does unpaid overtime finishes the unpaid days they do every year, and starts earning for themselves. This year it fell last Friday (February 24). More than five million people regularly work unpaid


overtime worth £29.2 billion to their employers. For teaching and educational professionals the figures are staggering. Around 724,000 of them – 55 per cent – are working regular overtime and the average worked is 9.6 hours a week. Work Your Proper Hours Day urges professionals to do


just that – work the hours you are paid to work. However, for teachers it is more difficult than this. The nature of the profession and the vocation of the professionals within it invariably mean that you work above and beyond because it makes a difference for your students. However, at the same time, I do know that problems


with overtime can also occur when teachers are weighed down by administrative and non-teaching tasks. So teachers should look at how hard and long they work


this week. Are you working the 9.6 hours extra that your profession on average puts in? Are you happy to work those hours? Do they benefit your students? Or are they purely for the benefit of the school? Teaching is a passion and there is a balance between


working long hours and not killing yourself and ruining your life outside of school. Wherever you stand on the debate, however, I do believe that these overtime figures justify the stance that teachers are taking when it comes to their pensions and working conditions. Teachers work incredibly hard. It is only right that they


receive good wages, stronger than average pensions, and are not burdened with pointless administrative or other tasks that distract them from being able to work above and beyond for the people who matter – their students.


How quaint indeed


Well done to Dr Mary Bousted after her attack on the recent research study by Ofsted and the Royal Society for the Arts into consistently satisfactory schools. This is the study that paved the way for the axing of


the satisfactory grade and the introduction of a “requires improvement” instead. Alongside this, there are sharper penalties for schools consistently found in this new category. The general secretary of the Association of Teachers and


Lecturers, speaking in Westminster recently, highlighted that while disproportionately disadvantaged intakes are a common feature of satisfactory schools, the study does not investigate this in-depth, but instead “races” to the “usual, tired conclusion of more weighing and measuring”. Mary absolutely nailed the issue when she said that


any investigation of the impact of unbalanced intakes on satisfactory schools were ignored in the report because there is “no political traction”. SecEd too has often pointed out the lack of ambition for politicians to tackle unbalanced intakes purely because they are frightened of taking on – to use Mary’s words – “the powerful vested interests of middle class parents who vote”. Mary’s wider speech, while acknowledging the


importance of good teaching, correctly highlights the huge impact that social and wealth inequality has on children in our society, including their educational success. Sweden and Finland, as Mary pointed out, have far less


wealth inequality and enjoy much more balanced school in-takes. Finland, which is ranked as the world’s best education system and is beloved by our education ministers, still sends its children to their local comprehensive school. As Mary said – “how quaint”.


• Pete Henshaw is the editor of SecEd. Email him on editor@sec-ed.co.uk. Visit www.sec-ed.co.uk and follow us on Twitter at @SecEd_Education


Kicking the habit


More than 150,000 young people start smoking every year and nearly a million have tried cigarettes at least once, new figures show. Cancer Research UK is calling


for the government to introduce plain packaging for all tobacco products in a bid to deter young people from taking up the habit. The latest figures from the


charity illustrate a growing concern that despite the ban of tobacco advertising, smoking continues to be a major problem in the UK. They show that around 157,000


young people aged between 11 and 15 start smoking every year – enough students to fill 5,200 classrooms. Jean King, Cancer Research


UK’s director of tobacco control, told SecEd that the figures emphasise the need for plain packaging on smoking packets. She explained: “Currently the


packets are too glamorous, contain too many bright colours and patterns that attract young people to begin the killer habit. “Although they carry health


warnings and pictures sometimes that just isn’t enough. The introduction of plain packaging will minimise the appeal of smoking. The colour should be brown, as dull as possible with pictures highlighting the effect the killer addiction can have and just a simple brand name of the company.” From April this year, large


shops will no longer be able to have cigarettes on display. However the new rules will not be implemented until 2015 for small retailers. Around 100,000 people die every year because of a smoking-


With the latest figures showing 157,000 children start smoking before they turn 16, Daniel White asks schools about their


role in tackling the problem


related illness and 50 per cent of all long-term smokers will die from a tobacco-related illness. Cancer Research UK says it


is imperative that the issue and dangers of smoking are tackled in school as statistics show that eight out of 10 adult smokers start before they turn 19. But to what extent should schools be held responsible for issues away from the curriculum and how hard is it to tackle the problem? One headteacher at a school in


the north west of England, who asked to remain anonymous, told SecEd that the problem went much further than just the attraction of packets and that smoking is a cultural problem. She said that many schools


have comprehensive PSHE programmmes, visits from health services, and also include the issue in the science curriculum. She added: “The problem is that


a lot of people in our area smoke. The students’ parents smoke, their grandparents smoke, people walking round the streets smoke so children do what they see. “Many students start smoking


at primary school aged 10 or 11 and are hardened 40-a-day smokers


IN RESPONSE…


Teachers should be able to take stakes in “John Lewis” style business partnerships that run state schools as a profit-making enterprises. The controversial


recommendation came from a report by right wing think-tank Policy Exchange this week. Social Enterprise Schools


said that private companies should be able to set up and run schools in a social enterprise model, giving staff a share of ownership and re-investing some of the profit back into the school itself. The schools, it argues,


should be allowed to distribute 50 per cent of any surplus as a dividend to shareholders, including teachers, on an annual basis. The remaining 50 per cent would have to be re-invested in the school. The think-tank claims that


SecEd


enabling schools to be run for profit would create extra funding for more school places. It adds that pilot schemes should work within areas of “greater deprivation” and should initially include at least 20 per cent of students eligible for free school meals.


James Groves, head of education, Policy Exchange: “Given the huge challenges which our education system faces in the coming years, the government should continue to push the boundaries of the status quo. This report challenges the idea that there is simply a choice between for-profit and not-for profit schools. A ‘John Lewis’ model of school where private companies, including teachers and school staff are encouraged to personally invest offers one such innovative alternative.”


Russell Hobby, general secretary, National Association of Head Teachers: “The idea of teachers making a profit from their schools is even more unpleasant than the idea of profit-making schools in general. It will compromise their integrity and impartiality and do huge damage to their relationship with parents if they are suspected of making decisions based on what’s in it for them rather than what’s best for the child. Often, teachers need to make


difficult and unpopular choices, such as excluding a student. How will parents react if they suspect


teachers of benefiting from it? It only works if they are seen to be above self-interest. John Lewis is a respected


and ethical company, but it sells products. No-one minds particularly if it doesn’t set up a store in a poor neighbourhood, no-one minds if it doesn’t cater for a particular group of customers. But transplanting these practices into education has far more sinister connotations. It is a simple fact that our most vulnerable children cost more to educate than others.”


Martin Johnson, deputy general secretary, Association of Teachers and Lecturers: “The Policy Exchange report is full of unsupported contentions and misrepresentations, and crucially fails to show evidence of consistent benefits to children’s learning and development from allowing companies to run schools at a profit.”


Christine Blower, general secretary, National Union of Teachers: “It is certainly the case that there is a lack of school places. However schools setting up randomly around the country without proper


planning overseen by the local authority will simply exacerbate the problem, not solve it. Many of the first free schools to gain approval are secondary schools competing for places in areas where there is already a surplus of secondary places, not primaries seeking to fill a need. Private companies go where they see a profit, not where they recognise a need.”


Department for Educaiton spokesman “We have no plans to allow state-funded schools to be profit-making. The success of many academies in raising standards is built on philanthropic organisations using their expertise to turn around underperforming schools. We’re more than doubling


targeted investment at areas facing the greatest pressure on school places, to over £4 billion in the next four years. Parents want to send their child to a good local school – that’s why we are building free schools, letting the most popular schools expand to meet demand from parents, and driving up standards right across the system.”


by their teens. We have had a real clamp down on smokers and have excluded anyone we have caught and anyone standing with them. “This tactic did not reduce the


number of smokers, they just found better/different places to hide. We have also had the local community police officer patrolling but it does not make any difference. We have tried smoking cessation courses but they simply don’t want to give up. Many come from farming backgrounds and smoke on the farm and see nothing wrong with smoking in school.” Ms King said that with the high


numbers of students beginning to smoke, having a zero tolerance policy is not always the ideal option. She explained: “Many want to


stop but can’t or need help in doing so. In this situation, sometimes a young person needs to be taken to one side and offered help. A number of young people think about quitting but do not know where they can go for help or how they can talk about the issue.” Meanwhile, Peggy Farrington,


headteacher at Hanham High School in South Gloucestershire, said that some parents even buy cigarettes for their children, and in


an extreme case one parent bought 200 duty-free cigarettes and a lighter for their child’s birthday. She added: “In some cases, where


parents genuinely disapprove, they remain anxious to keep ‘friends’ with an increasingly unruly child or are relieved that ‘at least it’s tobacco and nothing worse’. “The problem has certainly


reduced but until such parents see smoking as unacceptable and support the health drive and education promoted by schools, I think we will be battling on as ‘moral oases’.” Mike Griffiths, head at


Northampton School for Boys, feels aggrieved that smoking is yet another problem left at the door of schools. He said: “Why does society


expect schools to right every wrong? We do what we can. Every school bans it. Every school includes it in PSHE, health and science curricula. What else should we do? Permanently exclude anyone found guilty of smoking – in or out of school? “Parents can detect it. Parents


should take responsibility for ensuring their child does not (smoke).” Back at Cancer Research UK,


Ms King said teachers who smoke can also set a bad example for children. She added: “Teachers should make a big effort not to smoke because students do look up to the profession and if they see them smoking it can glamourise the habit.”


SecEd


Further information www.cancerresearch.org.uk


www.sec-ed.com


6


SecEd • March 1 2012


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16