The ten books every child should read before leaving school (or why I hate English Literature revisited)

"These are the ten books every child should read before they leave school". So proclaims the headline of yet another attempt to create a new canon - this time by the time-honoured process of surveying 500 English teachers. This list (with the possible exception of Harry Potter) is unsurprising - the obvious couple of George Orwell books, Catcher in the Rye, To Kill A Mockingbird, Lord of the Flies, Of Mice and Men, some stuff by Dickens and the godawful Pride and Prejudice (or Gold Diggers of 1815 as I like to call it).

It really is time these teachers got out from under their obsession with Dickens, Austen and 20th century American literature (almost all of which is much better in film than prose). And chose a different, more interesting, relevant and challenging set of texts for children to read. Is it any surprise that people are turned off reading for pleasure if the dreary existence of Lennie Small is rammed down their throats at school. I can't think of a less relevant book to a 14 year old Pakistani girl in Bradford.

And the same goes for the rest - again with the possible exception of Harry Potter. What we haven't got here is any literature that presses the sorts of button that film and TV are pressing in the minds of modern British children. And it shows, which is the worst failing of English literature as a subject, the sad narrowness of the way it's taught. So here's a two-fingered salute to the English teachers and Simon's list of ten books every child should read before leaving school (except I don't mean it, of course):

1. Neuromancer - William Gibson's birth of cyberpunk novel, a picture of the on-line world created before we were all on-line.
2. Dune - Frank Herbert's masterpiece: want to know where the Star Wars themes came from? A pseudo-religion based on mind control, a galactic empire, good vs evil, giant worms and psychoactive drugs on which everything depends.
3. Stand on Zanzibar - John Brunner takes us to an over-populated world filled with pop-up ads, drive-by shootings, suicide bombers and dysfunctional governments
4. A good translation of Beowulf - either Tolkein's prose translation or the stunning (if less true to the text) epic poem by Seamus Heaney. This is where we come from - ur-England and we should not lose it
5. The Wasp Factory - Iain Banks explores teenage violence including the eponymous wasp factory. More contemporary than Lord of the Flies by encompassing mental illness and isolation, issues of importance to teenagers
6. The Lord of the Rings - it wasn't voted the best novel for nothing and Tolkein's great work isn't merely a fantasy. It's themes grow out from the myths and legends of Northern Europe and link to the idea of quest and the powerful message that, in the end, we all have it within us to do the extraordinary
7. The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy - OK the original radio series probably sets the bar too high for later books and films but the books are funny, interesting and filled with thoughts and ideas that really do speak to modern life
8. The Man in the High Castle - Philip K Dick's alternative history is brief, telling and a great reminder that we all have in us the capacity for good and for great evil.
9. I, Robot - Isaac Asimov's best robot book (and nothing at all like the film of the same name) coins the three laws of robotics which every child should discuss and debate for it really is their future now
10. Swallows and Amazons - we've sort of forgotten about how childhood should be and, more than any other novel, Arthur Ransome's tale of kids mucking about on boats in the Lake District is the best evocation of the glory years of childhood.

You can pick your own ten or a dozen or fifty. The point here is that my list is every bit as good - no better - than the list those English teachers have churned out. I think it would be great if every child read these books but I know that some would be hated - as I hate Pride and Prejudice - by young people forced to read them or told that this stuff they don't like is what we mean by "good literature". I'm sure that your list might feature a different emphasis - urban grit, mystery, romance or whimsy. There's no right answer and what we should be doing is hoping that every child reaches 18 having created their own list of ten fantastic books that really mean something, that they'll bore their own children about and maybe write up in indulgent blog posts.

Get reading folks!

....

Nine out of ten teachers don't think energy drinks contribute to poor pupil performance

****

I've never drunk a whole one of those energy drinks. I had a sip of a Red Bull once and can safely say 'never again' - it made Coca Cola (which I detest) seem appealing. But I understand that they're popular with a lot of people (popular enough for the leading brand to splash millions on racing cars), which has - as night follows day - led to calls for action. For the children of course:

Children are using energy drinks as “legal highs”, making them hyperactive in class, teachers have warned as they called for more restrictions on the drinks.

The NASUWT teaching union is working with the drug charity Swanswell to examine the consumption of drinks such as Red Bull, Monster and Relentless. 

We have here an example of 'teachers say' as justification for a ban or other form of control. The NASUWT research is a poll of teacher opinion not an assessment of fact (nothing wrong with this of course but it does result in 'teachers say' being put on the same footing as 'a properly constructed scientific study has found'). And the worst thing about the reporting is that the researched opinion of teachers is different from what the NASUWT and their 'drugs charity' partner are saying - 87% of teachers do not hold the opinion that children are using energy drinks as "legal highs".

A survey by the NASUWT of around 3,500 teachers found that 13 per cent thought that the excess consumption of caffeine was contributing to poor pupil performance.

There are a whole bunch of reasons why children perform badly at school but most teachers don't see Red Bull as one of them. 

....

On the valuing of education...

****

And how state systems don't value teaching well. At least not compared to this:

Kim Ki-hoon earns $4 million a year in South Korea, where he is known as a rock-star teacher—a combination of words not typically heard in the rest of the world. Mr. Kim has been teaching for over 20 years, all of them in the country's private, after-school tutoring academies, known as hagwons. Unlike most teachers across the globe, he is paid according to the demand for his skills—and he is in high demand.

Kim is paid this much because the product he provides - or rather its benefits - are valued very highly. And the hagwon system rewards the best teachers because they are what the pupils want:

The most radical difference between traditional schools and hagwons is that students sign up for specific teachers, so the most respected teachers get the most students.

This is a strikingly different world from that we are familiar with - a system where the best teachers get the biggest reward and where the choices of the customers, the learners, drives that success. In Korea the failings of the state system lie behind the hagwons, that coupled with the pressures to achieve socially, academically and financially.

And the conclusion? It might be this:

...in an information-driven global economy, a few truths are becoming universal: Children need to know how to think critically in math, reading and science; they must be driven; and they must learn how to adapt, since they will be doing it all their lives. These demands require that schools change, too—or the free market may do it for them. 

Certainly food for thought and a challenge to the deadening government systems we see in the UK.

...

About those teachers striking...

****

As you know I don't like it and see it as counterproductive - worse striking undermines the idea of teaching as a professional vocation. More to the point, the Unions are dressing the dispute up as something far grander than it is in reality:

“The teachers who marched are not political activists, they are here for education and are concerned about young people entering the profession and their future.

“This has been a very important show of solidarity, the two unions represent 90 per cent of all teachers, and we are standing up for education.” 

If the strike is about policy rather than the self-interest of teachers then, if my understanding is right, it is illegal. So it isn't about that at all:

We are asking that he establishes a series of meetings with the NUT and NASUWT, chaired by himself to address the issues under dispute and that he suspends the implementation of the changes proposed to the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document, pending the outcome of these discussions. We are also asking that he publish the valuation of the Teachers’ Pension Scheme conducted on the basis of the 2010 criteria and factors.

Not about children at all. Nor is it about qualifications. Or free schools. Or academies. Or indeed the education policies of the government. It's absolutely and specifically about the proposed changes to teachers' pay and conditions.

And those pay and conditions result from the recommendations of an independent body - the School Teachers' Review Body. This body has proposed:

The STRB has recommended an increase of 1% from September 2013 in the values of:

• all points on the unqualified, main and upper pay scales for classroom teachers (including main scale points which will be discretionary reference points for pay decisions thereafter)
• the minimum and maximum of the pay range for leading practitioners and all pay ranges for individual posts set before taking account of the September 2013 uplift
• all points on the leadership pay spine
• any individual allowances in payment and to the minima and the maxima of the ranges of all teacher allowance

Get that folks - the STRB is proposing a pay increase! And - wait for it - the government has "...accepted all of the key recommendations in the report." Plus there's a consultation period with the Unions and other relevant partners running for a month.

What the teachers' unions want is for the government to ignore the recommendations of an independent body (and not one of recent invention either) to impose a more favourable settlement - one using up more of that precious resource going to schools.

Either that or the 'dispute' is simply a canard and this really is a political strike and not a genuine dispute.

....

For one time only...I agree with the NUT - payment by results for teachers is a daft idea

****

...on teachers' performance pay. The proposals "from MPs" should the sort of appreciation of reward structures that gave us over-paid useless bankers:

Schools minister Nick Gibb said the government has asked the school teachers' review body – which considers matters relating to teachers' pay, duties and working time – to make recommendations on introducing "greater freedoms and flexibilities" in teachers' pay, including how to link it more closely to performance.

And the chosen measure is something called "added value" - which is a pretty discredited metric and was designed anyway to assess whole school performance over several years not individual teacher performance over one year. And in the USA where teacher 'ratings' are widely used, there's precious little evidence that these act to raise overall educational outcomes (which is, I guess, the whole point of the exercise).

The relatively simple 'appraisal bar' approach that already exists in the pay scales should be adequate and, more to the point, the decisions as to reward should fall to school management teams not be set by some bunch of bureaucrats down in Whitehall. And certainly not in response to a report from a bunch of MPs.

There's no doubt that schools find getting rid of underperforming teachers quite difficult but not giving them a pay rise isn't going to make them either leave or perform better. Do we really think that the teacher stood in front of a class is thinking; "I'll be extra good here and I'll get a pay rise or a bonus"? Of course they aren't and if they were, we would be a little worried about their vocation for the job.

School heads know who are the good and bad teachers - we just need to give them the "freedoms and flexibilities" to manage. And more complicated and often misleading performance measurement will just cost money without raising standards.

And in the end Christine Blowers (for once) is right:

Payment by results is total nonsense. Children are not tins of beans and schools are not factory production lines. Successful schools rely on a collegiate approach and team working.

....

Bah, humbug!

****

The teachers union, NAS/UWT are having a Christmas 'go slow':

Members of NASUWT are to be ordered not to put up festive decorations or help produce Nativity plays and carol concerts in a dispute which could go on for months.

Frankly, how pathetic can you get. Also those children looking forward to the festive season, excited at the prospect of giving and receiving and Miss says:

"Sorry, Children. No tinsel, no nativity play, no party on the last day. I'm not allowed to help with these becasue all the teachers are cross with a man down in London."

Dreadful. Almost unforgivable.

....

On the arrogance of head teachers...

****

It snowed this morning - in fact it's still snowing now. It started while I was at the gym - about 9.30 - and has been pretty heavy resulting in the usual 'snowcoplypse' of traffic gridlock as everyone heads for home as that first snowflake settles.

One of the trainers at the gym gets a text message from her child's school telling her to come and pick up the child as they wanted to close the school. I must admit that, on hearing this, my blood frothed and boiled a little. Understand that this is one worker texting another worker telling that worker to stop work and make it possible for them to go home early because it is snowing.

The school had absolutely no right to do that - they cannot expect someone to leave their place of work in that manner. The children - I assume since this is a school - are safe and warm and will remain so for a fair while. What the school is asking is for parents to struggle through fresh snow to collect their children - for no good reason. Solely to facilitate the teachers making a quick getaway.

Such unforgivable arrogance.

....

Why should teachers care whether some of their colleagues can't teach?

****

In an otherwise pretty moaning and self-justifying article in the Sunday Telegraph, former school governor, Joanna Leapman raises the question as to why (almost uniquely) teachers appear to deny the existence of any bad teachers.

Teachers take criticism less well than any other professional body I can think of. The teaching unions line up regularly to wheel out quotes attacking their portrayal in television dramas in a way no others do. I can’t recall ever seeing quotes from pub landlords or shopkeepers saying that they are unhappy with their latest characterisation on screen.

Sadly Joanna Leapman goes onto a whole array of unconnected attacks on the profession – there aren’t enough “top graduates” in teaching (I really fail to see how being a top graduate will assist in teaching 6 years olds to read and write or 11 year olds to string a coherent sentence or two together) and teachers can’t spell – this latter accusation arrived at through quoting anonymous posts on a teachers on-line forum, most of which seem to have had liquid assistance in their creation.

Mrs. Leapman misses the point. It isn’t that teachers are in denial about poor teachers but that this really doesn’t matter to them. If you work in a private business incompetence matters – it might cost you your job. In a state controlled and directed industry like education the presence of incompetence is irrelevant if annoying – there is absolutely no need and certainly no incentive to complain about another teacher. And despite the best intentions of Government and of organisations like Ofsted, these are not a substitute for raw self-interest.

....