Teachers will work the system as long as they are under pressure for results

There's no room for error now schools are businesses. We need to hire more teachers and give them space to try new ideas

• 
• • Phillip Easton
  • guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 3 April 2012 18.29 BST 
  • 
    

Teachers have been 'gaming' the system to get their pupils through exams. Photograph: Rui Vieira/PA

According to a poll by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, 35% of teachers say they could be "tempted to cheat". I've been a teacher for 10 years, and those figures hardly surprise me. I've seen everything from teachers openly rubbishing other subjects to ensure revision session attendance, teachers advising pupils to retake a whole year to improve performance in one module (thus ensuring their results don't drop), all the way to teachers encouraging pupils to annotate texts in the form of a shorthand lesson plan. I've seen teachers using exam spec answers and teachers becoming examiners for a year to steal good practice: in other words, we all work the system. What really worries me, however, is that there is no grey area left untapped and staff will feel pressured to go that extra inch into full-blown plagiarism.

Of course, gaming the system to relieve pressure from senior management is as old as the hills. But to get your head around around the whole truth of the ugly situation means unpicking a much larger problem with education in the UK.

Let me burst some bubbles, to start with: schools are businesses. All employees at the schools I have worked at are held accountable for their results. Residuals (how well your students have improved on predicted grades) A*-C pass rates, Alps scores, t-Scores, value-added – all are unpicked by a good management team, in a bid to improve the business. Better pass rates equals a more attractive school, and therefore more students. More students means more money. We are businesses.

The switch to academy status is to most parents confusing and pointless – to staff it means that now, you are officially working for a corporation. These are not your fuzzy, friendly government-run schools, with endless patience for slack teachers. The potential here is to swiftly get rid of staff who don't make the grade. "Good!" you might think. "Lazy teachers! They have it easy anyway, let's cut away the dead wood!" And, perhaps, there is an argument for that.

However, when a teacher sits down and analyses their results, they are set targets. The targets are "aspirational", but still meant to be achievable. Even when your pass rates are 90% and over, or your Alps results scores are a 2 (1 being the best possible, 9 being the worst) targets are put in place. And here is where the problems can begin. It is very easy (and I have known this to be the case) that a teacher's worth is questioned in line with results. Lazy pupils? That'll be your fault for allowing that culture in your classroom. Lack of homework or revision? Why didn't you call parents in to make them understand the importance of the revision sessions after class?

The result is a Mobius strip of a career, where you can feel constantly that you're running to stand still. I've grown pretty resilient to it, but I can empathise with the teachers who haven't. By and large, we all do our best. If you put in the hours, your teaching is focused, you have a keen bunch of kids and you lay on the revision sessions, the outcomes should be good. But when they aren't, there is no room for error. The school up the road had a better year. Raise your game – Bogwood primary sent twice as many kids there this year, and we need bums on seats. And if your results are good, well open a paper and listen to everyone tell you it's because the exams got easier, and it was harder in their day. It might well have been, but it doesn't help the hard work we are doing right now.

Our current school model is not fit for purpose. Schools are hamstrung by a lack of funds to develop teaching practice, the space to develop new ideas, and the confidence to try them out. We need to be attracting innovators with visions for the future, starting with training staff and ending with a flexible, skills-based curriculum that evolves every couple of years. Teachers need time. Look at the current dropout rates of new teachers: over a third leave the job in under three years. Why? Pressure. Hiring more teachers would create jobs and allow us to teach smaller classes, and could create more non-contact time in which to develop the craft. Yet this idea is often ridiculed. Since when did we all get so blasé about the future of our youth?

On Michael Gove's A level proposals - A new kind of class warfare

Michael Gove's A-level proposal will return us to the days when only the privileged were likely to go to university

• 
• • Priyamvada Gopal
  • guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 3 April 2012 22.00 BST 
  • 
    

Gove, ‘who advocates rote-learning of poems and kings and queens of England, has always had a narrow conception of education'. Photograph: Oli Scarff/Getty

So Michael Gove, the education secretary, wants to give more power to academics at "top universities". This should be thrilling news, since coalition policy is swiftly morphing universities into business-driven degree mills, with lecturers feeling more powerless than they have in decades. Yet Gove's invitation to us to set A-levels has not set pulses racing. Few lecturers think A-levels in their present form prepare students well enough for university, or equip them to engage intelligently with the challenges of a complex world. A rethink would ordinarily be welcome. But this proposal will not achieve what it sets out to do.

Education cannot be overhauled in this typically top-down manner, with a select minority of institutions running the show at the expense of the sector as a whole. Like much else that characterises coalition higher education policy, this is a form of class warfare. A rigorous and challenging education is not magically effected simply by setting tougher questions or more essays – much as the modular answers of A-levels at present are to be deplored.

An equal opportunities education requires systemic attention and proper public funding, quite the opposite of coalition priorities. Critical thinking, intellectual curiosity and good writing must be taught from an early age, and made part of every citizen's skills. Gove's suggestion reduces them to instruments for enabling the better-supported to get into a good course. Turning A-levels into old-style Oxbridge entrance exams is consistent with the coalition's damaging and hierarchical attitude to education. Only a handful of well-coached clever clogs will enter a shrinking and expensive university sector.

Gove's proposal to limit the number of retakes also requires scrutiny. As any teacher knows, one-off exam results are not a fail-safe indicator of a student's abilities. Gove's emphasis on them as limited-opportunity tools for determining university entrance highlights the coalition's refusal to see education as a democratic necessity, a resource that should be widely and equally available as a public good.

While it would be productive for schoolteachers and academics across the sector to share ideas about the content and evaluation of school curriculums, it is wrong to suggest that exams can be set by people not directly involved with the teaching of them. At Cambridge we spend much attention on ensuring that the exams we set are fair and enable a wide range of answers in relation to the teaching we provide, but the questions are not instrumental – nor do we teach solely with exams in mind. Schoolteachers, not lecturers, should be the driving force behind A-levels. What Gove calls "university ownership" of A-levels is a euphemism for the managerialism that is already part of the problem. Asking some universities to "drive the system" from a distance threatens to throw everyone else off the vehicle.

Our challenging times call for a richly resourced educational system that equips young people across social classes to develop their intellectual and creative abilities. Jobs and degrees are vital – but so, in a democracy, is the ability to think ideas through at length, make informed judgments, critically evaluate alternatives and argue a case. Would a government that is busily pushing through changes with no real mandate really want to encourage this?

Gove, who advocates rote-learning of poems and kings and queens of England, has always had a narrow conception of education. His proposal returns us to the bad old days when only the privately educated and well-funded could go to university. In tandem with tripled tuition fees, a funding regime that weakens the arts and humanities, and the likely privatisation of many universities, the already privileged will be the only winners.