CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

From time to time I get up on stage and try my hand at a bit of stand-up comedy. My opening joke goes something like: “Hello, my name’s Steve… I used to be a teacher but I was fired – apparently happy slapping the little f***ers is not an appropriate form of punishment.” I’m no Jimmy Carr I admit, but it’s a nice line to start my routine and it usually gets a laugh.

Of course it’s not true – I did used to be a teacher but I wasn’t fired and I certainly didn’t “happy slap” any of my pupils – I gave them a good caning…

But last week, two teachers were suspended after mobile phone footage appeared to show one teacher taunting a boy who had been tied up using electiracal tape. It was, according to the school, a “prank” which went wrong. Very wrong.

It is not clear how much of a part – if any – either teacher played in the incident. But if one of the teachers did taunt the boy (he supposedly said, “Give us a shout when you’re ready to start grovelling”) then this was clearly too much.

Incidentally, the Guardian reported a “school source” as saying: “It was like something you would expect in Guantánamo Bay or an al-Qaida video.” It’s good to know that the school equates the treatment of al-Qaida hostages with that of US terrorist suspects.

But no matter how unpleasant a pupil might be, any kind of maltreatment of children by teachers should be confined strictly to the realms of fantasy. The staffroom is a place of dark, dark humour. Teaching is one of those unbearable jobs – like nursing (or any job in the medical profession), policing and to some extent, journalism – where a sense of humour is absolutely vital.

We deal with situations that are so surreal (and often so unpleasant) that without joking about them, the job really would be unbearable.

Some of the conversations that regualarly happen in staffrooms across the land, if broadcast to a wider audience, would cause a great deal of controversy. But what is said by teachers behind closed doors is said strictly because they are behind closed doors.

Teachers make cruel jokes about school children’s physical appearance and their lack of intelligence. And they frequently pour scorn on parents’ parenting skills and fantasise about how they would really like to punish some of their worst pupils.

But while a lot of what is said is inappropriate, does it do any harm? I would argue not. This “dressing room banter” is a highly effective coping mechanism. It is a release from the daily grind. If teachers were not able to vent their frustrations in the staffroom then where else would they have to let off steam?

A healthy, happy staffroom where teachers can talk openly about which particular little critter has been “doing their head in” that morning makes for a healthy, happy school. If teachers can rant and rave over a cup of coffee with their colleagues then they are less likely to blow their top in front of the kids.

BONJOUR MES ENFANTS

The government has announced it will inject £53m into schools to improve the teaching of modern foreign languages (MFL) in schools.

Apparently this is to counteract a drop in the take-up of language GCSEs since they were made non-compulsory.

Pardonnez-moi? Wouldn’t a £53m cheaper way of solving the problem be to make French and German compulsory again? Er… no, according to schools minister, Jim Knight.

Jim tells the Guardian: “Compulsory French or German GCSE study simply does not motivate pupils. We will generate enthusiasm and confidence for studying languages in secondary school and beyond – far more effective than simple compulsion.”

Ah sod it – lets make Maths and English optional too – it won’t be a problem because we’ll just generate some enthusiasm with a few more millions.

I sort of see where he’s coming from though. Making kids do something is a sure fire way of putting them off – but you’ve got to draw the line somewhere. There’s no reason why we can’t “generate enthusiasm” as well as making French and/or German compulsory.

One of the ways the government want to boost MFL take-up is by introducing it to kids in primary schools. In fact, the one thing they are making compulsory is the teaching of an MFL in primary schools.

I feel obliged to say they shouldn’t make the teaching of languages compulsory – they should just “generate enthusiasm” for the teaching of languages.

I did briefly try teaching a bit of French to my year fives – it went down a treat (see here) – but that’s because I know a some French already and I do a mean impression of Thierry Henry. But I think asking a primary teacher with no specific language knowledge to teach a language is a step too far.

If the government seriously wants to go ahead with this plan then it needs to think very carefully about how it is going to deliver effective MFL lessons to primary school kids. Otherwise, children who would previously have arrived at secondary school with no preconceptions about French or German, will turn up less enthusiastic than ever before.

WHY TEACHING IS STRESSFUL

In a recent education supplement of a national broadsheet paper, there appeared a column entitled, Why Teaching Isn’t Stressful. In the piece, David Mingay – a teacher himself – argued that those who found the job stressful or who suffered mental health problems as a result of teaching, should quit.

He cited a report from the NUT conference which claimed that ‘one in three [teachers] will have mental health problems at some point due to the stress of the job’ and that ‘drug addiction, eating disorders and obsessive behaviour are also common’. I imagine that while half the teachers reading the article were nodding their heads in quiet agreement, the other half were rather less quietly spitting feathers.

I found myself torn between the two camps. Because as a teacher who did find teaching stressful and did suffer mental health problems, I chose to take Mingay’s advice and leave the profession.

A quick glance at any one of the numerous internet forums for teachers suggests that opinion is just as divided. One contributor comments: ‘I get so fed up with [people] commenting on how cushy it is to be a teacher with all those long holidays, late starts and early finishes [whereas] in reality I arrive at school for 7.45 and rarely leave before 6, I spend loads of time in the evenings, at weekends and during the holidays preparing my classroom, planning and assessing work’.

But she gets an unsympathetic response from a fellow colleague who writes: ‘I work shorter hours than my two best friends. I get paid more. I have more job security. I get 9 more weeks’ holiday a year. I never work weekends. I get job satisfaction. I get a reasonable yearly pay increase, they get below inflation.’

So, why does this apparent discrepancy arise? One theory is the difference between working in the primary and secondary sectors. I suspect – from his references to excessive homework and detention – that Mr Mingay is a secondary teacher. And it seems to be a common conception – especially among primary teachers – that their fellow colleagues in the secondary sector have got it just a tad easier. Having said that, ask the same primary teachers if they’d rather work in key stage 3 or 4 and they are not so forthcoming.

I’m not convinced by the argument that primary is more stressful than secondary, but I do believe that the environment in which we teach is responsible for the widely differing experiences which teachers encounter. The socio-economic background, the management of the school, the funding and resources available, the involvement of parents and countless other issues all play a part in how teachers experience the job.  And these factors undoubtedly have an impact on the varying amounts of stress under which teachers are put.

Mingay complains about the hypocrisy of teachers who complain about their own workload while expecting their students to succeed under similar conditions. My idea of hypocrisy is describing a profession as ‘one of the most pleasant and satisfying jobs on could ever wish for’ in one sentence and then claiming teachers should be given a pay increase in the next. If teaching is such a bed of roses, then surely the government should be charging teachers for the privilege of ‘working with the most exciting people in the world’.

In reality, the idea that an increase in pay would solve the problem is naïve. Do doctors not suffer stress? How about lawyers? With inflated pay would come higher expectations – it would increase pressure on teachers – the only difference would be they’d have a nicer house and a bigger mortgage.