Though Cowards Flinch

I was surprised, lying in bed listening to Radio 4 this morning, to hear that NASUWT has strong objections to pupils playing a role on interview panels, or in the interview process generally. There are a bunch of positive and negatives, and though I lean towards the positive aspects myself, I was pleased to read this from the DCSF:

“It is for schools to determine – with staff and pupils alike – the precise role or roles that pupils/student might play, and what support they need in carrying these out, and mechanisms for student views to be captured.”

Could it be that all the moaning from teachers, headteachers, parents and students about the centralisation of many elements of the education system are finally sinking in? Up for debate, I suppose, but encouraging nonetheless.

The grievances by the NASUWT, which have gone so far as to demand consideration of strike action, are as follows:

‘In one case, a teacher failed to get a job after being labelled “Humpty Dumpty” by a pupil allowed to sit on his interview panel.

‘The teacher, who got the job, taught three of the five students who had been on the panel.

‘”These pupils turned out to be poor behavers and low achievers who were being given these positions of responsibility as a motivational and self-esteem boost,” the teacher wrote.

‘In another case, a teacher said they were “humiliated” after being asked by pupils to sing their favourite song at interview. They declined and did not get the job.

‘Ms Keates said many of the examples were grossly unprofessional and stripped teachers of their professional dignity.

‘”To be effective in their roles teachers need to feel confident and empowered to act with authority.

‘”Involving pupils directly in making judgments about the suitability for posts and competence in the classroom places these considerations in jeopardy.”

‘Ms Keates added: “It is clear that too many schools are engaging not in student voice but in the manipulation of children and young people to serve the interests of school management and its perspective.”‘ [Source: BBC]

I’ve never faced an interview where pupils were actually part of the panel, though interviews in this part of the country regularly feature students as guides for prospective teachers, who are then rigorously quizzed by the interviewing panel on what the prospective teachers said and did, and how the pupils perceived them.

It’s not terribly dissimilar to having would-be teachers teach twenty minutes of an hour lesson to a real class, observed by someone on the panel or providing their notes to the panel. It’s a gruelling process, and one which probably delivers highly variable results since teaching a class you’ve never met before is different to one you manage regularly.

Yet, there’s no prima facie reason why pupils shouldn’t be engaged in the process for selecting teachers – though in a constructive way, rather than as one more hoop to jump through. This is why what DCSF says about the use of pupils during the interview process, and what support to provide them with, being school responsibility is so important.

In the example provided by the BBC reportage, there’s nothing beyond circumstantial evidence that relationships with pupils or refusal to sing a song denied a teacher a job. A pupil panellist calling a teacher ‘humpty dumpty’ simply emphasizes that pupils need more support and structure to guide their judgments.

While I’m no expert at interviews – I’m notorious for hating the interview process with a passion – my suggestion would be that pupils should be given certain positive attributes to look for, or should define positive attributes they would like to see, in a classroom, and should then be charged with evidencing them (or not) throughout an interview.

Most classes already collectively work out positive things they would like to see in a classroom – there’s no reason there shouldn’t be class-by-class attempts to work out what positive attributes students expect from teachers. Teaching is, after all, a contract between pupils and teachers – and both sides have something to live up to.

I’m sure, in schools where discipline is a problem – and thankfully I’ve never been called to teach in those – this all sounds a bit utopian. The BBC example details that it was misbehavers who got appointed to be panellists, and the suspicion of most teacher is, presumably, that they were looking for teachers who were a soft touch etc.

This is entirely possible; it is possible, I’m sure, for the process to go horribly wrong. Having dealt with obstreperous children and being one myself, when someone doesn’t want to co-operate with a process that is laid out before them, they will find many inventive ways of not co-operating. Yet I don’t think this justifies the NASUWT approach.

Via twitter, a remark quoted from Phil Kemp at NASUWT conference caught my eye:

“The moment a 15-year-old is allowed to sit with a clipboard assessing teachers is the moment that teaching is no longer a profession.”

Frankly this just appears hysterical. It’s possible, as NASUWT maintain elsewhere, that Pupil Voice can be exploited by management – but a) is it not more likely that if Pupil Voice becomes the deciding factor of an interview, the candidate has had a bad day ticking off the other boxes? and b) the problem is therefore management, not pupils.

I’ve never seen any reason why headteachers should be involved in an interview panel, to be honest. If we grade teachers by their abilities in a classroom, then surely the right people to judge that will be other teachers – whether ASTs (*chortle*) or those receiving top grades from OFSTED. What function do headteachers perform there?

Maybe one solution is to remove management from the interview process, and leave heads of department and staff to determine who the best teacher for the job is. There can be no NASUWT complaints about management appropriating student opinions for their own ends, in that case. Let management continue to count paperclips and exam stats.

Meanwhile, let’s definitely get feedback from students as to whether or not teachers engage them. The snapshot of an interview is probably too short for this type of thing to be constructive just asking pupils what they liked or didn’t, so structure to any pupil part of an interview day is key, and should be agreed on by the local union branches.

Moreover, information from pupils should simply not be fed into performance management regimes; it is utterly subjective. It can be used profitably – every teacher has a clear interest in sharpening their practice – but it should not be used as a club by management against staff, and despite a muddled evocation, this is a key objection by NASUWT.

If striking is necessary to achieve this sort of co-operation on the part of schools, then good luck and godspeed to NASUWT. Bearing in mind that there are still schools in this country that refuse to recognise the collective bargaining rights of duly constituted unions and workers’ representatives, it may indeed be necessary.

But let’s drop the hyperbole while we’re at it, eh?