Then I remembered. It's Michael Wilshaw's fault. Life is always better if there's someone to blame and maybe that's the point of the Head of Ofsted.
On Thursday morning I read an article in the Guardian reporting a speach Mr Wilshaw had given saying that an hour's teaching time is lost per day due to disruptive pupils.
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/sep/25/headteachers-too-soft-unruly-pupils-ofsted-chief-sir-michael-wilshaw
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/sep/25/headteachers-too-soft-unruly-pupils-ofsted-chief-sir-michael-wilshaw
This will appeal to parents. Parents know about the 'naughty' child in their offspring's class. Children love telling adults about their peers, especially if it makes them feel superior. "Mum, today Jeffrey had to go to the headteacher because he hit a teacher with a stick in the playground. He came in when I was there because I'd hit Petunia on the head with a marracca but that was a raccident!" It would be easy to think that a whole hour a day is being lost to dealing with the 'naughty boys' (as I used to call it when I was at school). Teachers know that disruptive behaviour is annoying and all have strategies for dealing with it. Ofsted's own report said that behaviour in 80% of schools is good. I'd be surprised if any teacher has a casual acceptance of bad behaviour; for most, bad behaviour among their pupils causes anxiety, feelings of guilt and sleepless nights.
It was the fact that he described the poor behaviours as humming and tapping that worried me. Surely, humming and tapping are not bad behaviours? That would make me badly behaved and I am the most compliant goody-goody on the planet. Some people just move a bit or make a little bit of noise when they are processing stuff. The logical parent will be thinking, "But it's only the irritating tapping and humming that they are talking about," which must be true but where do you draw the line?
Several years ago a school I worked in had Ofsted in the week before Christmas and were criticised because the children didn't walk into assembly in complete silence. Most people would think silent 5 year olds on the 20th of December would be a bit 'Midwich Cuckoos' but it didn't stop the school trying to make sure every assembly was entered and exited in complete silence from then on.
And this is what makes me think that this latest speech might signal the end of music in schools.
Psychologically, most people spend about 10 minutes of a lesson processing what happened in the previous 10 minutes. This is why teachers plan exciting and engaging starter sessions. As I music teacher, I know I have delivered a good lesson if the children are still humming the song, tapping out the rhythm or twitching their fingers as if they are still playing the recorder tune they've just learnt as they leave the room. I know then that they have engaged with the music and are beginning to understand and appreciate it on a deep physical level. I know they will walk down the corridor singing quietly to themselves. If my lesson has really made an impact they will still be singing the song at the end of the day or playing their oboe reed straws (sorry parents) all weekend.
Music is already a threatened subject in many primary schools, where there is too little time to do everything, where there aren't specialists, teachers lack confidence in teaching the subject and where funding issues mean that resources are limited. I worry that if Ofsted are now going to be expecting silent, seen and not heard, children that model our image of Victorian or Asian schools then the risk of teaching a subject that actively encourages tapping and humming will be too great.
Does this matter? I think so. I hope you do too. I think humans need a variety of activities to keep them healthy and happy and an educational diet of maths and English alone won't deliver that for our kids.
No comments:
Post a Comment