The topic of ‘electricity and magnetism’ is one that many GCSE science students find difficult and which may therefore be a common ‘turn off’. I liked to start my series of KS4 lessons on electromagnetism with some practical activities involving that most cognitively demanding phenomenon of electromagnetic induction. The following approach breaks all the (behaviourist) rules by starting with the difficult and complex, which real life always is, and then reaching down to seek a simplifying structure of explanations rather than the other way round. The first stage in such learning is therefore grounded in concrete experience and is therefore thoroughly Piagetian.

Our science classes usually contained 24/25 students. Groups of five, preferably of mixed ability within a setted class are about right even if there is enough apparatus for smaller groups. This is to facilitate essential social interaction and peer to peer discussion (Vygotsky) in response to the activity.

Each group has a demountable transformer of the sort designed for Nuffield physics in the early 1970s. Every school I taught in from 1971 to 2003 had this kit. The transformer consists of two identical insulated coils of enamelled copper wire and two laminated iron ‘C’ cores. One ‘leg’ of each ‘C’ core can be inserted into the centre of each coil. The cores are then butted together to make a continuous iron loop threading both coils. It is simple to show this in a diagram. Modern schools may have a different version of this kit that does the same thing, but for this activity to work the cores, each with its own coil, have to be separable. I have seen demountable transformer kits in the Phillip Harris catalogue where this is not case.

One of the coils is connected to the 12V ac output of a lab power pack. The other coil is connected to a 12V 24W car headlamp bulb in a holder.

The pupils are told to separate the cores then switch on the power pack. The coil connected to it and its core make a scary 50Hz buzzing noise and the core becomes a very powerful and noisy electromagnet. Let the students explore and experience the power of this magnet by encouraging them to play with some iron or steel objects. The very powerful buzzing electromagnet they have made is impressive and causes much excitement.

Next, with the power pack still switched on, ask a student to take one of the ‘C’ cores and coil in one hand and the other in the other hand and slowly bring them closer to butt the cores together into a continuous iron loop threading both coils. The student will feel a very powerful attractive force and will not be able to prevent the butt ends of the two cores crashing together. At this the 24W lamp suddenly lights brightly even though it is not electrically connected to the power pack. The student will not then be able to separate the cores, so strong is the attraction.

Then ask the student to switch off the power. The two cores will then separate and fall apart. Now for the astonishing bit. Ask the student to switch the power pack back on and repeat the experiment, but this time try to stop the cores finally coming together. This is very difficult and requires great strength. The idea is to get the cores within a centimetre of each other. There will be much buzzing and drama and the 24W lamp will begin to glow dimly even though the cores are not touching. If they crash together then the student can try again after switching the power pack off. All the students in the group should then try to make the lamp just glow while maintaining an air gap between the butt ends of the cores. This is massively exciting and engaging.

This activity will eat time and the students should be allowed to play and experiment with the phenomenon, without too much domination by the teacher, just a bit of help when necessary.

The students should be asked to discuss with each other what they have experienced reminding them that the lamp lights even when it is not connected by wires to the power pack, and it even glows when not even the iron cores are touching. The students will already be very familiar with lighting lamps by connecting them into electric circuits, but that is not what is happening here. Somehow energy is jumping between the two cores to make the lamp glow, but how and why?

If there is time they can try putting pieces of card between the cores and trying other experiments of their own. At the end of the lesson tell the students that they will not discover the full truth of what is happening until the end of the series of lessons on this topic, but the process of finding out will begin next lesson!

If I was to conduct this lesson for an OfSTED inspector I would likely fail – no three part lesson plan (in fact not much of a lesson plan at all), no lesson objectives written on the board, no worksheets and no final summary session bringing it all together (to tell the class what they should have learned).

The following series of lessons would proceed with the usual Michael Faraday style class experiments with appropriate references to the great man and pointing out that he was not a trained scientist but a lab technician who literally electrified the world by doing just what the class was doing.

It is important to use beefy amounts of power in such an experiment. A 24W lamp gets very hot and the surge of power when it lights through electromagnetic induction can be felt through many senses. The 50Hz buzz gives a powerful sense that something is vibrating and that this is significant in some way. It is important for pupils to experience phenomena directly through the senses whenever possible as this fertilises the mental soil for concepts to take root and have meaning for the individual learner. It is much harder for concepts to take root in sterile mental soil in a sterile school culture. Practical experiences and engagement are of value not so much for any factual knowledge gained, as at this stage that may be diffuse and uncertain, but for the personal cognitive development and engagement that the experience has stimulated in the learner.

Obviously the teacher needs to try this out first. There is a danger that a group may try to repeat the activity using 12V dc rather than ac. This is potentially very rewarding as surprisingly the lamp does not light even when the cores are together in a single iron loop and the magnetism is just as strong. Better still students might notice that the lamp flashes briefly when the power pack is turned on and off. The danger here is that on dc, the coil connected to the power pack may overheat, so experimenting with dc instead of ac probably needs another more controlled activity in a later lesson.

I offer this lesson suggestion not as a model, but as an example to be discussed and criticised. It certainly raises further pedagogical questions that I have never fully worked out. For example, how to manage such a lesson to get the best outcome for the girls in the class, whose excitement in such contexts may be less easy to stimulate than my own for a whole raft of complex reasons that women may be able to explain to me. Should the teacher dictate the make up of the groups, or let the pupils organise themselves? Should the teacher insist on mixed sex groups? Would this be counter-productive and just feed stereotypes on who does, and who watches?

I would hope that science teachers in a science department would be encouraged to develop their own ideas, like this one, for practical science activities and discuss and share them in science department staff meetings, along with other ideas for promoting deep understanding. If such meetings are always dominated by agendas passed down from the senior management team, or by issues of behaviour and discipline, then a lot of developmental work is needed amongst the staff as well as the pupils. The culture of behaviourist managerialism that has increasingly come to dominate school senior management teams, may simply not be up to this.

It certainly helps if the headteacher and senior colleagues are also leading practitioners in departmental teaching teams and recognised as such by teachers and pupils alike. If the current education system cannot facilitate this then there is something seriously wrong with the system.

Mr Thomas was duly on the radio this morning battling it out with William Petty, director of Tutoring at Bona Macfarlane Education; there was much legitimate concern expressed about the wisdom of young children doing two to three hours extra lessons on top of a full day at a school, having to eat their supper while being taught and not getting to bed until late and so on.

Strangely, no one thought to highlight the direct connection between this ‘tiger economy’ approach to our children’s early years and Mr Gove’s clear statement at a recent Spectator schools conference that Coalition education policy is now directly focussed on winning the race for global competitiveness. (‘What – only three hours extra tutoring after school? Don’t you know the Koreans work until 11 pm?’ etc)

However, there then developed a slightly surreal exchange between Today presenter Justin Webb and the head of the tutoring company over Webb’s concerns that the rise of private tutoring was benefitting only the well-off.

In a tone approaching indignation, Webb put the argument – based on recent evidence from America, he claimed – that those who can pay for extra lessons in the early years of their child’s school life establish a firm advantage, educationally speaking, over those who cannot afford it and that this privilege is sustained throughout their lifetime.

Am I missing something or is this not the entire raison d’etre of private education? And if it is wrong, why decry private tutoring but not the private school system which has institutionalised this advantage over such a long period and so skilfully that the naked connection between wealth and advantage is now both obscured and reframed as a matter of parental choice, institutional ‘independence’ and innate educational excellence?

William Petty’s – rather defensive – answer to Webb was to declare that he was acutely aware of the problem of wealth buying educational advantage and that he hoped that the private tutoring industry would soon develop more charitable aspects.

Ah, so perhaps we will soon see the Coalition underwriting ‘charitable status’ for private tutoring companies? Will we see companies like Bona Macfarlane loan out their tutors at a reduced rate to struggling state schools on the odd Saturday morning?

Unfortunately, the Today interview did not touch on some interesting points brought out by the original Evening Standard piece. Apparently, some of the heads of private schools, such as London’s St Paul’s, are now asking parents to declare on application forms whether they have tutored their children as research from the Girls’ Schools Association indicated that heads of senior schools discourage the practice as they believe it ‘ masks the child’s innate abilities.’ ( Leaving aside how one decides on a child’s ‘innate abilities’ in the first place, surely an elite primary education is also going to ‘mask’ a child’s natural talent, if one chooses to think in this way?)

Mr Thomas also told the Evening Standard that selective schools had added to the problem: “The thought that we’ve created a system where we’ve got three-year-olds being coached to get through an entrance test is fundamentally wrong.”

Now that would have been an interesting talking point.

The first was a research review from the Education Endowment Foundation , a charity funded by the government . The EEF assesses the value of particular interventions in schools, in particular relating to narrowing gaps. Its conclusion on PRP was “Low or no impact for moderate cost, based on very limited evidence”.

The second piece of evidence came from PISA. Again the evidence was scanty and the results inconclusive. To quote the report: “Performance-based pay is worth considering in some contexts; but making it work well and sustainably is a formidable challenge. Pay levels can only be part of the work environment: countries that have succeeded in making teaching an attractive profession have often done so not just through pay, but by raising the status of teaching, offering real career prospects, and giving teachers responsibility as professionals and leaders of reform. This requires teacher education that helps teachers to become innovators and researchers in education, not just civil servants who deliver curricula.”

The third link I was sent referred to a paper Eight Reasons Why Merit Pay is a Bad Idea  by Ben Levin, the Canadian academic who was part of the turn around of Ontario’s school in the last decade. I have written before about Ben’s book “How to Change 5000 Schools”. His conclusion on merit pay is that it won’t work to improve student outcomes and may even damage them.

Finally watch this little RSAnimate film by American management guru Dan Pink about what motivates professionals. Guess what, it is a bit more complicated than just money.

No-one provided firm evidence that PRP does work to improve performance and as one academy head, who felt PRP would be an  ”unmitigated disaster” in his school, pointed out :”There are already many systems in place for dealing with poor performance (and we use these rigorously at our academy) – I don’t think we need any more.”

He felt PRP would lead to wrangling over “who deserved what” when teaching needed to be a team effort.  It will certainly be divisive, as the teacher unions are also planning to strike about it, but for what would appear to be little reward. In other words a very Gove-ian policy and unnecessary in the current climate.

The five points are:

• Major change should be separated from party politics;

• No child should be excluded from the qualifications system;

• Policy development should start with identifying what young adults should know, understand and be able to do;

• Curriculum design should come before assessment and accountability;

• The teaching profession should be centrally involved in shaping future reform.

For more information about the meeting read Fiona Millar’s account here.

Up to the turn of the last century a sixteen plus examination served some purpose when it marked the conclusion of full time education for a significant proportion of a year group. It gave young people, parents and employers an opportunity to get some kind of handle on an individual pupil’s overall abilities which would not be on offer again. Since that point we have increasingly moved towards a situation where the effective work or higher education entering age is eighteen. This may have happened more because of economic and demographic reasons than for any educational purpose but it is becoming a fact.

In this situation the sixteen plus examination is now a total waste of time, money and effort and a diversion from achieving the best outcomes for young people from their years in education and training. A major reason for scrapping the eleven plus examination was that it unfairly classified too many pupils as failures, a perception which blighted the remainder of their time at school – and beyond. At that early age you could not leave school and start on a different path, just as now a young person of sixteen cannot shake off the effects of an unsatisfactory GCSE performance and try their hand in the world outside. The unemployment figures show that this is even difficult at eighteen, whatever the level of paper qualifications.

The decision to scrap the end of Year 11 examinations, as already happens in other developed countries, is not a destructive act, rather it is liberating and positive. GCSE costs the system a great deal of money and even more in time, both of pupils and teachers. It distorts young people’s view of education into something too narrowly prescribed by smart technique and short cuts to answers. Wide ranging and imaginative study of a subject goes out of the window, which is demotivating for all involved.

The purpose of education is not to grade pupils like peas but to encourage them to learn and to be able to make use of their learning. Education and the world beyond may not be exactly the same thing but neither should there be a total disconnect between them. The set of grades thrown up by GCSE for a particular person is not an infallible guide to their future achievements. Anyone who has taught in Further Education has plenty of evidence of this fact. So, without the dead hand of any sixteen plus exam, we can consider the better uses that can be made of resources and time.

First of all, if only a fraction of the time spent on exam technique, revision and pre-testing could be used by staff to gain a better picture of their pupils’ aptitude and interests it would be invaluable. This is not to ask teachers to become careers officers but to develop strategies to give individual guidance on programmes of study and training 15-18, not overly defined by the parameters of the timetable and the requirements of exam boards. This process is vital if young people are going to be equipped at eighteen with both a purpose and the tools to carry it through. Experience shows that once they have an aim which means something to them they can jump learning hurdles which previously seemed insurmountable.

Secondly, without a curriculum constrained by its need to have outcomes which are always easily testable, the breadth and depth of education which everyone says that they want to see can more readily be achieved. Core skills, for example, can be absorbed and demonstrated in a wider set of contexts. Essential learning in the fields of speaking and listening for instance can be developed. Who knows, we might even produce a generation of politicians who understand the difference between merely listening and actually hearing what people have to say.

Finally, this will not only free pupils but also staff. Teachers need to respect pupils and value their subjects if they are to do their job properly. They must also have sufficient space between the guideposts of the curriculum to make their own contribution to what is taught and to devise imaginative and inspiring forms of learning experience. They need the opportunity to introduce books, topics, projects and experiments which broaden and illuminate learning. In this way there is a good chance that both pupil and teacher will find enjoyment in the learning process, a necessary pre-requisite for lasting success. It should of course be remembered that enjoyment can often be a very serious matter and not at all the same thing as fun.

These are a few of the positive uses that can be made of the freedom given by the demise of the GCSE. If pursued wisely they will ensure far better outcomes for the whole cohort at eighteen, to the benefit of young people, universities and employers and to the relief of parents. Doing away with testing and examinations altogether is of course as much of a Luddite act as it would be to operate without nationally agreed curriculum guidelines up to the age of fifteen. On the other hand, getting rid of a layer of examinations which now has no purpose is a sensible and constructive act. We adults should apologise to our children and grandchildren that it has taken us so long to see this particular light.

One of many fundamental problems with such an approach is that pupils vary enormously in their ability to comprehend and make progress, not to mention all the personal affective baggage that children bring to their lessons.

Consider a secondary school that might have a number of full time maths teachers whose work is organised and managed by a Head of Department, who is also a very able and experienced classroom teacher. Her department would be likely to comprise teachers of varying age, experience and competence. The KS4 classes would most likely be setted according to ability. Each year the Head of Department would (or should) have the job of allocating classes to her teachers (and to herself).

On the principle that all pupils, regardless of ability, have the right to be taught by the best teachers during their passage through the school, it would not be right for there to be a hierarchy of teachers with regard to who gets the ‘best’ (easiest to teach) and ‘worst’ (hardest to teach) classes. It is clearly best for all pupils if classes are shared out from year to year. This is also best for teachers because even if all other personal attributes are equivalent, teachers become more competent with experience. Such experience can be only gained by being exposed to the huge variety of demands presented by children of different abilities and social backgrounds. Such arrangements are the way that an effective Head of Department can develop her team over a period of years. Of course teachers have individual talents and enthusiasms and a wise Head of Department would also want to take these into account.

So how would payment by results work? Pupils vary in their ability levels so even if they all make the same excellent progress then exam results should vary in a similar manner. Differential payments based on exam results would inevitably undermine the essential sense of common purpose, teamwork and professional co-operation.

Then there is the question of the pastoral system of the school. How would payment by results be applied to Heads of Year and Form Tutors? Would a teacher’s pay be affected by the number of persistent truants in her form, and how would pastoral staff be rewarded for their contribution to the academic success of pupils whose personal problems they had successfully addressed?

There is however a sense in which payment by results is perfectly reasonable and has long existed in our schools. There are (or were) differentiated national pay scales that took account of experience and provided extra allowances for responsibilities.

Unfortunately the threatened changes to teachers’ pay and conditions will erode rather than extend such positive and truly motivating differentiation that recognises and rewards experience, expertise, responsibility and most important of all, teamwork.

The best way to hold school staff to account and deal with underperformance is to be fully open and transparent about the pay and job description of every single employee in the organisation. This means publishing the pay, pay scale and detailed job description and schedule of responsibilities for every teacher including the Senior Management Team and the headteacher. This information should be publicly available to anybody and everybody obviously including governors and parents.

This was the system in my headship school and it caused no problems at all. When you are paid from the public purse the public has a right to know how much you are paid and what you are expected to do for it.

Such a system would be met with shock and horror in the English world of business, but it is completely normal in many successful economies especially in Scandinavia where anyone can look at anybody else’s pay and tax returns with a few clicks of a mouse on a personal computer.

The transparency approach also provides a sound structure for accountability. All teachers have line managers with specified responsibilities for the performance, individually and collectively, of their teams. There should be no ‘performance bonuses’ of any kind – ever. Everybody is expected to do the job they are paid for. It really is as simple as that.

Some individuals will outgrow their current job and wish to apply for a more highly paid one, either within the same school or elsewhere. Some individuals may be failing to meet the requirements of their job description so line managers have to address that through established procedures and fair processes. Obviously nobody should be sustained in a job they are not doing properly or retained in such a job if after receiving appropriate support, they still can’t do it effectively.

I had a number of jobs in the private sector before I became a teacher and saw plenty of petty status seeking, fiddling, skiving, idling and much worse. In contrast when I first became a teacher I was surprised and impressed by what was expected of me in terms of hours, expertise and professionalism and I was in awe of the very high standards of my more experienced colleagues, from whom over many years I learned the principles of effective teaching and headship.

But there were groans for Tim Montgomerie from Conservative Home when he said that at the end of the Labour years the UK had slipped down not just one education league table but every single one. The audience wasn’t buying it. And they were right not to because:

1 The argument that the UK has “plummeted” down education league tables can only be sustained by using the UK PISA results for the year 2000 which have been found to be flawed (see faqs above).

2 The UK Statistics Authority has recently voiced concerns about the Department for Education’s use of these PISA figures.

3 Another education league table, Trends in Maths and Science Survey 2007, put English pupils at the top of the European league table in both maths and science for both 10 year-olds and 14 year-olds.

4 A recent survey by Learning Curve (published before the 2012 PIRLS and TIMSS results) found that the UK was 6th in the world and 2nd in Europe when the results of global education tests were combined with literacy and graduation rates.

It is, of course, important to keep these league tables in perspective – they test only a limited number of subjects at specific ages.  But Mr Gove uses selected league tables to underpin his policies.  However, if the applause from the Any Questions audience is anything to go by, then it appears that the public is no longer being taken in by Gove’s rhetoric.

Any Questions, 14 December 2012 is available here. The question about teacher pay and performance begins at about 42.30

It’s unclear how setting harder entry tests for teacher trainees will raise standards when academies and free schools don’t have to hire trained teachers. And how far will these tests help “Britain (sic) compete” internationally?

To answer this question the review panel which recommended the tests looked at what happens in six countries and one jurisdiction which score highly in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) tests. It found there is “no evidence of nationally mandated testing specific to teaching” in these countries.

In three of the countries, trainee teachers were selected on their academic record and aptitude for teaching. Once selected, they followed a training course. In the other three, trainees undertook training which was followed by locally administered tests. These included a mixture of traditional written tests, demonstration lessons and interviews.

Only one country, New Zealand had “specific requirements” about literacy and numeracy although Ontario was planning language competence tests in both official languages (English and French). In Singapore, the only prospective teachers required to take a test – in English fluency – were those who failed to reach matriculation standards.

In high-performing countries, candidates were tested on their knowledge of education although the panel decided this had “low predictive validity in relation to performance as a teacher”. If that is so, then it raises the question why these high-performing countries bother with assessing “education theories in relation to child development, [and] knowledge of the education system”. The countries that examine such knowledge must think it has some value even if the panel decided otherwise. The panel’s opinion appears to chime with Mr Gove’s idea that teaching is a “craft” best learned on-the-job.

Most teacher training in these countries was at undergraduate level and solely led by universities except in New Zealand where there were a small number of private providers. Teacher training in England is moving away from university-based to school-based training.

Finally, the panel found that in most of the countries “critical decisions about access to teaching are made on the basis of interactive performance in interview or micro teaching.”

England is again out-of-step with high-performing countries, although it has to be said that six plus one jurisdiction is not a large sample. But a pattern is emerging – England is moving away from what high-performing countries do despite Secretary of State, Michael Gove, saying his reforms are underpinned by international evidence. England is changing exams at 16 when other developed countries have moved to graduation at 18 (see faqs above); the proposed programmes of study for primary schools “fly in the face of evidence from the UK and internationally”, the proposed tests for trainee teachers in England are nothing like those in other countries and the method of training teachers in schools does not match the university training offered elsewhere.