Teachers In This

Many years ago I lived in semi squalor in Brighton, I shared a flat on the seafront with my friend. One sunny day we decided to escape the madding crowds of that seaside town and go out into the country. We got a train to a little town called Lewes. As we strolled through the countryside I told my friend that I was thinking of becoming a teacher. I'd had a couple of ales and I expounded the joys of being a school master in a little village, deep at work in my books, being asked my opinion on things by the respectful locals. I was obviously lampooning the status of a teacher but in my mind it was rooted in reality. Teachers had respect, they had a certain status. I saw this on my flights back to Northern Ireland when the stringent security checks would ask my occupation, in the past I'd say 'student' , 'unemployed' , 'work in a hospital' each time I'd undergo a search of me and my belongings. When I said 'teacher' I was waved through. (Although by the time I'd become a teacher the troubles had ended so that might be a reason).

Over the last twenty years teachers have been reduced in status. The last two weeks have seen the media calling teachers out. It's our time to be heroes, get back to work. Michael Gove, one time Education Secretary, has started to refer to the profession as 'the blob' again. This was his term for us if we resisted any of his wide spread reforms from 2010 onwards. This was a phrase coined by Dominic Cummings who is now a chief adviser to the Prime Minister. The journalist Isabel Oakeshott tweeted on a Thursday that "Tonight thousands of teachers will clap for the NHS. Time for teachers to show the same bravery!"  Taking aside the reality that thousands of teachers are still in schools teaching and looking after children of key workers and vulnerable pupils, this is a fairly common view.

So why has the status of teachers declined. There are a few reasons. One is something I've talked about before, the neo liberal view that we all have agency, the large structures of society should not impose on our liberty. This was vocalised by Michael Gove during the 2016 referendum on the EU when he stated that no one was interested in experts. This ties back to his 'blob' comments too. Both authored by Dominic Cummings who has written extensively on such things.

It is also linked to the changes in education due to the demands of globalisation. A sociologist called Stephen Ball believes that the neo liberal perspective of education is that it can only succeed if it is treated like a business. In a globalised market place we do not only compete amongst ourselves but with other countries as well. The Conservative government in the 1980s deindustrialised the UK so that it could become a service industry - this would mean our economy could compete with other countries, the services we provided in finance and leisure would propel us upwards. Asked on a children's TV show what she thought of pop music Mrs Thatcher said it was very good for the economy. In 1988 the Education Reform Act was introduced, this provided key skills for work. It also introduced coursework and New Vocationalism which meant that women could be skilled up to take part in this service revolution. This led to a marginalisation of working class boys, something sociologist Mac an Ghall referred to as a 'crisis of masculinity' and something we still see in our housing estates and on our streets today.  The Reform Act also introduced competition amongst schools. They had to compete with each other. No longer were you confined to the local school, you could shop around. Like a supermarket. League tables helped parents out. This was carried on by Tony Blair's New Labour government. They gave Ofsted more powers to ensure that schools were meeting targets (they invested more in schools than the Conservatives but wanted results for their bucks) and introduced the academy system which went nuclear under Michael Gove. The idea behind academies initially was to rescue failing schools in impoverished areas. The academy would be run in conjunction with local business money, this would lead to high resources and less interference from LEAs. Under the coalition this was expanded and the ambition was that every school would become an academy regardless of performance or the area.  Large academy chains such as Dixons and Oasis appeared. Michael Gove went further - he introduced free schools. Here parents, businesses, faiths, football clubs, journalists anyone could set up a school. This meant even more choice. Gove then reset how to become a teacher, no longer did you have to go to university and train. Now you could train on the job. Academies had different working conditions and pay. this was to lessen the 'blob' because the 'blob' was heavily unionised. 

The effect of all of this according to Ball is that the role of a teacher was diminished. They became facilitators rather than teachers. They looked at exams and how to pass them. Like any business their eye is on results. Their management sometimes is not academic but business. Results are how things are measured in business. Education became the same. Ofsted is now interested in the customer's experience. Deep dives are carried out in schools, looking at the entire experience of the pupil.

When lock down began many schools had already closed. Mostly because of safety. Because of choice pupils traveled to school from various areas with many other people. Schools are often over subscribed because of formula funding (money for amount of students), corridors are bustling places full of bodies in close contact. But to say they closed is not true. I spoke to a deputy head of a school in West Yorkshire, he has been turning up to work since lock down. Vulnerable pupils and those of key workers are still attending. His school sends out food parcels to those children on FSM who can't travel into school. Another primary school teacher in South Yorkshire tells me they have been doing the same. As has the academy around the corner.  My sister in law is a dinner lady at a school. She's been working throughout the lock down.

The government's concern about disadvantaged pupils missing out on the school experience is not unfounded. Many sociologists would agree with them. Because of material and cultural deprivation many pupils do not have the resources to fully engage in education. They also need the discipline. Parsons said school was part of a resocialisation process. It filled in gaps that families may lack. In other words it provides a social experience, gives rules and boundaries. This may be lacking at home. This is before we look at abusive home environments. Smith and Noble looked at the home environment as far as schooling is concerned and saw that school had a huge role to play in making up the difference. The problem is that in the past people went to the local school. In an age of globalisation and competition this is less likely. It is difficult to get pupils into school. Most schools will operate with disadvantaged pupils who often live near by as they cannot afford to travel to school. The advantaged will stay at home doing remote learning.

So, it is really complicated. The neo liberal approach to education is about choice, this means that schools are now varied places, recruiting where they can. All this is fine until restricted movement and social distancing is the norm.  then it becomes complicated. The media has tried to uncomplicate this by comparing teachers to NHS staff. One stays at home whilst the other bravely fights the virus. Teachers have died but not in the same numbers as NHS staff. Teaching is not as dangerous as being a nurse. The recent EU referendum and VE Day celebrations have made the media see things in the terms of the second world war. The search for heroes continues as it helps with social solidarity. Teachers don't fit the hero bill today.  The economy needs schools open is one view. Children need to go back to school because of social, material and cultural deprivation is another view. Both are credible.

To go back to the initial view. Teacher's are no longer awarded a high social status because they are now part of a blob. Not Michael Gove's 'blob' but one of which he is an advocate. They are part of the business economic global blob.

Work in This

The sociology of work is more interesting than it seems. Not many colleges choose the topic in A level because even though the primary reason for students to take A levels is to get into work many students recoil in horror from the very mention of the word. Work is a four lettered word. I tried explaining the concept of paid employment to my daughter when she was five and she literally ran from the room screaming. Yet it is a very important part of our society. Sociologist Keith Grint stated that work was essential to individual and societal survival. Weber believed that the protestant work ethic carved out our national identity as a capitalist country (his idea has had many critics). Durkheim, the founding father of sociology as a discipline believed that work was a form of  organic solidarity meaning that it binds society together. Every job we do no matter what is essential for our society functioning normally. We need people he sociology of work is more interesting than it seems. Not many colleges choose the topic in A level because even though the primary reason for students to take A levels is to get into work many students recoil in horror from the very mention of the word. Work is a four lettered word. I tried explaining the concept of paid employment to my daughter when she was five and she literally ran from the room screaming. Yet it is a very important part of our society. Sociologist Keith Grint stated that work was essential to individual and societal survival. Weber believed that the protestant work ethic carved out our national identity as a capitalist country (his idea has had many critics). Durkheim, the founding father of sociology as a discipline believed that work was a form ofto empty our bins, educate us, mend us, serve us in shops, keep the lights on. Everyone in work has a purpose. Marx, of course, thinks that this is wrong. Society is based on exploitation. Capitalism needs inequalities to survive. If inequality didn't exist how would the owners of the means of production generate profit? Far from binding society Marx believed that work alienated people. I remember Mrs Glasgow, my A level sociology explaining it by saying that we should imagine that in pre capitalist times a man made boats, his family helped. he loved his boats and was proud to sell them. He'd stand on a shore and point out to his children which ones he'd made as they bobbed about in the sea. Once factories appeared and boats were mass produced for profit the workers didn't have much pride in their work as they only put rivets in or painted them, they rarely saw the end product. They got a wage. They were alienated from the product as it belonged to someone else.

When this all started Durkheim's view of organic solidarity was much in evidence. We needed the NHS workers, the shelf stackers, the checkout workers, the delivery workers and many more (many teachers have not had the luxury of home teaching, they've been in the classroom teaching vulnerable pupils and those children of key workers. Some have died.) of what we now term key workers. A friend of mine shut up his bike shop on the eve of lock down thinking that he'd lose his business only to find out he was a key worker and his shop has remained open (he contracted the virus). We clapped the NHS workers, politicians paid tribute to them. Those of us who are not front line key workers worked from home. Technology is important here as I've mentioned elsewhere.

The Prime Minister announced on Sunday 10th May that  people who could not work from home should return to work. The details were confusing but it soon appeared to some people that perhaps Marx was correct. Those returning to work were more likely to be what Marxists term as the working class. Those he believed were alienated from their work. The government told them not to use public transport if possible.

Now, the argument is that our economy needs this. We are all dependent on our economy being strong and vibrant. If it is strong we all enjoy the benefits of it. Our leisure time, our interests, our travel are all tied up with this. If it fails then we are limited in our movement and interests. Durkheim would recognise this. As would Grint. Our survival is dependent on a strong economy. So people going back to work is needed. Schools then must open so that the children of these workers have somewhere to go.

Marxists however would point out that there is an inequality of who goes back and who stays at home. There is a class difference. A middle class family will most likely be able to work from home and not send their children back to school in June (councils have said that there will be no fines until September). Many (not all) middle class incomes will remain intact. Others need to work regardless of safety in the workplace.

Work cannot be divided from leisure. Our leisure choices are dependent on people working. I ordered beer from a pub, the landlord drives to my house. My records and magazines are delivered by the postman. Walking needs good footwear. We are often unaware of the people beavering away in order to make life comfortable for us all. Hopefully This will make us appreciate them. Marx would be sceptical.

Health in This

The newspapers this morning (Thursday 7th May) are full of excitement that some restrictions within the lock down are to be lifted. Underneath the bold headlines there are little facts other than snippets and hints. One constant is that exercise may be extended beyond the half hour allowance. We may be allowed to ramble and sunbathe in a public park. This might be news to some people as they have been doing this anyway. Some people I have talked to have been going on hikes that take them miles away from their homes, social media has many posts of people proclaiming their joy of the delights of nature, selfies taken by moors, reservoirs, aerial shots of towns and cities. these people are the victim of the vagueness of the government messages, the leaflet we all received. One friend told me he had walked miles and saw no one. He felt guilty but claimed he didn't know what the restrictions were, his walk was directly from his house and back to it.  A microbiologist in the Guardian newspaper complained that people who lived in rural areas were abusing the restrictions as they weren't living in cramped over populated urban areas where a walk or cycle can bring you into contact with numerous people. We could argue the rural vs urban implications but sociologists would look deeper. It's social class.

An old headteacher of mine in a school I worked in once asked why A Level sociology still used Marxism as a theory - "It's irrelevant now," he said, "class is no longer an issue." This was in 2006, two years later the recession started and four years later the Coalition government introduced austerity measures, fourteen years later the Guardian newspaper published this:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/01/covid-19-deaths-twice-as-high-in-poorest-areas-in-england-and-wales

Sociologists observe that as far as health is concerned the main model is the biomedical model - this means that the body is seen as a machine that must be kept working. Functionalist sociologists see this as a leveler. Regardless of who you are your body is the same and will be treated the same by professional organisations - the NHS in our case. This has led to medicalisation - our doctors and nurses become experts in how we should eat and live. We are advised on diet, alcohol intake and exercise.  Parsons saw this as part of his functional prerequisites - adaptation: providing an adequate standard of living for its members.  Parsons also saw being sick as performing a social role - people would act in a particular way when sick - in accordance to the norms of the society that they live in. The NHS performs this role well - advising rest, giving prescriptions, health has become a way of our life. When I have a cold (as a teacher this lasts from September til May - when the virus broke out I was coughing a lot but was it the common cold or This?) I buy Lemsip and vapour. I buy tissues - this is my social role - abate my illness and try to contain it. If it gets bad we are encouraged not to work in case of infection.

In March before lock down this social role was encouraged, if you had the symptoms isolate yourself for two weeks. People obeyed this as they were willing to perform their social role. Unveiling the Covid 19 App the Health secretary said it was our duty to download it. Our social role. The media backed the government's advice. I watched a BBC Breakfast report on how to isolate where a doctor showed his home. It was like a grim Through the Keyhole - spacious hall - downstairs den and small toilet, upstairs kitchen, livingroom, bedroom, upstairs a large bathroom, another two bedrooms - one with ensuite loo and shower, attic bedroom. Count how many 'upstairs'. This was in London. The advice was to cut yourself off, use a separate toilet, have a separate bin. When I watched this the death rate was non existent, schools and shops were open.

The Marxist approach to health is different, they do not see it as a leveler. As the statistics in the Guardian link show - disease is linked to social class. The poorer you are the more likely you are to be ill. However this is not just restricted to the ideology of Marxism. Cultural deprivation theorists and many middle of the road sociologists say the same. In fact as far back as 1980 The Black Report showed that the poorer you are the shorter your lifespan - this report looked at social selection and cultural differences - the working classes were less healthy due to their lifestyle and economic differences lead to increased or decreased life expectancy.

The working classes in 1980 were more likely to be in work, if not they were on benefits. There was no minimum wage so they would have worked long hours in manual jobs. Little has changed. It could be argued that there is more choice now, supermarkets of all types have a wide and varied selection of food.  But wages are still low, the Sure Start centres begun by New Labour and severely reduced in size under austerity reported that people in low income areas didn't know how to cook from scratch or couldn't afford to, or didn't have the time to. families on lower incomes are larger in size, more mouths to feed on less money. Their homes are smaller and the areas have less room for exercise. GP surgeries in poorer areas struggle with appointments. Wealthier areas are easier to get appointments as people are more likely to be healthy. The middle classes have more leisure time and this leisure time can be spent in pursuit of exercise, they can afford the equipment, the travel if needed. But they also have the know how. It's part of their culture. The middle classes are diverse - they can earn from £18,000 to £250,000 according to profession. But one thing they all share is what sociologists call 'deferred gratification' they all recognise the importance of education and the future. They will have risen in the class system or their relatives have and they want to keep rising. Kate Fox talks about this in Watching the English the middle classes are worried that their status may be taken away from them so they aspire to rise higher, high enough to be comfortable. Looking to the future means being healthy. But to be healthy you need the knowledge. In lessons on class I show the BBC's documentary Trouble on the Estate about a housing estate in Blackburn during austerity. One family have two children. The mother had left a low paid job to look after the young children, the dad used to work in a factory but it shut and he then took up two cleaning jobs. The film shows them shopping in Iceland, getting frozen food based on price rather than taste or desire. In short they bought what they could afford rather than what they wanted. The dad explained his expenditure, he got paid on a Friday and after bills and food he had five pounds til the next week. Sociologists call this 'immediate gratification'. This is all processed food. The work patterns mean little time for leisure and what free time there is will be more likely spent socialising.

Statistics for the virus also seem to be hitting ethnic minority people hardest - again from the Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/22/racial-inequality-in-britain-found-a-risk-factor-for-covid-19

Now, this has lots of links to the class system as well. We see that ethnic minorities who do less well in education and are unemployed tend to be from the lower social classes. there is a cultural theme too - some Asian families live together, generations under one roof. If someone is infected in these households it will go up and down the generation scale.

Sociologist Parker looked at leisure between the social classes, the middle classes see it as a way of succeeding, it's an extension of their work. Therefore they socialise with work colleagues - witness pubs near courts full of solicitors and barristers drinking together. Or they exercise so that they are fit for work. the working classes or lower paid workers see leisure as a release from work, they want to forget work and enjoy themselves. So exercising is easier for them to adapt to in a lock down.

To go back to the functionalist approach, the numbers may be higher for the lower paid but people from all social classes have lost loved ones. The biomedical approach is the frontline.