Worthy of further scrutiny

Last updated 16:31, Monday, 26 May 2008

The headline in a recent Times caught my eye. “Row over plans to recycle 24,000 failing teachers,” it read. The figure was interesting in itself. The idea that teachers could be recycled was even more intriguing.

Was this the teaching profession’s answer to climate change?

Obviously not. But the concept of failing teachers being rebranded competent, presumably by some new and untested formula, was worth further scrutiny.

It was Chris Woodhead, then chief inspector of schools, who said 10 years ago that there were 15,000 incompetent teachers. Shock and horror was the general response.

Yet, although Chris Woodhead had a lot to answer for, his estimate seemed to me not unreasonable. It represented a very small part of a profession, the vast majority of which is competent. Many are doing a first rate job.

It also struck me that every other profession had a similar, or even greater percentage, of incompetent personnel. The medics have their proportion of bungled operations and poor diagnoses. Negligent lawyers practice daily.

So it was not a question of whether the figures were accurate, but whether headteachers and school governors were prepared to do something about it.

Much more recently Sir Cyril Taylor, who runs the Academies and Specialist Schools Trust, upped the ante by stating that the number of incompetent teachers was 17,000.

Once again those who ought to know better went on the counterattack and totally ignored the crucial message that Cyril was sending. Incompetent teachers damage the education of children who have only one chance in life to benefit from good teaching.

Now the figure has risen to 24,000. And the chief executive of the General Council is proposing that these teachers should be removed from the schools where they teach and transferred to neighbouring schools to see if they can be retrained to do better. In other words recycled.

This is because the number of teachers declared incompetent by the council in the last seven years has reached 46 out of a profession numbering 500,000.

This underestimates the number removed for failing but the Government has, as usual, declared a crisis and asked the council to sort out the problem.

The problem is surmountable but it depends on heads and governors who have the resolve to take the necessary action and see it through.

Of course it is not easy. Unions have a job to do and will defend their members. Procedures must be observed and not short-circuited, otherwise the employment tribunal awaits.

The whole process can be very upsetting for all concerned. Even where the staffroom knows exactly who is underperforming, teacher colleagues can rally round when a teacher is under attack for incompetence.

The alternative to inaction, or ineffective action, is unacceptable. Children’s education is blighted. Parents agitate and remove their children. Ofsted comes calling with a poor report. The school’s reputation takes a dive.

And, at the end of the day, a significant question mark hangs over the headteacher. A head that cannot, or will not, deal with incompetent staff is not fit to be a headteacher.

This is why these latest proposals from the General Teaching Council are “something of a dog’s dinner”.

There may be teachers who could benefit from a fresh start. But in most cases if they cannot perform in one school it is highly unlikely they will perform better in another.

Too many heads have been caught out taking a teacher from another school armed with a dodgy reference, only to find that their new acquisition is less than perfect.

I also doubt governors or parents will be amused at their school being used as a testing ground for teacher recycling. What I fear is that these ideas will be seen as an excuse for postponing action to deal now with teacher incompetence. That would be a recipe for disaster.