Perhaps one of the most annoying things about central government is the way they change their minds about things – they never seem to get policies right the first time. We spend a lot of time preparing to do things one way, only to later be told to do it differently. The indecision over the use of analytic or synthetic phonics to teach reading is a classic case of this. We now have the 2006 Rose Review which backed synthetic phonics, which is great, but I wish they could have got their act together sooner.

Clearer guidance required

Our new ‘creative curriculum’, introduced with the new primary framework in 2008, is another example of this. We now teach across the curriculum: for example, teaching Anne Frank covers both history (the Second World War) and RE (Judaism). They are trying to free up the curriculum because they realised it had become too strict; the problem is, the guidance is a bit wishy-washy.

The new framework is a lot more flexible on literacy and numeracy. When I first trained, we had a literacy hour and a numeracy hour, and it was too structured. But again the guidance is not very user-friendly – for example, we’re told to teach from a newspaper report, but there is no sample or recommendation of a good example. On the teaching forums everyone is asking: ‘What are you using for this exercise?’.

We’ve also now got a responsibility to teach the children about things such as healthy lifestyles and looking after the environment. These initiatives might come from other departments, but by the time they come to us it is all channelled through the Department for Children, Schools and Families. To be honest, there’s only so much you can fit into a day. We can’t do everything; parents have got to take more responsibility. We need to inspire the children, but then they should go off and do it themselves.

Improvements and challenges

Two years ago, the department allowed schools to allocate teachers planning, preparation and assessment (PPA) time, and that has been brilliant. Our school makes sure all the teachers from the same stages have PPA together and it’s great to be able to sit down and plan with your team, but I know our head pulls her hair out organising our timetable. It is like a military operation.

Similarly, the higher level teaching assistants (HLTAs) – don’t get me started on the acronyms! – who can take on extra responsibilities have been really good since they were introduced in 2003. But I’m still working 50-70 hours a week. The NUT is campaigning for a 36.5-hour week, including marking and planning, but that’s unrealistic – teaching alone is about 28 hours. It is basically because of the paperwork. We have an Italian teacher who loves the kids and school, but is going home because he can’t bear the paperwork. We have to have proof for everything. I know it’s important, but it’s a bit much.

Targets still blunt instruments

The targets we are set by central government are simply not achievable. I know they’re meant to be something to strive for, but they’re unrealistic and it can be demoralising. You do your best and it is never really good enough.

At least they have introduced the contextual value added (CVA) scoring in the last couple of years, but it is still not perfect. If a child comes into the school and their scores are over-optimistic, our ‘failure’ to get them to the next stage is on our score. Similarly, our school runs an autistic resource base, but the impact that autistic pupils have on our scores is not recognised in the league tables.

Funding issues

Plus, of course, there is a general lack of money to contend with – especially in areas such as special educational needs (SEN). Children with SEN have to get statements, requiring sessions with educational psychologists and language therapists, of which there are shortages. Even once you have the statement, you can find that the child is rejected because there is no money for them.

In the case of head teachers, the lack of money for salaries has led to a shortage; I might consider a deputy headship, but there is no way I would want to be a head. The pay does not reflect the job – I don’t think our head is on much more than the deputy, £40,000 perhaps. And I don’t think recruiting non-teachers – as suggested by one PricewaterhouseCoopers report for DCSF – is the answer. A businessman might be good with budgets, but will they know the name of every pupil and be able to give an assembly for 300 children?

Overall, things are going in the right direction, but the workload needs to be more manageable; many teachers can’t stick it in the long term. It does not compare to other jobs, even with the holidays; it is half term this week, and I have already spent two days in school.