It was alarming, recently, when attending a conference, to hear, once again, a narrative concerning teachers needing to be ‘courageous’ and ‘selfless role-models’ for others. Language that, whilst seemingly innocuous and aligned with teaching, I argue is damaging and dangerous for the future of teachers and education and has serious consequences not only for the welfare and safety of teachers but for the recruitment and retention of teachers in England and the UK. Unless the narrative is changed, teaching will continue to develop into a pseudo-profession, in which educators become jacks-of-all-trades interfacing with, attending to and attempting to solve the immediate needs of society rather than becoming highly qualified and specialised pedagogues and educators who help to develop and shape learners and people of the future. These are not mutually exclusive but not only is the teacher unequipped to solve the problems of society but they are entering into a profession in which the task is unachievable. The role of the teacher has become a conflated one: a mixture of bureaucratic, pastoral, medical, therapeutic, social, legal competencies, required at different times and in different amounts, depending on the maladie de jour. This cannot continue.
Historical teacher
To understand this issue, we must briefly consider the historical teacher, a controversial and contested figure. A creation of the 19th century who was manifested in the social landscape in response to the perceived needs of the urban poor. 1839 witnessed the appearance of a Committee of the Privy Council on Education headed by Sir Kay-Shuttleworth who instigated the first teacher training college in Battersea, the sole purpose of which was to fashion school masters and teachers. As Hurt (1971) notes, ‘no part of the training [of the school master] given was more carefully attended to than the moral discipline of the students in humility and self-denial.’ (p. 118) Equally, as Jones (1990) notes, the teacher was expected to be a model of ‘humility’, a person who was engaged in a process of constant introspection and adjustment of their character so as to meet the needs of the children they served. This self-denial was essential in training teachers of the 19th century to prioritise the, once again, perceived needs of the urban poor.
This self-denial is a recurring theme which continues to haunt teachers and the teaching profession. As Thom (2021) argues in the Times Educational Supplement Magazine, ‘selflessness’ remains a contemporary and ‘damaging concept when applied to teaching’ and remains a popular theme in discourses of teacher professionalism. Equally, foregoing personal wellbeing to prioritise the needs of students – personally, educationally, mentally, financially – has led to professional burnout. Courage is not enough. Pushed to the brink, the only feeling left, argues the BBC, is guilt. The teacher’s profession is yet to be emancipated from its quasi pedagogic-monastic-spiritual origins of the 19th century. The teacher is conditioned to view themselves as the saviours of children and society. And they must do everything they can to achieve this goal, even at the expense of their own wellbeing.
The teacher as designation
Ecclestone and Hayes (2009) predicted the future of teachers’ work as increasingly interventionist, solving a range of society’s maladies, not least the rise in therapeutic education. Not only are teachers responsible for the bodies of children but also their minds. As many argue (NSPCC, 2022; SecEd, 2021) identifying and addressing the mental health needs of children is well beyond the skills, knowledge and capacity of teachers and yet the Department for Education’s (2018) document ‘Working together to safeguard children’ suggests that ‘school staff are well placed to observe children day-to-day and identify those whose behaviour suggests that they may be experiencing a mental health problem or be at risk of developing one’ (p. 14-15). The Legatum Institute (2022) predicts that rising costs are projected to push 2.75 million people into poverty, 450,000 of them being children. Again, ‘selfless’ schools and teachers will be expected to step in, to offer resources and food, suggest the National Education Union. This historical condition is one which the teacher must be liberated from. No longer should the social burden be placed on the backs of teaching professionals who seek to educate rather than save. Analogous with guerrilla warfare, teachers are using limited resources and knowledge to address the challenges they are confronted with whilst negotiating shifting landscapes in 21st century Britain.
A future?
Rishi Sunak exclaimed, in The Times, that the ‘State can’t fix all your problems.’ Neither can teachers or the education system. The teacher must, once and for all, be released form it’s historical role. Whilst this is not easy to do, we must begin by moving away from discourses and narratives which reinforces the teacher as a saviour of modern society. One who sacrifices themselves above all. Whilst the teaching profession has shown its strength and resilience repeatedly, especially during the recent Covid-19 crisis, it is time for a collective agreement which recognises the teacher in a humbler and healthier role: as an expert in curriculum, pedagogy and assessment. Whilst moralism around the role of the teacher may linger, language which strengthens teachers’ identities as pedagogue is sorely needed. The ‘courageous’ and ‘selfless role-models’ designation of the Victorian teacher is not only unfit for purpose in the 21st century, it is unachievable.
References
Ecclestone, K. and Hayes, D. (2009) The dangerous rise of therapeutic education. London: Routledge.
Hurt, J. (1971) Education in evolution. London: Paladin.
well said. Indeed and much needed – thank you!