Sally-Anne Huang

Personal blog of the Headmistress of James Allen's Girls' School.  Education, parenting, life in South London and all views my own.

[sally-annehuang]

There are worse things I could do...

It’s been another exciting few days for those of us who run independent schools. On Friday we saw headlines pointing out the contribution we make to the national economy. This welcome and unusual good news story was then followed by the predictable backlash in The Mirror regarding business rates and now we read in The Guardian that a new parliamentary group is being formed to seek our demise.

When I first became an English teacher twenty-five years ago, I just wanted to talk about books. I had no idea that I would be joining such a controversial profession which would be blamed for all of society’s ills  - as though privilege comes with putting on a uniform and not through a thousand other advantages and opportunities well beyond the control of any headteacher.

But I refuse to be ashamed of what I do. Yes, many (but by no means all) of my pupils come from wealthy families. But I still feel proud of the fact that my average day is likely to include tasks such as speaking to hundreds of teenagers about social responsibility, helping a handful of them to really understand Aristotle, supporting a parent who has just been widowed and is looking for help in caring for their children and working with colleagues to plan arts and charity events in conjunction with state schools. I don’t claim to be a paragon of virtue but, to quote Betty Rizzo from ‘Grease’ – there are worse things I could do.

The heart-breaking thing about all of this hot air is that those of us who work in education can see that it’s just a political smoke screen to disguise the real issues. So, I want to answer the call of Libby Purves in The Times yesterday and come out fighting for education in this country as a whole. Those of us who run independent schools know exactly how much it costs to educate a child – to retain great teachers, to provide holistic, extra-curricular activities, to meet all of the functions imposed upon us by the government in terms of legislation and filling in for them in areas such as mental health and policing. And our state school colleagues are not being given enough. I’m not keeping money from them; the politicians are.

It's often pointed out that we only educate 7% of the population. Legislating us out of existence might make a few journalists and politicians (often the ones embarrassed about the advantage they had from us in the first place) feel better. But it won’t help the state sector at all.  I’m not naïve enough to think that all state school heads like us either but, if they were asked to name their number one priority for education in this country, I doubt the closure of my school would top the list. It shouldn’t be one sort of teacher against another. It’s those of us who put education first, against those who do not. Until education is the priority for those holding the national purse strings, then nothing is going to change. 

(c) Sally-Anne Huang 2019

[sally-annehuang]

The truth about IGCSE

I have written before about the frustration I feel at the independent school sector being used as the go-to public enemy for all social ills during recent times. In many ways we are getting used to it. However, even I was surprised at the nature of this weekend’s ‘scoop’ style headlines, in which politicians, journalists and even the TES claimed with glee to have ‘revealed’ the terrible secret of us having the option to choose ‘easier’ IGCSEs which were, in turn, going to give our pupils an advantage with universities. You would think there might be more urgent things to write about but, once again, we were coming out as a soft, unpopular target for everyone to unite against. Perhaps less divisive than global warming or the Brexit crisis?

As lots of my colleagues and I have pointed out on social media, the number of incorrect assumptions in these articles is quite staggering. The case that IGCSEs are easier than GCSEs remains unproven. Differences vary from subject to subject and, ironically, most independent schools chose them years ago precisely because they were perceived as more rigorous and better preparation for A level. They have also stuck with them for years, sometimes in the face of marks seeming to be worse than those at GCSE, because they felt they were better educationally. Similarly, we don’t know what, if any difference, they are going to make in terms of university places since the pupils taking the new reformed GCSEs have not yet applied to university.

However, the worst accusation of all is that we, the independent sector, are somehow ‘cheating’ the system and have deliberately set out to exploit a loop hole unfairly. I thought it might be helpful, therefore, to set out here, for my own parents and pupils as much as anyone else, how our school has conducted itself over the past few years and the rationale behind the curriculum decisions we make.

JAGS offers a range of both IGCSE and GCSE in Year 11. Last year was the first time our pupils sat the new, reformed GCSEs and we were delighted by their results. At post 16 we offer mostly A level with a handful of Pre Us. As a headteacher, I allow my heads of department to choose which course to follow since they are the experts in their subject area and I have huge respect for that. When they discuss courses with me, they are likely to mention course work, choice of set topics, oral assessments, the inclusion of practical components and how GCSE leads to A level and A level to university. They do not seek out the easiest courses, which would be educationally short-sighted, especially at GCSE which, for us, is a gateway to A level. Equally, we do not, as a leadership team, operate any school wide policy that ever considers this. When the new GCSEs came in, those subjects opting for IGCSE were largely just keeping with the status quo and carrying on with courses they knew. Given that even the regulator says that a new course takes three years to bed in, their caution is understandable. However, some heads of department, including our large and highly successful science team, liked the look of the new GCSE and took it up, gaining outstanding results this summer.

Just before I moved from my first headship to JAGS in 2015, the IGCSE story then was that the government had announced that no IGCSE results could be included in published league tables. This meant that schools like ours either had to drop IGCSE or resign ourselves to getting a ‘zero’ in measures such as percentage of pupils with a grade C or above in English. I remember, at the time, we were all quite proud to join the ‘zero club’ which included the highest achieving schools in the country, precisely because we chose what we believed to be right rather than playing the system. My understanding is that state school heads could, in theory, opt for IGCSEs if they too were able to ignore the league tables but I suspect it would take a lot of courage and governor support to do so given the measures by which they are judged.

This is one of several ways in which being independent affords me greater freedom in the running of a school than that enjoyed by my state school colleagues. This does mean that my staff non-contact time, in which they can review a curriculum and prepare for its delivery, is higher. I also suspect that my professional development budget and ability to cover lessons for teachers undertaking training for the new courses, was also better than theirs. When Michael Gove decided to reform both A level and GCSE concurrently, I wonder if the financial and human cost of such training and preparation time was taken into account? Equally, when the status of IGCSE in the league tables was reviewed, did the politicians think about how they were curtailing the academic options of state school subject experts? Clearly, we have these options because we are independent and, in some areas at least, do not have to dance to the drum of the Department for Education. If the politicians wanted to give all headteachers the same level of choice and flexibility that I enjoy, then accusations of an unfair system would be redundant and we could work together to improve education for all young people rather than perpetuate this ‘them and us’ narrative which serves only political agendas.

© Sally-Anne Huang

[sally-annehuang]

So now we are to blame for Brexit?

When I saw the headline to Melissa Benn’s article in The Guardian yesterday, I thought it must be a satirical spoof by someone like The Daily Mash or Newsthump. Brexit, austerity, economic woe: it’s time to make private schools pay.  For a long time now, our sector has been the soft target, go-to enemy for politicians and journalists alike.  Our families make up only 7% of the population and most people have an outdated, rhetoric-fuelled sense of what we do, so it’s easy to gain support by having a go at us.  But are we really single-handedly responsible for all of those problems?  Personally, I wasn’t aware of being behind any of them.

Of course, a handful of Bullingdon Club members may well deserve the heat and the people who have been most let down by them are easily led to associate all of independent education with those privileged few.  I know I am wasting my breath to say that I am fed up with being linked with them.  I suspect most Etonians would say the same thing.  However, if some incredibly wealthy individuals have made some poor choices for the sake of power over the years, why is it their school that’s specifically to blame? The individuals to whom Benn refers would have been incredibly wealthy and privileged without Eton behind them and, if that inequality of opportunity is the issue, then taxing private schools to the point where many close is not the solution. 

In actual fact, if Melissa Benn were to visit my school and speak to the pupils there, I think she would find that they had a lot more in common with her than she suspected.  To start with, they are all female, very many from black and minority ethnic backgrounds and almost a fifth pay virtually no fees to the school because they receive means tested bursaries. These young women have nothing to do with the white, male elite to whom Benn refers. They are feeling disenfranchised too and would like to make a difference.  Crucially, we are educating them to do that.

The real sadness, however, of this bashing of the independent sector, is that it creates a ‘them and us’ where we are held accountable for everything that’s wrong with the British education system generally and the real issues are masked. The reality is, we think there are problems too and we could all be working together to tackle the key issues.  If you ask me what the real stumbling blocks are for young people going through the education system right now, I would cite the volatility of exam marking, curriculum reform pushed through too quickly by the Gove administration, the near destruction of the performing arts in the state sector and, above all, the cost of university tuition fees.  If you add to this the teacher recruitment crisis, then we have a lot to get our heads together on.  All of the above are at risk of making education a lottery for all our pupils and I am confident that all schools would like to address them.  We would be stronger if we did so together.

[sally-annehuang]

Headteachersreallife

It’s impossible to listen to the news these days without hearing stories about the mental health crisis amongst young people. Schools, universities and doctors are all acutely aware of the increased number of reported cases and, whilst seeking to help those concerned, are also keen to explain the cause of the problem.  The Today programme on Radio 4 covered the topic this morning, including an interview with the Vice Chancellor of Bristol University.   Several issues were discussed, including the impact of tuition fees and the uncertain world in which we live.  But it didn’t take long for social media to come up too.

From my own perspective, I think social media can do a lot of good.  It helps people to connect, stay in touch and share ideas.  Many of the teenagers I know use it to sustain friendships and plan fuller lives.  I do tend to think the line of ‘total evil which should be banned’ has Luddite overtones and merely indicates the failure of one generation to understand another.

However, one area I do recognise is this tendency we all have to want to portray only the best of ourselves on Instagram and Facebook.  Yesterday, I was lucky enough to visit Durham University and I posted some beautiful pictures of that city in the sun.  I did not post a selfie of myself, red-faced and puffing as I climbed the hill to the station.  For teenagers, this seems much worse.  In a world of filters, they pick only the very ‘best’ images of themselves and post them daily – often counting the likes and being offended if people don’t comment positively or follow back.  Any one individual participating is then on the receiving end of other carefully curated accounts where everyone is seen in the right light from the right angle (or they would have deleted the photo) and is having a great time with their many friends.  I know this is a huge generalisation and, at the other end of the spectrum, are cries for help from genuinely difficult situations.  However, real life, as it is really lived, with grey clouds, slight discomfort and bad hair days, never gets a look in.  It stands to reason that, if you are forever pursuing a false, edited ideal and trying to create your own at the same time, mental health and real happiness will often be sacrificed.

We get told that teachers are role models to the young people in our schools.  I’m not sure that extends entirely to headteachers but, in any case, I am going to try to do things differently for a little while.  For the next few days I will be posting with the tag #Headteachersreallife, photos and comments which reveal the less than perfect moments in my day.  Don’t worry – I’m not going for really tragic or utterly depressing, but you might get untidy desks, muddy dogs and sinks full of washing up.  If we believe that striving for an impossibly perfect ideal to match those edited online lives is making our students ill, then we should at least offer a more realistic alternative.  And, who knows, maybe some of my tweeting colleagues will join in too?

[sally-annehuang]

Still talking about pay.

At JAGS we have been following with interest the progress of our wonderful alumna, Sally Hawkins.  Appearing as Best Actress nominee at the BAFTAs this weekend, she is also in the running for an Oscar for her role in Guillermo Del Toro’s The Shape of Water and girls and staff alike are excited to see how that goes.

However, it was another Sally Hawkins film which I mentioned in assembly on Monday.  In 2010’s Made in Dagenham, she stars as Rita O’Grady in a dramatization of the 1968 strike at the Ford factory when skilled female sewing machinists made a stand for equal pay.

50 years ago, these women, helped by female government minister, Barbara Castle, struck a blow for equality which saw them land a pay deal offering 92% of what the men then earned and leading to the Equal Pay Act of 1970.  At a time when the role of the woman was perceived as being largely in the domestic realm and any salaried work as for pocket money, this presented a cultural shift in the UK.

Not long after this and on the other side of the pond, tennis great Billie Jean King was on a similar mission, asking for equal prize money for male and female players.  Last year’s Battle of the Sexes depicted the epic 1973 tennis match between King and the self-proclaimed male chauvinist and Wimbledon champion, Bobby Riggs.  Riggs was a consummate showman and used sexist jokes and stereotypes to bait a crowd and pull an audience of 90 million television viewers who, in turn, saw him convincingly beaten by the younger woman.  After the match, he allegedly said to King, ‘I should have taken you more seriously.’

So equal pay in 1970 and a tennis match in 1973.  You might be forgiven for thinking that I discussed these with the girls as events of historical value; human interest stories from a time long ago.  Sadly, I brought up both films for their absolute relevance to 2018. 

If the women from Dagenham thought they might be compromising on a pay deal that gave them only 92% of the men’s earnings, what would they make today of the UK gender pay gap of around 18%?  And Billie Jean King, whose abilities made such a strong statement back in 1973, when interviewed on US TV last year, stated that the film was ‘very relevant for these times’.  No sense of any issue having been put to bed in 1973 then.

Obviously, reasons for this modern pay gap are complicated.  It may be easier for women to get onto career ladders now but other factors such as the cost of childcare or the uneven division of work at home, seem to come into play. Very often it’s male leaders who need to champion the female cause to make a difference.  Tony Hall, at the BBC, is on record as making efforts to get more women presenters in front of the camera and that’s great.  But, when he feels he can celebrate because you might even have a show with no male presenter (gasp) and the pay gap in his organisation is only 10% rather than the 18 found elsewhere, then we have to ask whether we have been down a rabbit hole all this time.

And that’s precisely why we need to talk to today’s young women about the issues raised in both Made in Dagenham and Battle of the Sexes.  I went to senior school only 9 years after Billie Jean King won that tennis match and, in a wonderful girls’ school full of powerful women, I grew up thinking that the battle was done – that the generation before me had struck the blows for feminists and the world was my oyster.  It was only when I got into the world of work that I saw anything different.  Have I been told that being a mother would impact upon my work?  Yes.  Have I heard that I am a good manager even though I am a woman? Yes.  In a career spanning more than 20 years, do I know of positions I have held where my absolute male equivalent had a better deal than me?  Certainly.  

I am not saying that it’s been a constant battle or that I haven’t also come across fantastic support and appreciative line managers  - both male and female.  But this is why, 50 years after the strike in Dagenham, we still need to talk to all pupils about these issues and to prepare young women for a workplace that may not welcome them with open arms.

Obviously, I don’t want to dampen girls’ spirits or dull their confidence but they do need to think about what they are going to do next.  My advice to them?  Go into that world with your eyes open.  Assume the best but call out the worst.  Do not lose faith in yourself but make sure that you are looking for equality for all, whatever their gender or any other differentiating factor.  And when you get into a position of leadership, where you can make a difference (and the girls at JAGS will reach those positions if they want them – of that I am sure) then make sure that you champion others and contribute to forming a world where equality is the norm.  Perhaps then we will have finally done with the battle that was started by those brilliant women in the 60s and 70s.

[sally-annehuang]

How do we talk about #metoo?

Here is how I spoke to the girls this morning following their return from the half term holiday and regarding recent news stories and the #metoo campaign:

  While we have been away, you won’t have failed to notice that the news has been dominated by stories of high profile men who have behaved appallingly towards other people – most often, but not always, towards women. 

A lot of this came about because women of all ages in the world of Hollywood started talking about how they had been treated by the producer Harvey Weinstein – and things have more recently made their way over to our own shores with defence secretary Michael Fallon stepping down and other politicians being named and accused. It looks as though this could run for some time.

Now, I’ve struggled to think about how to raise this with you because, on the one hand, the details of some of the allegations are not the kind of things we should be talking about in assembly; there’s a huge age range here in the room and there are some pretty horrific stories out there.  But, on the other hand, as the head of a girls’ school, how can I not talk about what’s going on? This is so relevant to women and their place in society.  Arguably, the sense of taboo and shame, which surrounded these topics for earlier generations and stopped them from talking about these issues openly, is perhaps why it’s taken so long to come out.  So we have to talk.

Some of you will have heard of Laura Bates, the campaigner and writer who started the ‘Everyday Sexism’ campaign.  Some of you will have heard her speak when she visited Dulwich College a couple of years ago.  At the start of her campaign she foreshadowed recent events when she described having a bad day – being wolf-whistled at, having a man on a bus touch her leg-  and then, when she discussed these experiences with her friends, finding that they had all been through the same sort of thing.

In recent days, this has really come to life in the #metoo campaign which is here described by Ellen De Generes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmYgdOTPE3w

In this clip, Ellen makes several interesting points.  This is not a Hollywood or a political thing – it’s a human thing.  I feel nervous in saying that to you because it could run the risk of giving the sense that this is everywhere; that you are doomed to be harassed. And I don’t think you are.  In fact, I think you have a better chance than any previous generation of avoiding that kind of experience. Or, more worryingly, you should never be led to think that all men in particular are going to harass you.  You know that could not be further from the case.  The vast, vast majority of men you will come across will be good people and would never dream of behaving in this way.  Similarly, there are plenty of women who misbehave when placed in a position of power; bullying and manipulation take more forms.  But, at the same time, if we didn’t acknowledge the fact that this could happen to you, then we wouldn’t be giving you the tools to recognise it for what it is and to feel confident in saying that it’s unacceptable.

I also worry about what Ellen and others say; that girls are taught to be quiet and that boys are somehow more powerful and girls ‘less than’.  I really hope that is not the case here.  I am fairly confident in assuming that every one of you knows that you are worth as much as any boy and that you can lead, speak out, achieve anything you want.  And if we don’t say that enough, let’s say it very clearly now, today.

But, one of the really important things here is the power in numbers point.  It was a good use of social media to bring so many voices in such a short time into the debate.  If we believe (and we have to believe) that all prejudice, bullying, harassment are wrong, then we are going to have a better chance against them if all the right- minded, kind, respectful people (whom I believe are the majority) speak up together and don’t walk on looking the other way.  This is the way that we can break a cycle.  So, I hope and pray that you do not suffer harassment or prejudice but I also trust that you will support others if they do.

Above all, I think all of these stories come down to how we deserve to be treated and how we treat other people – all other people.  No one’s feelings are less important than anyone else’s – no one is there to serve someone else’s needs.  We should expect to be treated with respect, with kindness, with acceptance.  And, in turn, we should commit to treating everybody else that way too.  This is not a one way street where a builder on a building site shouldn’t wolf whistle at a woman – but it’s then ok for that woman to yell at a waitress later in the day.  If we are to make progress – we all have to respect one another.

I have particular pet hates in the things I see frequently.  The aggressive emails from people that wouldn’t say those things to your face.  People who are rude to the receptionist or my PA but sugary sweet to me – as though my colleagues are any less important than I am (and as though I won’t find out…) . In fact, how we treat people that we don’t think have an influence over our lives is the real test.  We can usually find it in our hearts to be respectful if we think we are going to get something out of it.

And I think that’s another moral we can draw from the sudden descent of Harvey Weinstein and one or two others.  We may feel we are in a position of power for now.  We may feel we can get people to do things they don’t want to do, say anything we want them to say – but these stories prove that, no matter how secure you may feel, these things can come back to haunt you in the end. Power shifts.

So, I hope that these stories won’t lead you to despair or fear but will make you realise that you have a right to be treated well and – if you feel that you have not been –  that you have a right to say so.

[sally-annehuang]

Still running a girls' school

I’ve written and said a lot in recent years about teenage mental health issues. The challenge for transgender young people is one that has come to the fore recently.  When Sir Ian McKellen visited JAGS last year, he spoke about the great sadness homosexual men had in his generation because they could not be open about their orientation until later in life.  This also has been the case for transgender people until recent years.

At JAGS, we pride ourselves on developing a pastoral system which caters for the needs of individual pupils.  Here, I have had my own first experiences of supporting just one transgender pupil.  He was welcomed at an HMC conference to speak to other heads about his journey and is now a successful undergraduate.  All of us looking after young people are on a learning curve in this area and I am keen to share experiences where it might be helpful.

The headline attached to my name in The Sunday Times this morning is not helpful and I never said the words attributed to me in it.  Obviously, our pupils are girls – it’s in the name of the school!   There are no plans to stop using the word.  We spend huge amounts of time discussing the portrayal and experiences of young women but no one sees that as news.  My comments about the need to be gender neutral and use terms such as ‘students’ were only applied in my interview to occasions when I knew that a transgender pupil was present and I wanted to break my every day habit in order to be sensitive to them.  They were in response to questions about how we coped with that challenge.  Similarly, trousers have been on the JAGS uniform for over twenty years and are a free choice for all pupils and staff.  As for short hair, the suggestion that this somehow denotes gender identity is alarming – of course some of our girls have short hair and we call them by their preferred names without reference to gender.  Think of all the Millies and Vickys that have gone through our corridors, never mind the Frankies and Harrys!  I don’t want to go back to a place where girls think they have to dress or behave in any specific way because of their gender.

I am pleased to be attached to any discussion of the needs and development of young people.  The challenge of being transgender is only one of these – but it’s a shame for those involved that it continues to be the one that attracts and generates the sensational headlines.  I will keep talking about teenagers and the issues we have to consider when entrusted with their care.  And it’s still very much a girls’ school!

[sally-annehuang]

Talking about terrorism.

Here is a transcript of my assembly this morning:

‘The last time I was able to speak to you all as a school was Monday May 22nd.  It’s now June the 5th – two weeks later – and a lot has happened since then.

Some of you have faced up to exams and some have just been preparing for them.  We have had a heat-wave, a mock election at school, several incredible debates and news stories related to the real election, and Donald Trump has pulled the US out of a historical international agreement on climate change.  All of these would make great topics for assembly.

But the day of my last assembly was a very significant day here in the UK as it was on that evening  that a suicide bomber blew himself up amongst a crowd just leaving an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, killing 22 people, including children and teenagers, and injuring many more.  So I was always going to talk about that this morning.  And then, on Saturday night, we heard of another attack, this time at London Bridge, closer to our school and homes – which left another 7 dead.

Now to say that this is a difficult topic to discuss would be something of an understatement.  Terrorism of this nature, senseless brutality on this scale, is not a pleasant thing to contemplate on any level.  And, as we all know, some of the responses the world has to it are equally unpleasant; the misunderstanding, phobia and ill-informed judgements to which brutality of this nature leads are all depressing and terrifying in their own way.  But these particular attacks had other elements to them that brought them home.  London Bridge is our area, the train station that’s in our back garden is on a line that leads there –we have our Christmas Concert next door at Southwark Cathedral.  Meanwhile Manchester was an attack on young women, very much like you, taking part in an activity which many of you would have enjoyed and I know some of you had tickets to other Ariana Grande concerts and would consider yourselves to be fans of hers.

In the light of this one parent asked me why I hadn’t cancelled lessons in the wake of the Manchester attack, changed the assembly schedule such that I could speak to you about it before today or made a public statement about the bombing.  There are plausible arguments for doing all of those things.  But there are equally convincing arguments for not responding in that way – for not letting ourselves be hi-jacked in our daily lives by terrorism or allowing the attackers to have even greater notoriety or to cause even more fear in a group of young women who need to go about their daily lives in the nation’s capital.  The truth is, there isn’t a right or a wrong way to respond to news of this nature.  We are all going to have a personal response and we can’t judge one another in such circumstances.

But there is another issue in these particular cases and that’s the ‘people like us’ factor.  One of the terrible truths behind these two attacks is that we identify with the victims more because they live in this country and have the same habits and interests, visit the same places that we do.  Just one month before the Manchester attack, a vehicle filled with explosives hit a convoy evacuating families from besieged Syrian towns and killing 126 people – including 68 children.  I am not sure how much news coverage that had in this country.  You all know that children and young women suffer throughout the world on a daily basis not just through terrorism but through child marriage, abduction, FGM and any number of other issues and people die in explosions in Syria and Afghanistan and perhaps we don’t feel the same way as when Londoners are attacked in Borough Market.  Some people might feel that we are wrong to only feel sympathy when victims look and behave like us and to only think of statistics and distance when there is a tragedy that we feel could not happen to us personally.

For my own part, I think it’s only human nature to identify with those behaving in a way that we might have been behaving.  This is at the heart of empathy – that most vital of human qualities.  To think ‘it could have been me’ and to feel a selfish fear is natural, but to go one step beyond that and use that connection to really feel for someone, to imagine what they might be going through – that’s crucial because we are all someone’s daughter or best friend or parent.   If you are an Ariana Grande fan and you cried for other teenage girls because they are also Ariana Grande fans then that is true empathy.  If you can then shift that one stage further to the teenage girl in Syria or Afghanistan who would never in their wildest dreams be at an Ariana Grande concert but is still a young woman with hopes and fears and people who love her just like you – then that is the next step and a way of getting some good out of this awful situation.

Just before half term, the school had a letter from the Metropolitan Police who are running the We Stand Together campaign with community leaders to promote tolerance across communities.  It pointed out the crucial importance of young people like you at this time and the need for you to understand that these attacks are designed to frighten you and to create hatred and division.

The We Stand Together campaign is very clear about things that I hope you all know anyway.  That all forms of extremism and hatred are wrong and that no religion believes in violence or hurt.  And your generation have the power to make a difference.  And here at JAGS, in an educated, tolerant community raising the next generation of leaders, we can make more of a difference than most – and we should.

What happened in Manchester and on Saturday in London is terrible – but it’s important to remember that it’s also very rare and, even if you were in Manchester and near the arena that night or in South London on Saturday – you would have to be statistically incredibly unlucky to be caught up in things.  That’s not to remove the tragedy of those who were involved but you cannot let these things lead you into a life of fear.  What you can do is feel empathy, spread qualities such as tolerance and remain defiant against extremism and hatred and, even in the most challenging circumstances, you can then do good.

© Sally-Anne Huang 2017

[sally-annehuang]

Why I don't want to see private schools abolished.

I was interested to read Tim Lott’s article in The Guardian today.  Delightfully direct in its title, ‘Why I want to see private schools abolished’, it contains a number of important points with which, even as head of one of those vilified institutions, I would concur.  At the heart of Lott’s plea is an implicit belief in meritocracy as the way forward and there is also concern for the growing divide between rich aend poor across the country and a cry for better educational opportunities for all.

However, Lott himself acknowledges in the article that devising an equal playing field ‘verges on the impossible’.  Whilst he would like to see those who can afford private education stripped of the choice of paying for it, he goes on to admit that you cannot legislate against other advantages such as genetically inherited intellect.  He does not seem to expect us to resist doing the best we can for our own children and even feels that a middle class exodus into the state sector would raise standards because those very families would still spend their money on tutoring.  Lott himself knows that, taken to its logical conclusions, the argument he begins would end with limiting affluent families when it comes to buying books, or theatre tickets, or trips abroad; all educational advantages more easily achieved with a bit more cash.

Personally though, the part of the ‘abolish private schools’ argument with which I take most issue, is the one about social mobility.  It’s a case rooted in some 1930s England I don’t remember when the same families had the same land and money for generations and there was genuinely no way out if you weren’t lucky enough to be born fortunate.  Perhaps it was the case that Eton and Oxford were all filled by the same elite at that time – but it certainly isn’t the case now and hasn’t been for a while.

In other media comment today, a woman contacted the Jeremy Vine show to respond to a piece where the Labour party were asked to define the level at which one joins the bands of the ‘rich’.  Raised by a single mother on benefits, she had worked hard, got her education and a well-paid job, only to join the ranks of the hated ‘rich’ now that she earns above average pay.  And this has been going on for years, often with the aid of private schools.  My own grandfather was homeless as a teenager in Manchester after the First World War.  His children all found regular employment and his daughter, my mother, went on to have three children of her own who went to private school.  The eldest went through a grant maintained scholarship scheme and became the first graduate in our family. The youngest (yours truly) was supported through said mother working in a school kitchen and going without holidays to pay the fees.  That I, only two generations from real poverty, can have been to Oxford University and now be running one of the schools Tim Lott would scrap only goes to show that the social mobility for which various political figures seem to be crying out right now, has been happening for some time.   We ought to learn from those successes – not treat those who benefitted from them (and now want the same thing for their children) as though they were some ‘to the manor born’ aristocracy to be smashed down.

And I am enormously proud of the school I run.  JAGS has an incredible bursary scheme. It’s not yet as large as we would like it to be - but 16% of our senior school pupils are supported by it and that number will go up to 20% in next year’s Year 7 intake.  Yes, I know there is an argument that those places would not be needed at all if the state could provide the same opportunities that we do for everyone.  But let’s be pragmatic; at the moment, it really can’t afford to do so. Abolishing my school would not only put a massive burden on an already stretched service, but it would stop a long term project which does provide real social mobility for at least some young people judged solely on their own merit.  And at JAGS, we also have a long established tradition of working closely with our maintained school neighbours and partners.  Not because we have to, but because we want to.  It’s a two-way street from which both sides benefit.  The obvious implication of Lott’s article is that private education is better; if not then why consider it an unfair advantage?  I would not claim that it is always better at all times and in all circumstances but I do believe that nothing great was ever achieved by pulling down those at the top.  We should all keep trying to climb upwards together.

  © Sally-Anne Huang 2017

[sally-annehuang]

Why I let the Year 7s tell me what to read.

I was interested to read in the Sunday Times this weekend of the move by Andrew Halls, Head of King’s College School Wimbledon, to veto certain books from his school library.  In a well-intentioned bid to generate better reading habits, Halls has jettisoned popular modern texts such as ‘Skulduggery Pleasant’ and ‘Eragon’ and sought to promote more ‘worthy’ novels such as ‘Goodnight Mister Tom’ or classics like ‘Moonfleet’ and ‘Just William.’

I have to say, much as I like and admire Andrew Halls and respect all the good he has done at KCS, I do disagree with this move.  Not only does the idea of dictating any type of reading matter to anyone in any circumstances feel rather uncomfortable, but, even if you dodge the censorship bullet, I don’t actually think his plan is going to work.  No doubt parents choosing schools will remember with fondness books from their own school days over those written since they grew up – a kind of nostalgia trap into which teachers can fall too.  And some will be impressed by the scholarly aspect a public move such as this will lend to an institution.  However, I’d be surprised if many 11 year olds would feel the same way.

Personally, I have come at modern children’s literature from a different angle.  And I love it.  Over a period of 20 years of teaching English, I have moved from telling children what they should read, to asking them what they enjoy reading.  I have learnt over time that this is more productive in a number of ways.  Firstly, reading should be enjoyable.  Once it becomes a chore, you have lost.  Secondly, if you can find out what they enjoy, you can guide them to the next level more naturally.  If they love Percy Jackson, for example, then Homer is an obvious next step.  ‘Eragon’ slips into Tolkien, ‘Twilight’ into Austen.  But my final reason for asking them what they enjoy is now totally selfish but also totally sincere; I might want to read it too.

Learning is not a one way street.  Yes, it is a major part of my role to recommend books to young people but I have also benefitted enormously from having them recommend things to me.  Without my pupils, I would not have come across ‘A Monster Calls’ by Patrick Ness (heart-wrenching reality meets psychological fantasy) or ‘Maggot Moon’ by Sally Gardner (dystopian political conspiracy thriller) or anything by Marcus Sedgwick.  The latter in particular is guilty of all the YA tricks Andrew Halls might be wishing to eschew – vampires, witches and page-turning plots.  But he also has a way with timelines and character development that places him right at the top of my favourite living authors.  I would challenge any adult reading this to go to ‘Midwinter Blood’ or ‘The Ghosts of Heaven’ and not get something from those texts.

In particular, without the encouragement of my pupils, I would point blank have refused to read ‘The Hunger Games’ by Suzanne Collins.  In my adult brain, I had dismissed the latter as a cheap copy of the Japanese cult movie, ‘Battle Royale’, until I was pushed into reading it by pupils at my last school.  I soon learnt that it has more to do with Roman Culture and modern politics than I could ever have imagined; ‘bread and circuses’ seems especially resonant right now.  I have also used Katniss Everdeen time and again as a shining example of a powerful young woman when speaking in assemblies or class discussions.  I used to hold her up as a contrast to Bella Swan, the swooning protagonist of ‘Twilight’ (and I do confess to not liking those novels – although that’s not the same as telling people that they can’t read them). However, I myself was pulled up by the wonderful Juno Dawson, another Young Adult author.  She came to talk about gender at JAGS and described Katniss as a typical version of a young woman behaving like a man in order to lead.  Why shouldn’t Bella choose to be a wife and mother if that’s what she wants?  And surely debate and discussion of this nature is at the heart of the study of literature.  Nothing is totally ‘bad’ just as nothing is totally ‘good’. If we are talking about books, we are winning.

When I was a child, I used to love ‘The Famous Five’ and ‘The Faraway Tree.’  A teacher at my primary school once told my mum that Enid Blyton would shrink my brain as her vocabulary was so limited.  My mum cheerfully ignored her advice and, two masters degrees in literature later, you could either say that she was right to do so or side with the teacher as I am still, patently, reading kids’ books for pleasure now!

Personally, I think we are living in a golden age of children’s and teen fiction.  Sadly, too many of those who want to condemn it have never actually read it.  And, if you haven’t read something, why should you tell a child it’s no good for them?  If you have read something,  then why was it ok for you to sample it first hand and not for them?  Not long ago, I enjoyed a Twitter debate on the merit of David Walliams’ work, ‘Gangsta Granny’.  Some on-line worthy was dismissing it as a silly and pointless novel.  Now, if any of you have read ‘Gangsta Granny’ to the end, you would know that this was far from the case.

As far as children’s reading is concerned, I would conclude with a summary which fits with much of our handling of the younger generation.  Don’t seek to dictate –  take the time to understand.

  © Sally-Anne Huang 2017

[sally-annehuang]

10,000 places

Here is my blog about access to independent schools – appearing originally on the ISC website earlier this month:

Whilst the news so far this year has been sensational and attention grabbing on an international level, those of us working in education have continued to be dismayed by less high level headlines about issues closer to home.  Many people not closely connected to independent education may assume that we are all awash with cash.  Sadly, this is not the case, particularly for smaller schools beyond the South East, and we do have to be careful to operate within costs and to spend wisely with our pupils’ interests at heart.  However, unlike the maintained sector, we at least have a chance of controlling our own budget, both in terms of how we generate income and how we choose to spend the money we have.

In an era where the Prime Minister seems to feel that grammar schools are the answer to social mobility issues, it was heart-breaking to read about Ilkley Grammar school where, according to Headteacher Helen Williams, £1million has been cut from the budget over a five year period and she is seeking help from parental pockets in plugging the gap.  Similarly, according to Sean Coughlan at the BBC, half of academies in England have an annual shortfall of funds.  Times are tight and the children currently in our schools have only one chance to experience their education.

Those of us in independent schools can easily fall foul of accusations of elitism and it would be simpler to look the other way as we manage our own costs.  However, often challenged on our charitable status, educating thousands at no cost to the state at a time when state funds seem scarce clearly has to be a useful contribution in its own right.  Beyond that, many schools, like my own, have well established bursary funds to ensure that we are providing education on a means tested basis.  At JAGS, we have 16% of our pupils on such places and the vast majority have very substantial awards covering trips and other costs.  It is not a case of massaging fees for the middle classes here; it is providing a great education for free.  We are fortunate enough to benefit from a trust and also plough back commercial funds from our sports centre in order to do this.  We are not needs blind but we would like to be and are constantly working to that aim.

Similarly, in the face of stretched resources nationally, we are interested in the Independent Schools’ Council proposal to create 10,000 extra places, working with the government.  In this proposal, the school in question would receive the same funding allocated for a state school place and would make up any shortfall themselves to provide all the opportunities and established resources in their institution to pupils on this scheme.  The expertise available in both sectors would work together in this collaboration.  Much as some may sneer at working with the vilified independent sector, the simple truth is that this would be a practical way to offer more excellent school places to children who might otherwise miss out and there is a crucial agreement that it would target low-income families.  Surely, this has to be a better approach to social mobility than the postcode lottery of grammar schools seen in areas such as Kent?  That my own school neighbours poorer London boroughs within an easy commute make this last point really pertinent to JAGS.  I am sure there would be arguments that we would be seeking to syphon off funds from the state sector but, when the alternative is spending vast amounts on building new schools with less established facilities and academic programmes, the scheme would save the tax payers money in the end.  The ISC is also looking to work in locations where the need is greatest.

I do know that this is emotive stuff and that hackles may rise and opinions will differ.  However, although much is made of what the independent sector should and shouldn’t be doing in the press and in political circles, the truth is that we should celebrate our common aims rather than focus on differences.   JAGS is part of the Southwark Schools Learning Partnership, which bridges both the maintained and independent schools in the area.  We work together well and there is so much more mutual respect than most of the public would assume.  I know that this pattern is repeated up and down the country and we collaborate because it is beneficial to all and makes for better schools – not because we have been told to do so. Teachers want to teach and they want the best for young people. If Rome is burning, then we all want to step forward to help put out the fire and I do hope that both our bursary schemes and the ISC proposal will be taken very seriously indeed.

[sally-annehuang]

How I have changed my mind about those 'fundamental British values'

Section 78 of the Education Act of 2002 requires all maintained schools to promote the ‘spiritual, moral, social and cultural (SMSC) development’ of their pupils.  When you look into the vocabulary in that requirement it’s quite a big ask.  It’s one thing to get them through GCSEs and perhaps another to help them meet deadlines and turn up in correct uniform, but responsibility for their morals, their spirit?  Well, that’s something else and something which, for previous generations might have been seen to sit with parenthood and perhaps the church.  You might forgive some Headteachers  for taking the view of Henry V before Agincourt who, in Shakespeare at least, states that ‘Every subject’s duty is the king’s; but every subject’s soul is his own.’

And yet, this is a challenge to which schools have continued to rise.  Pastoral programmes and lectures, outings and tutor schedules, citizenship and assembly, all play their part in feeding the spirit of youth with ideas and values which go beyond the everyday curriculum.  And most teachers I know would certainly accept that learning in school should be about more than reading, writing and facts -  that presenting positive role models and grasping a sense of how society works and the richness of cultural experience are reasonable and vital aims for these developmental years.

But then in 2014, the ratchet went up a notch or two further with the announcement from Michael Gove that schools would be required  to promote ‘Fundamental British Values’.  At the time, I was head of a school in Kent and, as the move seemed to be a reaction to a perceived promotion of strict Islamist views in some schools in Birmingham, I didn’t feel it was hugely relevant to me. If I was honest, I was probably just rather irritated to have another thing added to my to-do list so that I could be ‘inspection ready.’  According to guidance from the DfE these fundamental values are:

Democracy

The rule of law

Individual liberty and

Mutual respect for and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs.

If I thought about those things at all, I thought about them as a given – intrinsically understood and accepted.  I feel very differently now – and not just because I have moved from leafy Kent to worldly South London in the meantime.

This term I have been dedicating my Monday morning whole school assemblies to these values.  I would like to pretend that I had moral or ethical reasons for doing so but my Pastoral Deputy and I just thought it would be a practical move in ticking a box and ensuring all girls had heard something on the key themes.   However, as the term so far has evolved in tandem with the international and political stage, I’ve led myself into a very tricky minefield.

Trying at all times to steer clear of airing my own political views, I have had to talk about democracy to a group of informed young people who feel largely disenfranchised by the June referendum and frustrated by results of the election in the US.  I covered individual rights to an audience of teenage girls, two days after hundreds of thousands of women felt the need to march on Washington and other major cities.  And now I am getting to mutual respect and tolerance just as borders are closing to refugees and those from nominated countries where Islam is the major religion.  And I know that this will mean that girls in my school hall will have family members who cannot travel to the US at present even for business and educational purposes. 

On the one hand, I feel that my small attempt to discuss these issues is just a futile drop in the ocean, or rather the tsunami of moral, social and spiritual development which is crashing over my pupils’ heads right now.  On the other, rather than feeling that these ‘fundamental British values’ are not worth discussing because they are a given, I am instead anxious to talk about them all of the time in case they are not.  Rather than feeling irritated to have had these ideals somehow imposed upon my curriculum, I do now honestly feel that they may constitute the most important teaching we do.  In 2014 it did feel somewhat as though politicians were introducing these guidelines in order to hold schools to account.  In 2017, it might well emerge that the roles have been reversed.

[sally-annehuang]

My teenage crush

I used to give an assembly to teenage girls which was designed to show the mutability of human tastes and, by giving examples of what I might have had tattooed on myself at 16 and how I might now feel about said tattoo still being with me, illustrate that, no matter how certain we are of something in our youth, we may well change our views before our time is up. Growing up outside Manchester, for example, I may well have gone for a Manchester United crest only to discover that, as a middle aged mum in the South East, rugby is now my thing.  I might not have regretted some homage to Shakespeare quite so much but I am afraid that Jane Austen is no longer my favourite author and Mr Darcy is not my ideal man. However, the best example and the one that gets the most reaction, has always been a photograph of George Michael, circa 1984, at the height of his teen idol status, his hair at its bouffant, blow dried best as he smiles in a white suit through a misty filter.  For teens of the twenty first century, this is the openly gay soul singer with a drugs problem and a chequered history with the law.   That their headmistress once genuinely believed she could marry him is a source of utter bewilderment to them; that he was once the equivalent of Zayn Malik or Harry Styles is also news.  So this is always my trump card for how things change.

And then, late on Christmas Day, my teenage son, flicking through the news on his phone as we sat watching a movie, calmly announced that George Michael was dead, and my heart sank in a manner which indicated that perhaps things hadn’t changed that much after all.  Much has been said about 2016 and its grim reaper quality when it comes to celebs.  But this was one that really touched me. Part of my youth had disappeared. It may have been the silliest, most hormone-driven, unedifying part of it, but it was still part of my youth. And then, of course, there was everything that Michael had come to be since that time, so much of which has come out in obituaries and tributes since Christmas Day.  Outed as gay in the late 90s, he faced the challenges that came with that at the time to become an inspiration to others and part of the social journey which means that the generation I currently teach would never be shocked by the equivalent news from one of their idols.  His musical gifts were clearly so much more than I had seen back in 1984 and both his voice and his song-writing talents developed and impressed over time.   As for his generosity, never far from the surface through projects such as Help a London Child and his support of Macmillan, it is now reaching legendary status as many he helped anonymously feel able to share their stories following his death.

Terrible as these celebrity deaths have been in 2016, they have provided my generation with an opportunity for reflection.  It is tragic that we have to lose our heroes to appreciate them but it also gives us chance to consider their value over a lifetime and not just the splash they first made upon our consciousness.  These lives become the measure of our own progress and concerns since we feel (perhaps wrongly) that they have been part of our own lives and growth.  David Bowie’s originality, Mohammed Ali’s integrity, Carrie Fisher’s honesty and wit, these have all been celebrated as beacons of hope in what has otherwise been seen as the bleakest of years.  So perhaps I was wrong to exploit my teenage crush on George Michael to such comic effect since, clearly, it never left me entirely.  I might admire him for very different and, I hope, much better reasons now – but perhaps that tattoo isn’t entirely out of the question.

  © Sally-Anne Huang 2016

[sally-annehuang]

How do we talk to pupils about Trump?

Most teachers will tell you, quite rightly, that it’s best not to talk to pupils about your own politics.  Independent, measured neutrality is the order of the day.  So how do you talk to 800 girls about Donald Trump and stay neutral?

Last week I spoke to the girls at JAGS about how fortunate I was to see Hamilton on Broadway over half term.  This might just have been a form of boasting as getting the tickets was a fluke and involved extraordinarily good timing on my husband’s part.  But it was also a way in to larger issues.

I wanted the girls to consider the story of Alexander Hamilton and the other US founding fathers at this time as a way in to considering modern politics. As you probably know, Alexander Hamilton created the national treasury and banking system and Lin-Manuel Miranda’s awarding winning musical concerning his life is the most remarkable thing.   On the one hand it’s a period piece with muskets and frock coats – but on the other, it’s incredibly modern, diverse and original.

Miranda, of Puerto Rican descent and born into one of the poorest New York communities, seems fascinated with the sense of America and New York in particular as being made of immigrants.  For him Hamilton was an obvious choice: born out of wedlock in the West Indies, orphaned and educated out of the generosity of local wealthy men when they realised how smart he was, an alumnus of Columbia University who made it to the top.  It’s really inspiring stuff and of huge relevance to the world today.

The musical is incredibly emotional – how does music do that?  I sat there even as an English woman and cheered for the optimism and heroism of these people creating an infant nation that would go on to be the most powerful in the world.  But at the current time in particular, it’s very odd to sit and watch the birth of the nation and not consider what is going on in the US elections.

Tomorrow, Americans will choose the nation’s 45th president and it will be a historical choice because it will either be the first woman - a completely different choice.  Or it will be Donald Trump.

But, as I have said, I am not supposed to discuss politics and my own political preferences in assemblies.  That would be completely inappropriate.  But the girls would quite literally need to have had their fingers in their ears during every other assembly I have ever given – about empathy, equality, feminism, British values - to believe for a minute that I could approve of Donald Trump.  As young women, they know I would be appalled by so many of the statements and ideas associated with him.  I also asked them to consider how things would be if roles were reversed and if Hilary spoke about young men that way or constantly shouted over people or behaved aggressively.  How would they react?

But, when you spend time in the US, you realise it’s not straight forward either. Most of our family connections in the US are New Yorkers and none of them like Trump.  But then they are not crazy about Hilary either. 

So I asked the girls to think about power and who wants the power?  If Trump wants to be the 45th US president, then both the 1st and the 3rd holders of the post are characters in Hamilton – albeit dancers and rappers.  But these men, the founding fathers, were not so pure and noble as you might assume.  Hamilton was involved in the first ever political sex scandal.  Aaron Burr was criticised for negative campaigning against Thomas Jefferson.  Things have not changed as much as you might think.

Perhaps one difference here is seen in George Washington.  He stepped up to found his nation and possibly could have stayed in power for life but he chose to step down and go back to being a citizen.  He set the tone for service over dictatorship which has led directly to Obama having to step down now. It’s crucial that this power is finite; it’s a job.

So, as a Headmistress at this point in the twenty first century, I want my pupils to consider people in power and to think about why they want it.  Even Alexander Hamilton was fighting his own way out of the gutter.  More importantly I want the girls to consider what people might be prepared to do to maintain power once they have it because it’s addictive and hard to give up.  I’m not talking about Trump  - or at least I’m not talking about Trump alone.  They will fill in the gaps.

So, like most of the world, I will be holding my breath over the next 48 hours.  I suppose, if you want the good news, then Hamilton is coming to London in 2017…

© Sally-Anne Huang 2016

[sally-annehuang]

My day in Year 8

The JAGS Parents’ Association were undertaking an auction for our bursary fund in the summer term and it seemed a good idea and potential money-making venture to auction off being ‘Headmistress for the Day’.  Emma in Year 8 was the winner and did a totally phenomenal job which included taking assembly and conducting a conference call with the Heads of Alleyn’s and Dulwich College.  You can read her own account of her experiences on the school website. http://www.jags.org.uk/news/2016-10-07/My-Day-as-Headmistress-of-JAGS-by-Emma-Year-8

However, what I had not really taken into consideration was the other side of the bargain; I had agreed to be Emma for the day.  And what a learning experience that was!  I knew that I would be in lessons.  Some, such as Latin or French, were well within my comfort zone, but I began the day fearful of PE and Maths, remembering my own youth.  Well, that was my first mistake.  It was a real privilege to be taught by my colleagues and to experience the energy, enthusiasm and humour in each and every classroom.  PE was fantastic!  A brilliant chance to get outdoors and to play in an actual match (something I never achieved in my own schooldays).  My mood was lifted entirely and I feel a midday netball match should be compulsory for anyone in a desk job.  And Maths, far from being the dreary affair I remember from my childhood, was exhilarating and fast-paced, ending with a brain teaser that Year 8 were crying out to solve and a promise of a solution the next day.  As I wouldn’t be in that lesson, I had to ask Year 13 to help me with the answer…

But my second mistake was in underestimating the vital importance of day to day relationships in a Year 8 form.  I should have known better, but the sheer support for me as the ‘new girl’ and the camaraderie between the group of friends which I experienced was humbling.  Year 8 made sure that I sat in the right place for assembly, that I wasn’t alone at break, and that I knew exactly when and where to register in the afternoon.  I hadn’t asked them to do this and, in truth, I could easily have snuck off to an office for a coffee at any point, but they totally embraced me as one of them, and out of respect and in pure delight, I totally went with that.

So I do feel now that I can empathise with Emma and all of her friends so much more.  I have re-learnt the fast-paced, multi-disciplined existence which is school for a 12 year old.  But I have also appreciated the importance of a smile from a tutor, someone to partner with in lessons and a companion over lunch.  I think I always knew those things intellectually but I got to feel them personally again.  There is a strong argument that every leader should go back to whichever metaphorical factory floor applies in their circumstances.  I certainly think every head should trial being a pupil in their own school.

© Sally-Anne Huang 2016