The Psych Student

"Did you ever stop to think, and forget to start again?" by Martha K

Yes, this post’s title was part of a cheesy song lyric from way back when and has been the subject of at least one creepy pop tune by Sting, but it’s also the subject of recent research at Birmingham University who, according to Guardian education writer Michele Hanson, “found that teachers’ pets are more common in England than in other countries.”

I think, more accurately, it showed more English students felt that way, but maybe their’s a convincing reason why they should that’s worth exploring.

Having attended all my schooling thus far (Psych classes start in October) in the U.S., I found this assertion a little dubious. But not having yet seen the actual research, I’m also a little sceptical of how it might be portrayed in this article. I’ve also been a newsroom staffer and remember how frustratingly the news industry almost by its very nature over-simplifies academic research in order to make intriguing headlines.

Also, I’m a bit put off by Hanson having not cited the title or authors of the research, which has made my search of it more complicated. According to her article:

“And who did the researchers question in the course of their study? English teenagers. Was that wise? I thought 14 or 15 was the age when pupils tend to feel that nobody loves them, everybody’s picking on them, and everything that goes wrong is someone else’s fault. Children tend to fib about teachers.” - Hanson

If true, this would be a dubious claim for the study. A better claim would be that English students feel like favouritism is more rampant in England than elsewhere. It turns out, though, that this is another case of drive-by journalism. As a more comprehensive article in the Telegraph points out, “The study, from the University of Birmingham, surveyed 14,000 14 and 15-year-olds from England, Belgium, Japan, Italy, France and the Czech Republic, asking them to agree or disagree with statements about their teachers.”

“Pupils from England, 3,000 made up from different social backgrounds, were more likely to argue that their teachers has pets than pupils from other countries.” – The Telegraph

Hanson has been an educator in England herself and a little defensive at the accusation that she may have shown preferential treatment to some students: “Of course I had favourites when I taught,” she writes, “but I certainly didn’t discriminate.”

A hard claim to confirm or deny and entirely anecdotal. I also think it’s interesting how quick she is to dismiss the perceptions of her students but stands by the views of her colleagues.

Perhaps the researchers should have gone the other way round and asked the teachers if they have pets. There must be some who do. No profession is perfect. But during 25 years of teaching I swear I never saw one. Yes, teachers had favourites. We tend to favour the ones who get on with their work. They don’t have to be goody-two-shoes. They can be the naughty, spirited ones, or the cheery, funny ones, or the tough ones, or the dreamy ones, or the ones who’ve had a hard time. We’re usually not keen on the bullies and disruptive little stinkers whose parents egg them on, but if we do have favourites, we don’t show it. - Hanson

I’ve been a teacher, albeit an ESL teacher overseas, in Korea and later in Morocco, working in both private and state school settings. My observations here are also totally anecdotal and also would possibly have to be classified in a sub-section of teaching, but yes, point blank, teachers do have preferred pupils, and I noticed it here as well as during my own schooling years upon years ago that they do show it in a number of ways, and I’m pretty sure I did as well even if subconsciously. What I agree with Hanson about is the reasoning that teachers pick their favourites (U.S. guy in England writing blog = sometimes we have the British spelling, sometimes the U.S. spelling). Students who got on with the course work were allowed greater levels of freedom. Generally I don’t know if this is a good thing or a bad thing. Was it a reward meant to encourage others to do likewise? Was it a subconscious logic at play: that those who can handle more independence should get it? I also remembered it happening in classes from elementary through high school.

This carried through university. I remember professors having far more engaging attitude with sometimes provocative students who spoke out of turn when they added something to the conversation that suggested an engagement with the subject, even if it was completely off the mark. More controlled students who may have showed more decorum but were sort of doing the minimum were hit a lot harder when they did speak, or sort of tolerated.

A different Guardian article quotes Jane Lees, president of the Association of School and College Leaders and head teacher of Hindley High school in Wigan:  “This is just the normal teenage angst phase, where teenagers feel nobody loves them. … I don’t think teachers in England need to be worried about this.”

That doesn’t explain why fewer students in other countries felt marginalised. The research was done by Stephen Gorard,  Professor of Education Research at University of Birmingham, and Emma Smith, Reader in Education at the same university. He told the teacher union ATL that “perhaps teachers in England need to face up to the way they appear to be treating pupils.”

Perhaps. My question would be whether it’s possible to not have a class favourite, and if it is impossible, then is it at all possible not to show it? The first question indicates the existence of objectivity on the subject. The second whether people are able to  entirely hide their true feelings about others. My guess from personal experience is that the answer is no.

Subsequent to that, I would ask the following: Is  this always a bad thing?

END NOTE: Gorard has some history in discussing equitable treatment in education systems. He was one of the authors of Diversity, specialisation and equity in education (2005), which concluded that while “the UK school diversity agenda may aim to be more equitable, complementary and collaborative it perhaps fails to recognise that the education system today is more competitive and consumer-led,” which could undermine government aims to overcome inequality.

I contacted him about this recent study. He said the Guardian piece (the article, not to be confused with the op-ed by Hanson) “was almost nearly correct” in some of what the study reported. It is, however, just one piece of the entire study he and Smith conducted, to be published in 2010 by Palgrave under the title Equity in Education. He included a draft of the forthcoming book’s final chapter, saying “as you will see, it was not our intention to run a justice Olympics. This is just one aspect picked up by the press.”

Note: The research cited below is not related directly to the research that is the subject of this post, but rather a previous study by Gorard cited here. The research discussed here is still awaiting publication.

Gorard, S., & Smith, E. (2004). An international comparison of equity in education systems Comparative Education, 40 (1), 15-28 DOI: 10.1080/0305006042000184863