In Memorium

When the third primary headteacher takes their own life in the space of four years it has to be time to do something to reduce the pressure on colleagues. Sir Michael Wilshaw and his political masters should be ashamed that the system they have created is killing decent, caring people whose only mistake has been to care too much for the children they served and the schools they led.

Is it any wonder that there is a shortage of candidates for senior posts in schools? Is it any wonder that something over 50% of new teachers are now deserting the profession within five years of qualification?

Yet political rhetoric would have us believe that the battle against ‘mediocrity’ is being won and that there are national leaders of education who will show us how to run schools properly.   These are not exactly lies, but they are optimistic half-truths. There are some excellent schools that have upped their game to meet the challenges of education in the second decade of the millennium. But the figures clearly show us that it’s not academisation  or Trusts with their £250K salaried CEOs that are the solution – they are as mixed a success story as are any schools. There are some highly effective school leaders who are righty recognised and valued. But there are also the bully-boys, the Johnny-come-latelies who are all puff and little substance who talk in mantras but lack integrity.  We’ve got a lot to learn about looking after our people - there is plenty of evidence from plenty of sources that confirms the importance of school ethos in the drive to raise standards and time will doubtless prove that those schools where staff sign up to the mission because they sig up to the vision will be more successful than those where teachers are bullied into submission, irrespective of short term improvements.

But it’s also our school leaders whom we need to protect, not just from the punitive culture promoted by Wilshaw and Morgan but from the local authorities and academy trusts who lack the respect they should show for their headteachers and think that, by putting them under pressure, they are somehow fighting mediocrity. This is morally wrong, philosophically bankrupt and educationally dangerous. Three headteacher suicides is surely enough. But whether or not the Secretary of State and her Chief Inspector really care has to be doubted.

A Fearful Generation

We are running the risk of developing a generation of fearful adults.  If Professor Ken Robinson is right in his Ted Talk that young children are not afraid to be wrong, we soon sort that out. By the time they leave even primary school they are terrified.

The reason that we are afraid to allow our children to be wrong is that we occupy a professional space ever more crowded with punitive and far reaching measures and a rhetoric from the Secretary of State and her Prime Minister that, 'mediocrity will not be tolerated'.  Well, maybe it's not being mediocre if we let kids get it wrong and then learn to deal with failure.  The trouble is that, as soon as we think that might be a sound idea, we are reminded by some parliamentarian that failure is not acceptable.

In a culture where an Ofsted judgement of less than good - and now, for some 'coasting' schools it seems, even good schools are at risk - spells personal disaster for the  school leaders and so they are afraid and they pass that fear on. This makes schools tense places to work. It's not the workload that is causing the profession to shed members, it's the climate of fear.

The trouble is that politicians decide on this punitive course of action and will not be diverted from it because any diversion will be seen as a sigh of weakness. And weakness begins to look like failure. and our politicians play a high stakes game. They are afraid of failure. And they pass that fear on.

Making Progress

This is a little blog I write for Osiris. It appears here a month or so after being submitted.

Okay, so you’ve got used to the idea that levels have been consigned to the dustbin of history. On the one hand you feel smugly pleased to have made the leap of faith and put your trust in the concept of consolidation before progression, but on the other hand you feel strangely naked without the comfort blanket of APP to wrap round you. For, with the loss of levels, we also lost all that work we had done in making APP work.

I’ve always loved the use of the three letter abbreviation, TLA, to describe a three letter abbreviation. It’s got a kind of US English madness to it. So, despite the loss of APP, we can still appeal to another TLA to see us through this mire of assessment; AFL.  AFL is where it’s at with this business of tracking pupil progress.

Levelling off

Right now, primary teachers are feeling like one of those cartoon characters, running frantically in the air when there is nothing beneath them. There we were, comfortable with levels, knowing what they meant, when suddenly, bosh! The ground falls away.  Some schools have bravely embraced the new opportunities offered by life without levels, indeed folk like Dame Alison Peacock will claim that, at Wroxham School, they never used them anyway. However, it’s unfamiliar territory and even Dame Alison will agree that, while there were levels, Wroxham had ‘a metric’ running in the background for statutory reporting purposes.

Quite a lot of schools are taking the understandable view that it is better to be second in rather than a pioneer, while they stagger on with levels and wait, Micawber-like, for something to turn up. In the meantime a disturbing proportion of schools are clinging to levels because they are a safety blanket – you know where you are with levels!  However – and this is a conversation I have quite frequently with headteachers – how do you work with levels, when there are no levels? The answer is that levels simply do not fit.  Where will these levels come from?

You can’t, seriously, simply carry on using the old national curriculum levels – this is a new national curriculum; it’s different. The levels don’t work. And you can’t, honestly, re-jig the levels, or massage the curriculum, into some kind of levelled wonderland; where lies the consistency? Is your Level 3 the same as the old one? Is your Level 3 the same as my Level 3?  We need to renew our thinking.

Renewing our thinking means understanding the principles that underlie this sea-change that we are experiencing. While there may have been some legitimate sneering that the Expert Panel arrived at a curriculum before they arrived at its aims, the important message is that assessing by a system of levels has never really been a true measure of a child’s achievement. As Tim Oates, Chair of the Expert Panel, has made clear, a level was a variable measure. It could be that a child was Level 4 because he happened to score highly on some low-value test items, picked up a few correct high-value items and emerged with a level 4 score. Or, it might be that Level 4 meant that, on a particular day, a piece of work sort of fitted into a set of criteria. It might not have hit them all, but it was a best fit. And best fits don’t work – ask any craftsman cabinet-maker.  Finally, Level 4 might mean that the child was ‘just-in’ to the band. It didn’t mean that this was a secure measure but a claim could be made that the criteria for Level 3 were no longer adequate and that there were signs that Level 4 might possibly be a better judgement; it certainly suited our purpose for it to be, even though, once the results were in, the child might slip back. But we could always blame it on summer learning loss.

So, get used to it; levels don’t work. The message of the new approach is twofold: fewer things at greater depth and consolidation before progression. This should mean that we free up space to make sure that pupils, in Tim Oates’ words, ‘nail the concepts’. We have to get used to changing our thinking from progress at any price to progress through deep learning. As we drift towards the last national tests to be ‘levelled’ we have the chance to consign what is really a flawed concept (however much we love it) to history. I, for one will not be sorry to banish that dreadful term ‘uplevelling’ from the vocabulary of education.  This, of course calls for a different, and maybe radical, approach to recording progress. But that’s for another day.

The realities of a Kent headship

It's been a while since Education Monkey put down his banana to pick up a pen and a lot has happened. I keep threatening to get back to regular blogging but life just seems to take over.

I often comment on the national picture - heaven knows, there's enough to comment on! But this time I want to reflect on some local issues. Firstly, let me talk about my friend Nigel. One of the most inspirational headteacher colleagues that I have been privileged to work with, Nigel took over a tough Thanet school at a crucial time in its history and, because he is a clear thinker with high expectations and high ideals, his school rapidly became one of the most improved schools in Kent. Of course, at the mention of Kent, the discerning may already sense alarm bells.

In my view, Nigel's school was dealt a pretty rough hand  by Ofsted because, rather than the 'good' that it surely was, it was judged to 'require improvement'. There were probably several reasons for that and, as a some-time player for the Dark Side, I know how marginal these calls are. It could probably have gone either way but this was a harsh shout. When the inspection team leave a school it leaves behind a mixture of feelings, usually depending on the judgement. I have known RI schools to be appreciative of the breathing space they have been given and often the new clarity they have about priorities. But, when the judgement is iffy, it leaves people feeling a sense of grief, almost like a bereavement. And this was how I though Nigel reacted; he knew he was doing a good job; ask any pupil at his school and they will tell you just how much their lives have been enriched by the experience. Yet here was Ofsted, telling him that it was all illusory.

It does not help that, in Kent, the LA make little distinction between schools that are in a category and those that simply require improvement. They don't seem to have read that line that says 'a school that requires improvement is not a school causing concern'. So, with all the pressure that this generates, Nigel decided that he would throw in the towel. Outside school he is nationally respected for his work around inclusion and there were people happy to offer him work to benefit from his considerable expertise. But the pupils, staff and community of his school are the big losers. He and I chatted over tea about making the break from headship to consultancy and it was great to see how positively Nigel embraced the new possibilities. And that's right  - if you cut it in consultancy, you move onto a wider stage and can have a wider influence.

But, of course, Kent will always have the final kick in the teeth. Just before half-term I happened to be at Nigel's school leading a Flight workshop with his and another school. I chanced to say to a colleague, 'so, when does Nigel leave?' expecting a July date rather than 'tomorrow'. Tomorrow??

It seems that Nigel, being well-respected and well-connected, was invited to take part in an education programme on Radio 5 Live. He didn't talk about his school, nor Kent - just headship. After the event one of his governors, perhaps with an over-inflated sense of position, rang the Chair and ranted, 'how dare Nigel do this without consulting us?' The Chair could have dismissed it, she could have dropped in to talk it through with Nigel, but instead she stupidly decided to ring the LA.  To those who know this authority, it will come as no surprise that the LA response was 'sack him!'. It appeared governors were given three choices: sack Nigel, refuse to do so and be replaced by an IEB who would do so, or negotiate a compromise agreement with immediate resignation.

This beggars belief, doesn't it? It can't be legal. But here is a man who has always spoken his mind and now the LA has an opportunity to kick him when he's down. Nigel was just not in the right place to fight and so, with a compromise agreement, he left his grieving school at half-term.  And I know that already, relieved of the burden of leading a Kent school, he feels lighter and is looking forward to the next stage in his career. I wish him every success. He leaves behind a legacy of decency, a spirit of aspiration and a sense of pride in achievement. Headteachers like Nigel are the kinds of people who Kent needs but knows not how to value. A shame on you.

The odd world of the politics of education and the future of inspection

You may be aware of the tensions between Sir Michael Wilshaw and the right wing of the Conservative Party. Wilshaw is squaring up for a fight by trying to align the inspection of independent schools with Ofsted while the Right are putting pressure on the Secretary of State to remove Ofsted's right to inspect Free Schools and Academies.  This is what recently caused Wilshaw to hold a press conference at which he said he was 'spitting blood'. However, round one to the Chief Inspector for, from April, Section 162 inspection (of 'non-association' independent schools) will no longer include the 'Adequate' judgement as it will be replaced by 'Requires Improvement' - quite a change if you're paying £4K a term for your child's education.

However, Round 2 is currently going the way of the Right as the link below will illustrate. This throws the whole future of inspection into doubt. Policy Exchange is a fairly small group of Neo-Conservatives with enormous power and influence. Their current view is that Ofsted should not observe lessons any more because inspectors' views are unreliable (as they say, you may as well toss a coin). Now,  whilst it may be true that one inspector's RI is another inspector's Inadequate, it would be unusual to be more than a grade different. However, as Mike Cladingbowl has recently pointed out, "Ofsted does not grade lessons and does not grade teachers", so we're half way there anyway. But, if self-evaluation is important, then lesson observations are a legitimate way to check out leadership judgements.

Policy Exchange also want to ditch experienced inspectors in favour of serving teachers. While this idea has merit, many AIs are already practitioners. In my view it is the serving practitioners that tend to be a bit variable on an inspection because they don't inspect that often. On the other hand, inspectors who have held senior and successful positions and now work for Ofsted, tend to get a much quicker handle on things.   Civitas would like the inspection of Free Schools and Academies to mirror the system used by The Independent Schools Inspectorate and so remove the risk of a dodgy Ofsted judgement.

What we are seeing here is two right wing think tanks, Civitas and Policy Exchange, engaged in a pincer movement to outmanoeuvre the Chief Inspector. There are a limited number of these movers and shakers and, because of the very close links between the two bodies, there are probably even fewer than you might think. And there are almost certainly some vested interests involved. Let's say, for example, that a key member of Policy Exchange was planning to set up a Free School, or that people close to Civitas already ran one that could be vulnerable at its first Ofsted inspection. In these cases the idea of ditching Ofsted in favour of a softer approach makes every sense. Of course, this is pure conjecture...!

Let's not forget that the founder of Policy Exchange was one Michael Gove so it's quite easy to predict the result of this boxing match.

Sir Michael - who, by some strange quirk of fortune, seems now to be the Teacher's Friend, is 68 in August so I suspect that he may not be in post much longer. If I was the Secretary of State, I think I would want to replace the Chief Inspector sooner rather than later so that my man (or woman) was in place before the election.  I may be wrong....

Anyway, do have a look at the TES 'breaking news' in the link below.

Here's to the future of inspection!


Education Monkey

Scrap 'unreliable' lesson observations from Ofsted inspections, says Policy Exchange - Education - TES News
news.tes.co.uk/b/news/2014/03/14/scrap-lesson-observations-from-ofsted-inspections-report-says.asp

Latest Ofsted Advice - charter for weak teaching?

The Education Monkey completely agrees with The Chief Inspector's expressed view that teachers do not have to teach to a formula that reduces their autonomy. However the recently published subsidiary guidance for school inspection includes the following instruction:

(Inspectors) should not criticise teacher talk for being overlong or bemoan a lack of opportunity for different activities in lessons unless there is unequivocal evidence that this is slowing learning over time. It is unrealistic, too, for inspectors to necessarily expect that all work in all lessons is always matched to the specific needs of each individual. Do not expect to see ‘independent learning’ in all lessons and do not make the assumption that this is always necessary or desirable. On occasions, too, pupils are rightly passive rather than active recipients of learning.

In the light of the Teachers' Standards 2012, and the many recent injunctions by Sir Michael that the leadership of teaching is the most important quality of headship, the above statements can appear to be contradictory and confusing  There are already several bloggers who have picked this up and seem to be using it to justify an 'anything goes' approach to teaching, which we know it is not.

My questions, then, are based on this apparent contradiction:-

1. Teacher Talk.  It is self-evident that teacher talk can often be overlong and therefore leads to student disengagement. This is especially true in the case of young children and this advice appears to ignore the research evidence of many years that explore the cognitive development of young children when which over-long teacher talk is frequently counter-productive and rarely results in good learning.  While Jean Piaget's work has been built on since its publication, there is not a body of research that suggests a broadly different picture.  The instruction above speaks of 'slowing down learning over time' yet it is in the lesson that learning is often perceived to slow. Therefore it is inevitable that, both in inspection and, more importantly, with school leaders attempting to drive up the quality of teaching in their school, some teachers are going to seek justification for weak teaching in the very instructions given to inspectors.

2. Different activities. The instruction does not make clear what might be the alternative to different activities. Does this mean a range of activities that meet the needs of the range of students, or does it mean a series of sequential activities in which students engage as part of their learning joutney in that particular lesson.  This needs clarification - already I hear teachers using this as an excuse for both setting work that is either not challenging enough or too challenging, and for 'teaching to the middle' as was the practice of some teachers thirty years ago. Again, this instruction is hampered by inspectors having to find out if learning is slowed down over time, rather than in the lesson. At a time when we are looking for teachers who are focused on rapid and sustained progress, this advice seems to be counter-intuitive.

3. Matching work to the needs of the pupils.  The instruction above suggests that work does not ned to meet individual needs. While it is true that mainstream teaching is about identifying and meeting the needs of vulnerable groups (personalised learning), it is self-evident that, if a student is given work that does not meet their needs, then they are going to become disaffected and disengaged. The instructions ignore many years of research about the way that young people learn. In particular, the work of Lev Vygotsky and others, provides a framework for learning through carefully structured tasks and, matching the work to the needs of individual students falls within this pedagogical skill-set. How does the view that work does not need to meet individual needs sit with Teachers' Standard 5, which an provides excellent overview of effective differentiation?

4. Do not assume that independent learning is necessary or desirable.  It is very unclear what this instruction means. In what way can a student's learning be other than independent? Given the overall thrust of HMCI's recent commentary on what constitutes good teaching (ie 'what works) and the literature that sits behind the recent review of the National Curriculum, then the assumption can be made that this advice means that, when students are set individual work, they are not necessarily learning from it. Indeed, few modern educators would disagree with this view and we are now more aware than ever that students do not learn by just 'looking things up'. However, if this is what the advice means then it needs to be made clear.

5. On occasions  pupils are rightly passive rather than active recipients of learning. While this may be true, the advice needs to be clarified because there is a vast body of research that suggests that people learn better through active involvement (eg Michel, Cater & Varela 2009). While research such as that carried out by Dartmouth College (2008) indicates that similar brain activity can be tracked in response to both active and passive learning, the application is limited and does not outweigh the case for active learning.  Yet here again, I am aware of teachers reading this advice to inspectors, who regard it as justification for adopting a lecture approach. This kind of approach is not without some merit but this depends on the circumstances in which the teacher is teaching and the students learning. For this reason the bald advice lacks clarity and adds to confusion.

I understand that the purpose of this supplementary guidance is to reinforce the Chief Inspector's very appropriate drive to move away from a formulaic approach which, he says, 'traps too many teachers in a stultifying mould' but its effect, unless corrected, is likely to be to provide a charter for sloppy teaching that will make it more difficult for inspectors and much more difficult for school leaders trying to drive up the quality of teaching in their schools.