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.

A knowledge led curriculum?

Education is a fast moving business at the moment and Education monkey has been too busy swinging from school to school to get on and write stuff for this blog. However, it's the beginning of a new school year so why not grasp the nettle?

The Monkey has been doing a lot of reading over the summer, triggered by the revision of the National Curriculum. Among the most interesting material has been Trusting Knowledge by Dr Jo Saxton and Annaleise Briggs. This apologia for a knowledge-based curriculum explores several arguments circulating around the notion and welcomes the introduction of a national curriculum that includes specified knowledge. Saxton takes on super-teacher, Phil Beadle over his comments that the Secretary of State wants to return us to a Victorian curriculum. However, her argument - that this is an educational decision and not a political one - has much merit. The we turn to another little volume, Seven Myths about Education, by Daisy Christoldoulou, where she unpicks these seven 'myths' about teaching process skills rather than knowledge:-

1. Facts prevent understanding
2. Teacher-led instruction is passive
3. The 21st century fundamentally changes everything
4. You can always just look it up
5. We should teach transferable skills
6. Projects and activities are the best way to learn
7. Teaching knowledge is indoctrination

Now, while Christodoulou rather over-polarises the argument, the case that she makes for teaching knowledge will find an echo with any teacher who has always felt that simply having pupils 'find out' from an arranged set of resources lack rigour and rarely leads to deep understanding.  Much of Christodoulou's case is founded in the work of American educationalist, ED Hirsch, whose concept of 'Cultural Capital' underpins much of the collective view of the Review Body.

Add into the mix the notion of generating in our pupils a positive mindset that makes them hungry to learn (see  Mindset by Dr Carol S Dweck) and then read Matthew Syed's Bounce, which sets out the thesis that we can accomplish great things without being talented but merely by repeated and diligent practice.  The sum of all this is that there is a strong case for the kind of curriculum that is proposed from 2014.

What Christodoulou, Saxton and Briggs have in common is a link with Civitas, the right-wing think tank that is, with Policy Exchange, being a significant influence on education policy. However, that does not necessarily make their work ideologically unsound and the Monkey, for one, is strangely persuaded of the validity of this thinking.

In the next Monkey Business we will look at how we got here in the first place.

A bit of an apology

So, it seems that Mr Gove really did not know about the bullying environment in the DfE. The Select Committee accepted his assertion that nobody told him and a senior Civil Servant has corroborated that.  Therefore, Education Monkey is happy to apologise for stirring the pot a bit more.

Mind you, SHOULD he have known?

The monkey would now like now to read that Mr Gove does not know about the bullying tactics employed by the DfE in respect of his academisation programme.

He's not optimistic.

Jackboots, Bribery and the man from the DfE

There is a very worrying sense that the DfE and Michael Gove have a separate life that lies parallel to but somewhat outside the conventions of democratic government.  We have seen Gove's underhand way of working intended to avoid the darker side of his dealings coming under public scrutiny and we have seen a steady flow of press reports about the unpleasant, some would say unprofessional conduct of his Spads, or Special Advisers.  The Education Select Committee has recently recalled the Secretary of State, claiming that he misled parliament about the tactics used by Special Adviser Dominic Cummings and his head of communications James Frayne and this is becoming pretty much par for the course. The bullying stories that are emerging from the DfE  are very concerning.

However, for those of us in education, it is the DfE tactics in respect of schools that are the most concerning.  The manipulation of data, the massaging of statistics, the lack of consultation are more suited to an extremist regime than one that allegedly espouses democracy. And, most worryingly of all, the voice of the protesters is stilled time and time again. Just look at any forced academy. If in any doubt, watch the film The Parents, The Politician and the Carpet Bagger.

My suggestion that the DfE's academy team works by a combination of bullying and bribery came to the attention of Andrew Kimmel of the Academies Group. He has replied but, interestingly, not for Mr Kimmel the usual page of DfE justification. Instead he replies that the contents of the article has (sic) been noted.

So, what are we to make of this? As we have seen, the DfE is always anxious to address negative publicity by offering up a page or so of well-reasoned reply.  In this case... the content has been noted. So, er, nothing to say then?  Which leads to the inevitable conclusion that the Education Monkey must be right.

So, it is true. You WILL become an academy then, either by assuming the required position for receiving the jackboot, or holding out your hand for the blood money. I have stopped believing in the justification that Gove seriously wants to improve the education system; instead I believe this is about neo-conservative privatisation, putting schools in the hands of businessmen and privatising the support services that schools need. This is a market economy, nothing more.

Having read this, Read Michael Rosen's open letter to Mr Gove and follow it by reading George Monblot's Guardian article.

And, just to see how this Whitehall godfather and his mafia operate, read the story of the "consultation" about Roke Primary, which the DfE is forcing to become a Harris Academy - no choice of becoming an academy and, importantly, no choice of sponsor.

Scary, isn't it?

Teacher Training and EBAC - the DfE responds

As regular readers of this blog will know, I occasionally get a response from the DfE and, when I do, I publish it here. I thought things had gone quiet when suddenly I received this, which answers points made about teacher training and the Ebac. This comes from Pamela Kearns of the Ministerial and Public Communications Division. Although it is one of those generic replies you tend to get from government, Ms Kearns has at least got a sympathetic turn of phrase. She says...

I acknowledge and empathise with the two example cases that you have highlighted in your letter and I can appreciate how disheartening it must be for both these individuals not to be able to teach their chosen subjects and pursue their chosen career.

Initial Teacher Training continues to be a popular choice for the best graduates and experienced career changers. We expect to attract 35,000 new trainees to teaching each year from the brightest graduates and the most experienced career changers, of these places around 10,000 will come through our new school routes to teacher training. However the number of applications we receive always exceeds the number of places available. This year we expect competition to be very stringent for teacher training places with around twice the number of people applying than there are places available to train.
Well, ITT has always been competitive, ask anyone who's tried to get onto the GTP!
The Government wants to move increasingly towards a school led system of teacher training. This year the Teaching Agency has received strong demand for its School Direct places and allocated 9,500 places to just under 900 lead schools working with a partnership of schools. This shows a significant demand from schools that have the desire and capacity to take a head in the recruitment and training of their own trainee teachers. Around 400 additional schools have also registered an interest in future School Direct opportunities. But, as we have seen, it is this very fragmentation of ITT that is the difficulty; where you have fragmentation you have variation and some trainees will be well trained, others will not. This is why the system was centralised in the first place. Still, what goes around comes around... 

In respect of your comments on the English Baccalueate (EBacc), it was introduced as a measure in 2011 to encourage schools to offer more pupils the opportunity to study towards GCSEs in a suite of core academic subjects (English, mathematics, the sciences, geography or history and a foreign language). It is designed to leave 20-30 per cent of time for the study of other subjects as part of a broad and balanced curriculum. However the EBacc was and is not a compulsory requirement on all pupils; there are no targets associated with the measure and schools remain free to offer the range of subjects they feel best suits their pupils.Yes, do note the last sentence - this is the new position forced on the Secretary of State by the Select Committee.
On 7 February the Secretary of State made a statement on the future of qualifications, school league tables and the national curriculum. The announced proposals for qualifications at the end of Key Stage 4 follow on from the consultation held last year and set out plans for a comprehensive reform of GCSEs across the full range of subjects.

The Secretary of State also announced consultations on the National Curriculum (which runs until 16 April 2013) and separately on a new accountability framework for secondary schools (running until 1 May). The latter proposes that we judge schools against a threshold attainment in English and maths, and on progress based on pupils’ average scores in a range of both EBacc and non-EBacc subjects. This approach will provide a strong incentive for schools to offer a broad and balanced curriculum to all their pupils, including the academic core of the EBacc as appropriate, and to ensure high standards of teaching in a wide range of subjects

We wait and see. It's the fragmentation problem again - Academies and Free Schools can be national curriculum free zones

So, there you have it. However, I have also had a reply to Jackboot and Bribery and its very brevity smells of an uncomfortable truth. More in a week.

Jackboot and Bribery - the story of Academy conversion

The history of English education rightly cites 1870 as the true beginning of state education, for it was then that W E Forster piloted the first great Education Act through parliament, promising that the state would "fill the gaps" in voluntary school provision so that, for the first time, the nation's children had universal access to education. Even so, it would not be until the 1888 Mundella Act that education was also universally free. These early pioneers paved the way for an education system that was to be the envy of the world. Proud, honourable men, they would be horrified at the bullies who now inhabit the Department for Education.

With an ideological zeal that would not be out of place in the inner circles of the Third Reich, our Secretary of State is so determined that his privatisation programme is fulfilled, that the tactics adopted by his henchmen to 'persuade' schools to convert to academies have  become an embarrassing combination of jackboots and bribery.

Academies, let us remember, were the previous administration's way of injecting new life into failing schools by matching them with philanthropic sponsors in a way our Victorian forbears would have loved. That great champion of Academies, Andrew Adonis, speaking recently at the RSA, said "we did not start Academies early enough, we did not start Teach First early enough... It took time to turn round the supertanker". But the man from Surrey Heath saw the programme as one that offered a ready-made route to accomplishing his neo-conservative ends. And how quickly the rules changed. Maintaining the idea that weak schools could become stronger as sponsor academies, his Academies Act also made it possible for outstanding schools to choose the 'freedoms' offered by Academy Status. While these freedoms seemed pretty dubious, there were financial gains that many Governors found alluring. Then, suddenly, the need for converting schools to promise support for a weaker school seemed to not matter any more. What mattered was conversion, one way or another.

And one way or another, it seemed, was the approach. While minor political figures turned up to celebrate schools becoming Academies voluntarily, shady DfE figures were turning up on headteachers' doorsteps with the message that their school was going to become an academy, like it or not. These were not the much-publicised failing 200, just schools where standards were taking a while to come round. They had little choice. The message was that, one way or another they would become an academy, and one way or another, they did. They still are. Read Policy Exchange's proposals and you find the suggestion that, if a school is judged to Require Improvement, this immediately triggers Academy conversion. A think-tank suggestion today, but a policy-in-waiting.

So far, almost 3000 schools have become academies, by choice or by force.  The NAHT is briefing headteachers on 'forced academies' and it is this use of threats and coercion that troubles me.

Coercion seems to be the way this Education Secretary runs his department so why should he not run the whole shooting match in this way? Recent press reports show how the culture at the DfE has changed to one of bullying and arrogance. The DfE is said to be an unhappy place where Gove and his henchmen have surrounded themselves with what one insider calls, 'untouchable entitlement', in the belief that their views are not open to challenge. We had hints of this in Gove's use of personal emails to circumvent any Freedom of Information requests. Last year the Financial Times reported that Gove was using a private email address, under the name ”Mrs Blurt” to discuss government business with his advisers. And now, despite his recent open letter to the Information Commissioner in which he attempts to justify departmental secrecy, it is self-evident that openness is not his style when it comprises ideology.  While described by many as charming and urbane, this is a ruthless ideologue who will  not let decency get in the way of progress.

To return to the Academy question, there is a new initiative to lure into conversion those, usually primary, schools who are performing well but have resisted both carrot and stick. For these schools we are back to the old tactic of bribery, for we now hear of the DfE offering cash incentives to schools who will convert. The sums offered appear to vary but are in the region of £65,000. In Lancashire alone, we hear that bribes of up to £45,000 have been offered to 32 schools. That is almost £1.5M in just one LA area. Now, let's not forget that Gove has promised the chancellor to reduce education funding, so what is going on here? No wonder Headteachers are suspicious.  Ideology is all; the Lancashire bribes are alienating even the Tory faithful, but what value local Councillors, when up against Whitehall?

Add to this mix, the costly Free School adventure and it is not hard to see that, while some schools struggle for funds, the money is going to run out. And this is another element that lies behind the renewed urgency to push academisation; for the next step is towards those neo-con idols of private ownership and profit. This is an unpleasant business being transacted in an unpleasant way. In the next Monkey Business, Education Monkey will explore this a little more.

Read all about it – Gove makes a sensible decision!

Michael Gove appears to have finally made a decision that makes sense. This is the announcement that Ofsted should not inspect Free Schools for two years. There is much merit in this, since it takes that long to get a new school up and running.

I have had a fair amount of engagement with Free Schools; I have given advice prior to opening, I have helped schools to prepare for inspection and I have inspected them. The one characteristic shared by many of these schools is that they are simply not yet ready to be put through the fine mesh filter of Ofsted’s common inspection framework. For this reason the Secretary of State’s decision is a sensible one for once.

But, of course, it’s not as simple as that – as always there is the ideological neo-con gloss that robs the decision of its altruism. For each of the Free Schools will have received a pre-inspection visit from a DfE Adviser and, like Saladin’s messengers, they have told the Sultan what he wanted to hear. So these reports are full of phrases like ‘achievement is excellent’ and ‘teaching is outstanding’ while the reality is that, seen through Ofsted’s lens, it is often the case that neither of these is true. Therefore Mr Gove’s withdrawal of the Ofsted whip is clearly not to protect the schools but to protect himself from the criticism that is bound to follow when the Daily Mail headlines failing free schools.

Our colleagues who work in and run free schools are united in a zeal to make their schools the showcases of excellence that the DfE wishes them to be but it takes a while to set up the robust systems for pupil tracking and monitoring of teaching that will enable the dream to be realised. Dreams are one thing; hard data is another. It would be a mistake, at this stage, to remove Ofsted from the frame entirely; these new schools need – and would welcome – a monitoring visit. They do not welcome a full inspection that reveals weaknesses they are mostly aware of but have not yet had time to address. And Ofsted is not the DfE, it owes no allegiance to Saladin.

Whether Mr Gove understand the big picture remains to be seen. There is much wrong about this ideological Free Schools adventure but he cannot now leave them to face the future alone. Next time Education Monkey will swing around the business of funding Free Schools and Academies. It may not be comfortable reading.

The great Teacher Training Cock up

I've been involved in teacher training for well over a decade. I have run a Training School with two ITT partners, I've been head of an ITT partnership school, I've interviewed and taught for an HE provider and I have tutored on the GTP for many years. As a headteacher I took the first GT in my local authority (with a 3-digit reference number!), in the days when the TTA were on the end of the phone for hours as we struggled to construct a Training Plan that worked and was manageable. In those far-off days the DfES and Ofsted looked at the mixed bag of provision for this new employment-based route and, a couple of years up the line decided that the variation made trainees' experiences inconsistent and risked badly trained teachers being given QTS. Whether this was right or not, it resulted in a move towards a sensible centralisation with training being in the hands of Accredited Recommending Bodies, working in partnership with schools.  Since becoming independent, I have enjoyed working with a highly respected GTP provider and have had the privilege of training or assessing trainee teachers from early years to post-16 up and down the country.

The GTP worked well (is still working well for the remaining teachers on the programme) so why am I not surprised that the Secretary of State has determined to turn back the clock under the excuse of giving power back to schools. It would be okay if it worked but the best view so far is that it is an almighty cock-up. Indeed, stir in the added complication  of the EBacc debacle and we have an unholy admixture of the usual Tory confusion and wrong-thinking that we have become used to from this incompetent administration. I could bang  on for ages about this as it is a subject close to my heart Instead, I will illustrate what I mean by two real examples.

The first example is a successful police officer, now a detective, with a Masters degree. This officer is desperate to leave the police, where they feel they are not making the difference they joined up to make. They thought long and hard and decided that the future with the most promise is to be a teacher, where they can use their many skills to touch the lives of children and young people. As a good degree holder the logical point of entry was through Teach First. But is was not to be. Having a good degree and an MSc do not  necessarily qualify the applicant for the programme if they are not directly related to teaching a subject - never mind that, in this case, they would suit a teacher of history, psychology, politics and citizenship. So, abandon Teach First and try Schools Direct. Lo, the same problem. So, with a solid determination, the individual turned to primary teaching and applied for Schools Direct places in primary settings. They did not make the cut the first time because, it seemed, the school had an existing TA they wanted to employ. Onto the next attempt The application was for one of five salaried places but the reality was that there was one salaried place and four with no salary. At the end of the process the candidate was told they had been unsuccessful and the headteacher gave  the required feedback. During this the head said 'we couldn't understand why you would want to leave the police'.  This is staggering!

Michael Gove made it quite clear that the PGCE would continue as a nonsalaried route into teaching for university leavers and via SCITTs  while the Schools Direct programme was for career changers. So, here we have a young person, highly qualified and with all the skills and experience police training brings; just the sort of applicant that Gove would have had in mind. But the people in charge of the decisions - giving power back to schools - have missed the whole point. So, fingers crossed for the next attempt where, with any luck, the decision makers will have read the manual!

The second case is that of a person who, having had a successful career in car sales,  was made redundant from a sales manager position for a major brand. Redundancy focuses the thinking, and they decided to become a teacher. Having no degree, they found an access course, completed it with distinction and got a place at Goldsmiths on their Secondary DT programme. This has been very successful and, from September, they will have a post in a visionary school where engineering, design and technology matters. But, of course these subjects do not matter to the Secretary of State and have atrophied since they were excluded from the EBacc set of subjects. Consequently, training places are drying up and this excellent Goldsmiths course will be closing, with DT becoming a PGCE option.

These individuals are fine young people to be proud of, but what a time to be joining the teaching profession as the clock steadily unwinds to 1960.

The Steamroller rolls on

It's been a while since the Education Monkey last swung around these branches. This has not been for lack of interest but lack of spare time!  I have happily been very busy in the world of education and, sadly, clients come before personal indulgence.

Throughout the intervening time I have continued to be amazed at the way neo-conservative ideology continues to drive education policy and continue to fragment education provision. f course, it's not been wholly bad news; there have been some exciting and innovative developments and, were I looking for another headship right now, there are a wealth of thrilling new opportunities. Of course, the question is, whether or not the climate had been right for innovation anyway. Having spent some time in the USA recently, I am always mindful of the way the fragmentation of education in the public schools has caused the same kind of ideological rifts that it causes here. The arguments about Charter Schools stealing away public school funding finds an easy echo in the UK with The Independent recently reporting  on the reduction in available money for maintained schools because of the free-school initiative.

There was probably a stronger case in the USA for introducing an alternative to bog-standard public schools because the teacher unions had them sewn up and any kind of teacher accountability was stifled at birth. However, now they have been around for a while, it is clear that the education offered by Charter Schools is, broadly, little better than the old model, despite their high teacher accountability, and several are failing or have been closed.

There was no such justification for what has happened in the UK and I think what I find most offensive is the increasingly overt and cynical way in which ideology is pushing past reasonable practice. Under the good guys Academies were being seen as a developing solution to under-performing schools and were beginning to make a difference. Then we had a change of administration and the introduction of a lot of rushed legislation - and haste rarely makes for good law. The Academies Act was just the first step. The Men Who Saw were telling us to take care because, while our eyes were on the health service debacle, education was being privatised. and here we are, having sleep-walked into exactly that.

Which is why both the Secretary of State and his Chief Inspector hatchet man can afford to make more and more outrageous statements and accusations. The Chief Inspector is not a stupid man - and came over as a very reasonable one at the London Festival of Education. But his various offensive comments about schools and headteachers about being lazy, workshy, frightened moaners who do so with no justification seem pretty idiotic to those in the profession. But are they aimed at those in the profession or are they really for the Daily Mail reader?

The depressing thing is that, whatever is said and whatever rational, reasonable counter-arguments are generated, they have absolutely no impact whatsoever on the single-minded, some might say blinkered, plans that continue to steamroller their way across the English education system,. Not even Liz Forgan, recently departed Chief Executive of the Arts Council who spoke, in her valedictory speech of  Michael Gove as "upending the entire school curriculum in a grand plan, carefully thought out and with a clear strategic purpose. A plan to nourish young minds with a new academic rigour but which as we speak makes no effort to do the same for their artistic development."

It is not as if Forgan is without admiration for Gove, indeed she speaks of him as an exceptional figure "with the determination and brilliance to make a difference" unlike most politicians, who "on the whole are bad at culture". Forgan, was asked to resign at the end of her first term by then Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt. She was, presumably, not sufficiently towing the Party line.

In the next blog - Education Monkey looks at the changing face of teacher training

RE and Academies - the DfE replies

Well, full marks to the team at DfE for attempting to address concerns about Religious Education. Following their bland "REisastatutorysubject" mantra, Leona Smith of the Public Communications Unit has provided a much fuller response to the concerns expressed in this blog about the position of RE in Academies and the apparent lack of monitoring by Ofsted.  Her reply certainly explains the legal position clearly, although those who are expressing the concerns know perfectly well what the position is. However, it is at least reassuring to hear this re-statement of it. Here is Leona Smith's response:-

All academies have to provide RE under the terms of their funding agreement (FA) with the Secretary of State. The FA for non-faith academies states that they must arrange for RE to be taught to all pupils in accordance with the requirements for agreed syllabuses in the maintained sector. Academies are not required to follow a locally agreed syllabus, but can choose to do so. Where they choose to design their own RE syllabus they must ensure that it meets with the requirements of a locally agreed syllabus. Any academy which fails to teach RE is in breach of its FA, and where there is evidence for this; the Education Funding Agency can enforce compliance of the FA.

Ofsted does not inspect individual curriculum subjects, but is required to report on whether the curriculum offered by the school is broad and balanced and promotes the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils. If, during an inspection, inspectors see practice that does not conform to statutory requirements, they will delve more deeply and will report their findings. Where an investigation reveals that statutory requirements are not being met and this is a contributory factor in explaining why pupils are not achieving as well as they should, it will be considered for inclusion in the inspection report as a key point for improvement.

The trouble is - and remains - that, however the statutory position is re-stated, the law is breached and Osfted does not follow it up. Which is why, somewhere along the line, policy-makers need to have the courage to instruct Ofsted to ensure statutory compliance.  And, as stated previously, the revision of the National Curriculum looks very much as if Spiritual and Moral development will be sacrificed for personal, environmental and economic.

I may be wrong but, sadly, reassuring though she is, Ms Smith does not convince me. Suppose we start reporting schools where RE is not meeting statutory requirements to Ofsted or the Funding Agencyå?  Maybe what is also needed is an FoI request to academies about the state of their RE.  I've got a lot of writing to do this summer but, just maybe, I might construct such a survey. It will be reported here.

The Gibb Doctrine

Well, the DfE wrote a reply to the last blog about the perilous state of RE and, as always, it is reproduced here. What is sad is that this plays into exactly the scenario I described. Of course, the government has no intention of changing the compulsory status of RE but it's selective deafness again, isn't it? If RE was so darned safe, why is the RE community so jolly worried?  This is the bland Gibb Doctrine - a pity it continues to raise more questions than answers.

Here's the DfE response:

The Government is fully committed to maintaining the unique status in the school curriculum which RE enjoys. We agree that RE is central to the aim of the school curriculum to promote the spiritual, moral and cultural development of children and young people, to prepare them for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of later life. I can certainly assure you that we have no plans to change the subject’s compulsory status.

Okay, now convince us that RE will be reinforced in Academies as well as LA schools, that it will be monitored by Ofsted and that schools failing in their statutory duty to provide it according to their Locally Agreed Syllabus will be reprimanded. And the rest, as they say, is silence.

The National Curriculum and RE

The publication of the draft framework for the national curriculum marks yet another step in this government's determination to secularise the curriculum while pretending to protest that it isn't.

Before we even begin thinking about Religious Education let's consider the aims and purposes of the National Curriculum. As we all know, the current Ofsted framework provides for the specific inspection of SMSC - Spiritual, Moral, Social and Cultural development - however, the sharp-eyed will have spotted that, for the first time since the inception of the National Curriculum, both spiritual and moral have disappeared. Cynics might suggest that this is symptomatic of a political culture that eschews both spirituality and morality. This is, after all, the zeitgeist.

The new curriculum aims are now fivefold: economic, cultural, social, personal and environmental. So, with one clean sweep, the only parts of a school's curriculum that enable students to explore deep questions and test deeply held personal values are consigned to the scrapheap.   Justify this, as the case is made, in terms of comparability with high performing jurisdictions, and you still sweep away something that has been fundamental to British education since 1870. How does this align with injunction in the new Teachers' Standards not to undermine traditional British values?

So, what of RE? Well, those of us who have been defending the diminishing island of RE against the swelling flood of secularisation have got pretty sick of Nick Gibb's protestations that RE does not need protection because it's a statutory subject. He must know that this is utter nonsense and enough people have pointed this out to him for it to be taken seriously. Like many ministers, Gibb suffers from selective deafness. And RE seems to make ministers deaf. Why else does there have to be an all-party group of MPs, formed to promote the case for RE? And you can bet your bottom dollar that the whole of the DfE suddenly goes deaf.

If proof were needed of the increasingly perilous position of RE look no further than the draft revised framework for the National Curriculum. There you will find that RE becomes part of the basic curriculum, along with sex education and, for the time being, work-related learning.  The framework reinforces the statutory nature of RE but the detail makes clear that, while schools should implement the statutory programmes of study for the national curriculum, they are able to determine the specific nature of the basic provision for themselves. Which is why, in respect of RE, an increasing number of secondary schools and a worrying proportion of primaries simply do not deliver the expectations of their SACRE determined agreed syllabus at all.   With impunity. The RE lobby has long been pressing for Ofsted to police this statutory requirement only to be met by the bland Gibb doctrine.

Now, inject the wildcard that the non-maintained sector which, for the purposes of this discussion, includes Academies and Free Schools, will not be subject to the statutory national curriculum. So,  weak as it is in proposed legislation, the place of RE will be left unprotected in these new constituencies. It may be in their Funding Agreement, for the moment, but that is almost as laughable as the relatively recently repealed requirement for a Hansom cab to carry a bale of hay!

The proposed Framework is supposed to contribute to further debate but we all know the futility of consultation with an administration whose response is,' yes, but we're going to do it anyway'.

This is a government with a modernising agenda that is self-defeating. Real, deep societal change will not happen if we take away the very mechanisms that underpin it.

It's a strangely balanced world

 

As anyone who follows this blog will know, I could not be described as a fan of this government’s perverse education policy yet there are some exciting opportunities around that help to balance the bonkers ideas. I’ve just found myself nodding at Gove’s rejection of his backbenchers’ calls for a return to Grammar schools, saying they were not the ‘magic bullet’ many supposed them.  This seems a little different from the neo-conservative reactionism we have come to expect from the Secretary of State who many, including this writer, have often accused as having a desire to re-create the education system of his childhood. It might have something to do with the drubbing the Tories received in the local elections, but far be it from me to suggest that.

The Vice Chancellor of the University of Reading, David Bell is better remembered as that long-serving Permanent Secretary at the DfE who was once New Labour’s HMCI and who served in Whitehall under four Secretaries of State. Bell commented on the ease with which the Gove steamroller has bowled on without much serious opposition, citing two reasons for this lack of resistance. First, Gove spent a lot of time in opposition “rolling the pitch: in other words, preparing the ground for what he wanted to do.” Secondly, he claimed, the DfE’s policies are “genuinely driven by local demand…The vast majority of teachers in those schools are seeing the benefits of their school having more control over what it does. There’s a sense in which this is just going with the grain.”[1]

There are many who would disagree with this ‘local demand’ – converting to Academy status is frequently the result of fear of trying to operate as an LA school while the LA is struggling to keep going or of DfE bullying and coercion.  I am Chair of Governors of a large Junior School and we have twice had the Academy discussion but, somehow, it’s just not that alluring and there doesn’t seem to be the will to take the risk. And it is a risk – the financials do not stack up quite as favourably as they do for us in an LA context and there is a lot more isolation for the headteacher; the buck comes to an even more sudden stop when there is not a LA officer to criticise!

It is a pity that our LA is picking its way round the ruins of its own collapsed empire. It seems to have rather more schools than it can properly service with the rump of its resources. But somehow, it is a comforting billet…for the moment.  I was once told by a Man from the Ministry, ‘Oh, you’ll become an Academy…. one way or another’.  Was that a threat? Surely not!

Nevertheless, the changed landscape of the strange admixture of schools that now characterise UK education, is throwing up some extraordinary opportunities for those prepared to take the risk. Each week I look at the TES and see posts that I would have killed for: strange and exciting opportunities to forge a unique future and shape education, a real chance to make a difference.  But there, I have always liked the element of risk and thrived on instability. There are plenty of my colleagues, good headteachers whom I respect, who are not risk takers and who run highly successful schools. In this Brave New World of opportunity, is there still a place for them? The trouble with risk taking is that it is quite as easy to get it wrong as it is to get it right and, even at this stage in Govian education, the machine is driving over the corpses of the risk takers for whom it all went horribly wrong.

But, were I looking for a headship right now, in the current fairground of education there are many really thrilling rides and I look at some of these roller-coasters in envy. From time to time I consider going back into headship but then I think I am probably better to use my experience and expertise in working alongside my colleagues - the risk takers and the safe-players.

It’s a funny old world. Let’s hope, like the GM Schools debacle, we can look back one day and laugh. Hmm.

---

[1] Civil Service World -  Interview with David Bell 13th October 2011

The DfE and Sir Michael's Cocoa

As ever, when I get a reply from the DfE, it gets posted here in the interests of balance. Followers of this blog may now recognised what looks a bit like a standard reply. Draw your own conclusions about that. However, here goes:

Sir Michael Wilshaw was appointed to the position of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector as a result of his track record as an outstanding head teacher who has demonstrated that he can achieve excellent outcomes for pupils in deprived areas.
Successive Chief Inspectors have spoken without fear or favour about aspects of education and schools and it would be inappropriate for Ministers to appear to censure the Chief Inspector for doing so.

The Chief Inspector is accountable to Parliament, through the Education Select Committee, for his actions and for the performance of Ofsted.

The press and media can be selective in what they use from interviews and in the way that they present things.  What is important in considering Sir Michael’s comments is the underlying message he was making, which was that strong school leaders do not shy away from the difficult decisions that need to be made to bring about improvement in poor performing schools.

Well, that may all be true, but it doesn't solve the question of the untended geraniums!