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
Showing posts with label Gove. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gove. Show all posts
Wednesday, 19 March 2014
Monday, 30 December 2013
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.
(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.
Monday, 9 September 2013
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:-
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.
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:-
- Facts prevent understanding
- Teacher-led instruction is passive
- The 21st century fundamentally changes everything
- You can always just look it up
- We should teach transferable skills
- Projects and activities are the best way to learn
- Teaching knowledge is indoctrination
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.
Thursday, 14 March 2013
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.
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.
Thursday, 21 February 2013
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.
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.
Thursday, 14 February 2013
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.
Saturday, 19 January 2013
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
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
Monday, 4 June 2012
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.
Saturday, 12 May 2012
Time for your cocoa, Sir Michael
What does
Sir Michael Wilshaw think he's doing? At a time when his political boss is
making slightly conciliatory noises and is apparently rowing back on no-notice
inspection, this foolish old man is whipping up yet more vitriol against the
teaching profession.
The
trouble is that, rather than tending geraniums on his allotment, Michael Wilshaw has been diverted from a
well-earned retirement to become head of Ofsted, a position that requires both
professional integrity and great emotional intelligence, neither of which he
would seem to have in great measure. To alienate the profession he claims to
espouse is a blunder of considerable magnitude. But not necessarily if you are
an elderly old boy locked in your own little world.
As we
become elderly, three things tend to happen: our world view narrows somewhat
around our own perspective, we get more irascible and willing to say things
that previously we would keep private, and we tend to relate things more and
more to ourselves. The Chief Inspector's performance to date suggests an early
onset of just these things. When he was first in post, Michael Wilshaw spoke
glowingly about the 'hero head' as if this was the pinnacle of leadership. Why
did he take this view? Because he was a hero head, riding out of the sun to
rescue a failing school. There is no denying that he did a magnificent job as
head of Mossbourne and is rightly regarded as its saviour. However, being a
hero head is not the only way; there have been equally highly regarded and
successful heads whose management style has been collective and collegiate.
I
remember an elderly aunt saying to me, 'you can get away with saying a lot more
when you're ninety than when you're forty' and Wilshaw seems to have discovered
the veracity of this quite early. Why else would he tell an assembly of
headteachers that teachers don't know what stress is? The profession is already
sick and tired of the way this man rubbishes it but he doesn't seem to learn.
Instead, characteristic of his way of thinking, he turned the topic to himself,
saying that stress was what his father felt, searching for a job and what he felt, as a new headteacher in a time
of industrial action.
What arrogance! Of course the unemployed are stressed, we
all recognise it. Of course Wilshaw would have felt the stress of headship at
that time, as were so many of his colleagues. The stress of the job is relative
to the times. But to criticise headteachers for complaining while being well
paid is disingenuous in the extreme. Teachers are feeling stressed, headteachers are worried about the way their profession is being judged by
Ofsted. It is a characteristic of modern society that there are so many
stressors, for the unemployed, of course, but for the employed too. People want
to know they are doing a good job - few
teachers are the work-shy slackers Wilshaw would portray them.
Teaching is not the only job where there are high stress
levels but, as Mary Bousted of ATL has pointed out, the HSE reports that it is
the occupation with the third highest amount of work-related stress. The Chief
Inspector is perfectly aware of this but perhaps chooses to be selectively deaf
to it because he knows that his policies are a contributory factor. Somehow it
all seems to fit in with the intractability of age and self-obsession.
What shall we do about the problem called Sir Michael?
Well, it might be time to move his chair into the sun, give him his cocoa and
let him have an early night. The geraniums might need attention in the morning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)