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.

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.

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.

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 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!

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.