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.

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

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.

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 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!

Academy Ally - a game with no winners

There is, it seems, a cynical and Machiavellian game being played by the Department for Education. Its rules are secret and deniable but what is going on is far too organised to be mere serendipity. The game might be called Academy Ally.

As Smarden Primary School - a tiny Kent village school - celebrated becoming the 1000th converter academy, many were struck by the thought that, trumpet the success as loudly as you might, a thousand is a small proportion of the nation's schools. And we all know that this flagship, adorned with the bunting of freedom and flying the colours of independence, needs to gather a much bigger flotilla if it is to fulfil the dreams of its admiral.

And this is where the game comes in. It looks like this;  the DfE looks at the figures of those schools in challenging areas and leans very heavily on their local authority. The local authority, bowing to the pressure and threat to its independence, appears mob-handed on the school's doorstep, carries out a review and places the school in whatever is its equivalent to special measures, but with much shorter deadlines. Special Measures on steroids. It also breathes very heavily down the neck of the headteachers, with varying degrees of threat. This is not a nice place to be.  Enter the white knight - a minor DfE minion, a political spokesman, a passing peer - who then says, 'don't let the local authority bully you, break free of their pressure and become an academy.' 

This is exactly what happened at Smarden. Kent is an authority which, on the one hand is committed to supporting schools so they don't become academies but is using the other to beat up those schools who are struggling with meeting progress and attainment standards. Some officers have adopted a particularly bully-boy, intimidating approach. However, Smarden won a highly publicised visit from Lord Jonathan Hill, a junior education minister who promised heads that schools can stop officials 'breathing down their necks' by becoming academies.  And, from the bottom of an LA officer's boot, that suddenly looks very attractive.

It's not just Kent. My colleagues and I are working with schools in several authorities where the game is being played. There are a lot of scared heads out there and a lot of schools are feeling the pinch. They point the LA to satisfactory Ofsted reports, often reporting good leadership, to be told that 'the Secretary of State doesn't care about Ofsted reports!'

So, not by will but by fear, schools will slowly be added to the thousand to enjoy the new freedoms promised them. Does that freedom include not meeting floor targets, even in the most challenging areas? What do you think?