Read all about it – Gove makes a sensible decision!

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

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

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

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

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

The great Teacher Training Cock up

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Steamroller rolls on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RE and Academies - the DfE replies

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

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

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

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

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

The Gibb Doctrine

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

Here's the DfE response:

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

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

The National Curriculum and RE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's a strangely balanced world

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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