It's been a while since Education Monkey put down his banana to pick up a pen and a lot has happened. I keep threatening to get back to regular blogging but life just seems to take over.
I often comment on the national picture - heaven knows, there's enough to comment on! But this time I want to reflect on some local issues. Firstly, let me talk about my friend Nigel. One of the most inspirational headteacher colleagues that I have been privileged to work with, Nigel took over a tough Thanet school at a crucial time in its history and, because he is a clear thinker with high expectations and high ideals, his school rapidly became one of the most improved schools in Kent. Of course, at the mention of Kent, the discerning may already sense alarm bells.
In my view, Nigel's school was dealt a pretty rough hand by Ofsted because, rather than the 'good' that it surely was, it was judged to 'require improvement'. There were probably several reasons for that and, as a some-time player for the Dark Side, I know how marginal these calls are. It could probably have gone either way but this was a harsh shout. When the inspection team leave a school it leaves behind a mixture of feelings, usually depending on the judgement. I have known RI schools to be appreciative of the breathing space they have been given and often the new clarity they have about priorities. But, when the judgement is iffy, it leaves people feeling a sense of grief, almost like a bereavement. And this was how I though Nigel reacted; he knew he was doing a good job; ask any pupil at his school and they will tell you just how much their lives have been enriched by the experience. Yet here was Ofsted, telling him that it was all illusory.
It does not help that, in Kent, the LA make little distinction between schools that are in a category and those that simply require improvement. They don't seem to have read that line that says 'a school that requires improvement is not a school causing concern'. So, with all the pressure that this generates, Nigel decided that he would throw in the towel. Outside school he is nationally respected for his work around inclusion and there were people happy to offer him work to benefit from his considerable expertise. But the pupils, staff and community of his school are the big losers. He and I chatted over tea about making the break from headship to consultancy and it was great to see how positively Nigel embraced the new possibilities. And that's right - if you cut it in consultancy, you move onto a wider stage and can have a wider influence.
But, of course, Kent will always have the final kick in the teeth. Just before half-term I happened to be at Nigel's school leading a Flight workshop with his and another school. I chanced to say to a colleague, 'so, when does Nigel leave?' expecting a July date rather than 'tomorrow'. Tomorrow??
It seems that Nigel, being well-respected and well-connected, was invited to take part in an education programme on Radio 5 Live. He didn't talk about his school, nor Kent - just headship. After the event one of his governors, perhaps with an over-inflated sense of position, rang the Chair and ranted, 'how dare Nigel do this without consulting us?' The Chair could have dismissed it, she could have dropped in to talk it through with Nigel, but instead she stupidly decided to ring the LA. To those who know this authority, it will come as no surprise that the LA response was 'sack him!'. It appeared governors were given three choices: sack Nigel, refuse to do so and be replaced by an IEB who would do so, or negotiate a compromise agreement with immediate resignation.
This beggars belief, doesn't it? It can't be legal. But here is a man who has always spoken his mind and now the LA has an opportunity to kick him when he's down. Nigel was just not in the right place to fight and so, with a compromise agreement, he left his grieving school at half-term. And I know that already, relieved of the burden of leading a Kent school, he feels lighter and is looking forward to the next stage in his career. I wish him every success. He leaves behind a legacy of decency, a spirit of aspiration and a sense of pride in achievement. Headteachers like Nigel are the kinds of people who Kent needs but knows not how to value. A shame on you.
Sunday, 22 June 2014
Wednesday, 19 March 2014
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
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
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.
Monday, 11 March 2013
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?
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?
Monday, 4 March 2013
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)