A new study has suggested that the numbers of school leavers from the working class who go on to university is not growing at anywhere near the rate that the numbers from middle classes is. Just hold the thought that people have been paid to come up with this stuff.
I have a basic understanding of society and would suggest that working class families generally have less income than middle class families. The cost of university is rising and from September 2012 many universities will charge students £9000 per year for the privilege of having a place at their establishment, with no guarantee that that young person will secure a better job than his mates who didn't bother with university. The average 3 year course with fees, living expenses and anything else once can think of will amount to a spend (or should I say "borrow") of around £40-50,000, unless the student becomes a hermit outside of lecture and seminar time, living off the land. Even if they did that, they'd still be around £30,000 in debt by the end.
If I were a young person from a working class family I think I'd pass up the opportunity, don't you. In fact I'm middle class (in theory) and I wouldn't encourage anyone to go to university who isn't going to do a worthwhile degree, and by that I mean, avoid subjects that may well be interesting, but ultimately have little use. For some reason anthropology springs to mind, which is probably unfair on anthropologists around the world, but I may have been checking out the wrong press, but I haven't noticed too many vacancies for an anthropologist in the well paid job section.
There's also the issue of what you think you might get in your degree. If it's lower than a 2:1 I wouldn't bother. Graduates are ten-a-penny in the job world; you are better off getting some experience in work, and if you're lucky, getting paid whilst doing it.
This will have a knock-on effect to the likes of teaching and nursing, professions that require a degree or equivalent. The greed of the universities has made these, not that well paid jobs, even less desirable as you could end up paying off your university debts throughout your thirty plus year career. Unless a rich relative dies of course - morbid, but true I'm afraid.
It's the sort of article and study that I usually ignore, but this one just made me angry as those who've compiled this statement of the obvious have probably been paid a lot of money to do so - more than a teacher or a nurse at any rate.
Teaching's Pod: thoughts on education from an educator
Wednesday 29 February 2012
Governors Beware
Sir Michael Wilshaw, Chief Inspector of Schools, has set his sights on governors of schools now. In a sense I welcome this, in that governors should be held to account for weak governing bodies who allow poor leadership to continue without challenge. Governors after all are the only people who can "sack" a headteacher.
The trouble is that governors are unpaid - Wilshaw's solution is to pay them. With what? At the expense of teaching staff? Budgets are dwindling Sir Michael - where's the money going to come from?
The job of school governor is an important one, of course, but due to its voluntary nature, not one many want to get their hands dirty performing. Some governors are only there to make themselves look better within the community, say before running for Mayor, council, parliament etc. Now I know that this sounds fairly cynical on my part, but it is true I'm afraid.
Many governors are parents of children who have done well at the school, perhaps dare I say, despite the school and will have a rose tinted view of the school and its leadership. You won't get many parents of kids in the bottom sets volunteering to sit on the governing body, which is partly why their kids are in the bottom sets - little interest in education in many cases.
Will Wilshaw's plan ever see the light of day?
In my view the answer's "No", for these reasons:
Nice try Michael, but once again your judgement is clouded by your buttocks.
The trouble is that governors are unpaid - Wilshaw's solution is to pay them. With what? At the expense of teaching staff? Budgets are dwindling Sir Michael - where's the money going to come from?
The job of school governor is an important one, of course, but due to its voluntary nature, not one many want to get their hands dirty performing. Some governors are only there to make themselves look better within the community, say before running for Mayor, council, parliament etc. Now I know that this sounds fairly cynical on my part, but it is true I'm afraid.
Many governors are parents of children who have done well at the school, perhaps dare I say, despite the school and will have a rose tinted view of the school and its leadership. You won't get many parents of kids in the bottom sets volunteering to sit on the governing body, which is partly why their kids are in the bottom sets - little interest in education in many cases.
Will Wilshaw's plan ever see the light of day?
In my view the answer's "No", for these reasons:
- There won't be enough money to do it - each school requires around 5 governors, if not more. It depends on the size of the school.
- If governors become a target of Ofsted, no-one will want to do it as they can live without the grief.
Nice try Michael, but once again your judgement is clouded by your buttocks.
Saturday 25 February 2012
Changes In Examinations
Michael Gove is leaving no stone unturned as he attempts to take Britain's education system back 50 years. I hear nasty rumours of a return of coursework to mathematics, which really will be a backwards step in my view. Maths coursework was the closest a maths teacher ever got to dentistry, and despite it giving the lower ability a chance to get a higher grade because they weren't great at exams, the ressurrection of maths coursework will do no-one any favours other than the students who essentially copy their work.
Those who would like to see coursework return will say that it will be controlled assessment, meaning that students won't be allowed to take their work away and will have a set amount of time to complete the task. What they don't tell you is that the students spend hours trying to remember what their teacher has told them to write and the topic of the controlled assessment is no surprise at all as it is known well in advance by both teacher and students. With the pressure to get results with all students (even those who don't deserve them) the temptation to dictate the answer to a class must be great.
The marking and "moderation" of coursework is a time consuming waste of time compared to what the teacher could be doing with the time in the form of planning and preparation. It takes hours and is essentially a case of trying to justify the highest grade possible, even though most bits of coursework are total rubbish due to the lack of any relevance to anyone's potential work-life.
Anyway, enough of coursework - hopefully Gove will be caught in an uncompromising position, doing something he shouldn't before he gets too far with his changes. The problem is that the guy seems so devoid of any concept of reality that he won't realise that he should resign. He currently doesn't realise that he's loathed by everyone in education, so I don't hold out much hope.
There are whisperings of four subjects being made tougher: English Literature, Maths, History and Geography. This seems reasonable as long as the fact that the exams are getting trickier and so therefore the percentage of passes will go down is taken into account when teachers are being thrashed by senior management in August/September following the publication of results and league tables.
I can foresee what is likely to happen though, as this sort of policy/idea comes around everyfew years: the exam gets tougher for a year or two until the opposition party claim that the worse marks show a drop in standards due to government policy, and exams get easier to show that standards have, in fact, risen. In the meantime, teachers will get it in the neck.
What really winds me up is that 99% of government education policy is geared towards one of these things:
Those who would like to see coursework return will say that it will be controlled assessment, meaning that students won't be allowed to take their work away and will have a set amount of time to complete the task. What they don't tell you is that the students spend hours trying to remember what their teacher has told them to write and the topic of the controlled assessment is no surprise at all as it is known well in advance by both teacher and students. With the pressure to get results with all students (even those who don't deserve them) the temptation to dictate the answer to a class must be great.
The marking and "moderation" of coursework is a time consuming waste of time compared to what the teacher could be doing with the time in the form of planning and preparation. It takes hours and is essentially a case of trying to justify the highest grade possible, even though most bits of coursework are total rubbish due to the lack of any relevance to anyone's potential work-life.
Anyway, enough of coursework - hopefully Gove will be caught in an uncompromising position, doing something he shouldn't before he gets too far with his changes. The problem is that the guy seems so devoid of any concept of reality that he won't realise that he should resign. He currently doesn't realise that he's loathed by everyone in education, so I don't hold out much hope.
There are whisperings of four subjects being made tougher: English Literature, Maths, History and Geography. This seems reasonable as long as the fact that the exams are getting trickier and so therefore the percentage of passes will go down is taken into account when teachers are being thrashed by senior management in August/September following the publication of results and league tables.
I can foresee what is likely to happen though, as this sort of policy/idea comes around everyfew years: the exam gets tougher for a year or two until the opposition party claim that the worse marks show a drop in standards due to government policy, and exams get easier to show that standards have, in fact, risen. In the meantime, teachers will get it in the neck.
What really winds me up is that 99% of government education policy is geared towards one of these things:
- Winning your vote.
- Making their political opponents look silly.
- Trying to move up the political food chain.
Wednesday 22 February 2012
Hitler, Stalin, The Secretary of State for Education?
I was on a popular social networking site recently where someone was commenting that the teaching fraternity shouldn't waste too much energy trying to get rid of Michael Gove as he's actually better than a previous one, namely Ed Balls. And this got me thinking.
I've been teaching for over ten years now and in my experience we haven't had a decent or supportive Secretary of State for Education in my entire career. There have been numerous changes in the curriculum, which costs money and energy in stress/replanning and this ultimately helps no-one: teachers or children. We have had numerous new (and again expensive) initiatives, none of which have lasted very long.
In my time as a teacher I have never felt appreciated or valued by either politicians or the public in general - small violins please. The public's attitude has a lot to do with the politicians and their press releases. The job of Secretary of State for Education is fairly small fry in the grand scheme of politics and the job is seen as a stepping stone to greater things meaning that those in the educational seat are looking to make an impact and move on up the ladder.
So lets look at the candidates from the last 15 years:
David Blunkett - lasted about 4 years and was generally disliked by teachers but I can't remember him doing anything too drastic, but maybe that's because I was wet behind the ears and too busy panicking about the next day's lessons. According to the internet he took on the unions and increased the number of teachers by tens of thousands. He spent a lot more on education than anyone else had done before, so job's a good'un it appears. The worse thing during his time was that Chris Woodhead was the Chief Inspector of Schools.
Estelle Morris - a former teacher if I'm not much mistaken and therefore had the potential to show a bit of empathy and understanding. She was hounded out about 18 months later by the press. Did essentially nothing in her time.
Charles Clarke - a funny looking individual at the best of times, who actually visited a school I was teaching in, but was introduced only to top set kids and the head (I was hidden away in the dark recesses of the building). He lasted a couple of years before moving on to better things. Most of his policies were university based.
Ruth Kelly - a non- descript type who only lasted 18 months or so. Made schools stay open longer and have to provide child care. She did reject the scrapping of the A Level for a four-tier diploma, which was probably a good thing.
Allan Johnson - lasted about a year before moving up the food chain. Actually tried (unsuccessfully) to get teachers a better deal on pay and said that children shouldn't use the excuse of separated parents to blame their bad behaviour on.
Ed Balls - an odious character who is hell-bent on becoming prime minister, no matter who he tramples on. Look out for him changing his rosette depending upon election forecasts. He lasted about 3 years. He did get rid of SATs, so he's not all bad, just mostly.
Michael Gove - I must stop before I vomit. Oh, ok, he's just trying to annoy the teaching profession intensely with every breath.
What most of these people have in common is that they have no experience of schools other than they had once attended one. When looking at them, most are using the job as a way to get noticed.
The other common denominator is that none of them has ever asked a practising teacher what they think - former headteachers are not worth asking, I hasten to add. When are politicians going to swallow their pride and actually admit that they could do with advice? I disagree that Michael Gove is better than the previous incumbents of the job, but he's not much worse than any of the others.
I've been teaching for over ten years now and in my experience we haven't had a decent or supportive Secretary of State for Education in my entire career. There have been numerous changes in the curriculum, which costs money and energy in stress/replanning and this ultimately helps no-one: teachers or children. We have had numerous new (and again expensive) initiatives, none of which have lasted very long.
In my time as a teacher I have never felt appreciated or valued by either politicians or the public in general - small violins please. The public's attitude has a lot to do with the politicians and their press releases. The job of Secretary of State for Education is fairly small fry in the grand scheme of politics and the job is seen as a stepping stone to greater things meaning that those in the educational seat are looking to make an impact and move on up the ladder.
So lets look at the candidates from the last 15 years:
David Blunkett - lasted about 4 years and was generally disliked by teachers but I can't remember him doing anything too drastic, but maybe that's because I was wet behind the ears and too busy panicking about the next day's lessons. According to the internet he took on the unions and increased the number of teachers by tens of thousands. He spent a lot more on education than anyone else had done before, so job's a good'un it appears. The worse thing during his time was that Chris Woodhead was the Chief Inspector of Schools.
Estelle Morris - a former teacher if I'm not much mistaken and therefore had the potential to show a bit of empathy and understanding. She was hounded out about 18 months later by the press. Did essentially nothing in her time.
Charles Clarke - a funny looking individual at the best of times, who actually visited a school I was teaching in, but was introduced only to top set kids and the head (I was hidden away in the dark recesses of the building). He lasted a couple of years before moving on to better things. Most of his policies were university based.
Ruth Kelly - a non- descript type who only lasted 18 months or so. Made schools stay open longer and have to provide child care. She did reject the scrapping of the A Level for a four-tier diploma, which was probably a good thing.
Allan Johnson - lasted about a year before moving up the food chain. Actually tried (unsuccessfully) to get teachers a better deal on pay and said that children shouldn't use the excuse of separated parents to blame their bad behaviour on.
Ed Balls - an odious character who is hell-bent on becoming prime minister, no matter who he tramples on. Look out for him changing his rosette depending upon election forecasts. He lasted about 3 years. He did get rid of SATs, so he's not all bad, just mostly.
Michael Gove - I must stop before I vomit. Oh, ok, he's just trying to annoy the teaching profession intensely with every breath.
What most of these people have in common is that they have no experience of schools other than they had once attended one. When looking at them, most are using the job as a way to get noticed.
The other common denominator is that none of them has ever asked a practising teacher what they think - former headteachers are not worth asking, I hasten to add. When are politicians going to swallow their pride and actually admit that they could do with advice? I disagree that Michael Gove is better than the previous incumbents of the job, but he's not much worse than any of the others.
Thursday 16 February 2012
Cardinal Sin
I'm not sure that I can sleep tonight - I actually went into school today. It's the holidays and we only get 13 weeks per year. Ok, so 13 weeks per year is great, don't get me wrong, but I am genuinely disappointed in myself for going in.
Why?
I think it's important to keep home/holidays totally free from work. During term I arrive at work at about 7.45am and leave at about 5pm. Put your small violins away because it's not sympathy I want, but I feel that I work hard enough for the money I'm paid, and a work/life balance is important. As a result I don't like to bring work home, I want to spend time with my family like most others would want to. The trouble was that I had a test to mark and other stuff to do, so I spent around 2-3 hours in school today. Fortunately my wife and child are away at the moment so it was only me I was putting out, but that's not the point.
The work/life balance was something that unions, government and anyone else that doesn't really matter were going on about relentlessly not so long ago. That's all changed with the arrival of a new government and a new Chief Inspector of Schools. Teachers should be grateful to have a job apparently (Michael Gove did actually say that), and the pressure to produce data that shows how wonderful you are as a classroom practitioner has increased hugely.
Is this a healthy situation? The answer is a resounding "No". All that will happen is that schools will be full of teachers who are too tired to do a proper job, a job they could do if they were not so tired. Term time pressure is huge, with the marking of books (I'll get onto that in a bit) and planning so-called "outstanding" lessons - "outstanding" in whose eyes? By the end of a half term the staff room is exceptionally quiet, either with a lack of numbers (staff planning in their classroom) or due to exhaustion of those in there at the time.
Marking books is a total waste of a lot of a teacher's time other than to show the students that you do actually look at what they are doing in class. We are supposed to write formative comments for every student, comments that inform them of what they need to do to move to the next level. This is fine, but very few students actually bother to read the comments written by their teacher, instead wanting to know what level/grade they are currently at. It is a similar thing to a teacher and their lesson observation feedback. Observations were supposed to help teachers improve their practice but due to the increasing influence and power of Ofsted, all a teacher's worried about is their grade. This is not healthy!
I thought that once I'd become a little more experienced I could live without taking books or planning at home. The opposite seems to be the case, as I now go in when I don't have to be there far more than I use to. I can't believe that I'm the only one either - no wonder that teachers' morale is at an all time low. Not that that bothers Sir Michael Wilshaw, Chief Inspector of Schools or Head of Ofsted in layman's terms, as he regards this as a sign that he is doing something right.
It depends what his objectives are (I presume it's written on the board, I'm too tired to see), if they are to force loads of teachers to leave the profession through various means, he's spot on and I offer him my congratulations.
Otherwise, he's an arse.
Why?
I think it's important to keep home/holidays totally free from work. During term I arrive at work at about 7.45am and leave at about 5pm. Put your small violins away because it's not sympathy I want, but I feel that I work hard enough for the money I'm paid, and a work/life balance is important. As a result I don't like to bring work home, I want to spend time with my family like most others would want to. The trouble was that I had a test to mark and other stuff to do, so I spent around 2-3 hours in school today. Fortunately my wife and child are away at the moment so it was only me I was putting out, but that's not the point.
The work/life balance was something that unions, government and anyone else that doesn't really matter were going on about relentlessly not so long ago. That's all changed with the arrival of a new government and a new Chief Inspector of Schools. Teachers should be grateful to have a job apparently (Michael Gove did actually say that), and the pressure to produce data that shows how wonderful you are as a classroom practitioner has increased hugely.
Is this a healthy situation? The answer is a resounding "No". All that will happen is that schools will be full of teachers who are too tired to do a proper job, a job they could do if they were not so tired. Term time pressure is huge, with the marking of books (I'll get onto that in a bit) and planning so-called "outstanding" lessons - "outstanding" in whose eyes? By the end of a half term the staff room is exceptionally quiet, either with a lack of numbers (staff planning in their classroom) or due to exhaustion of those in there at the time.
Marking books is a total waste of a lot of a teacher's time other than to show the students that you do actually look at what they are doing in class. We are supposed to write formative comments for every student, comments that inform them of what they need to do to move to the next level. This is fine, but very few students actually bother to read the comments written by their teacher, instead wanting to know what level/grade they are currently at. It is a similar thing to a teacher and their lesson observation feedback. Observations were supposed to help teachers improve their practice but due to the increasing influence and power of Ofsted, all a teacher's worried about is their grade. This is not healthy!
I thought that once I'd become a little more experienced I could live without taking books or planning at home. The opposite seems to be the case, as I now go in when I don't have to be there far more than I use to. I can't believe that I'm the only one either - no wonder that teachers' morale is at an all time low. Not that that bothers Sir Michael Wilshaw, Chief Inspector of Schools or Head of Ofsted in layman's terms, as he regards this as a sign that he is doing something right.
It depends what his objectives are (I presume it's written on the board, I'm too tired to see), if they are to force loads of teachers to leave the profession through various means, he's spot on and I offer him my congratulations.
Otherwise, he's an arse.
Wednesday 15 February 2012
Is Ofsted Capable Of Doing Its Job?
Ofsted was designed to offer an objective view of the performance and provision that a school provides, free of politics and just going on the evidence acquired by the inspectors. But is the inspectorate still capable of doing this?
All those in and around education realise that Ofsted is necessary to stop schools and teachers being allowed to drift along without fear of reproach. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that schools and their staff would drift into laziness if Ofsted were disbanded, as you will rarely find a teacher who isn't prepared to improve their practise when the need arises, but there will always be a few who take full advantage. Ofsted in itself was originally set up as a positive thing, there to offer support to teachers and make constructive suggestions to improve performance.
The problem is that Ofsted's remit has changed considerably over its 20 year life. Ofsted now wields far more power than it originally was afforded and essentially has the power to make or break a school, teacher or even Secretary of State for Education. As a result the chief inspector is now appointed by the Secretary of State and therefore will almost certainly be sympathic to government policy. Ofsted has therefore become a political machine, in existence to ensure that that national education policy is imposed and government targets achieved, whether they are good for education or not.
As a result of the increased power attributed to Ofsted their judgements are keenly felt by individual schools and teachers. When inspections first occured they lasted for around a week so that the inspectors could get a proper feel for the school; whole lessons would be observed and various meetings set up with different members of staff as they gathered evidence for their judgement. They now last a couple of days and rely heavily upon comparisons to similar schools using data, the school's own self-evaluaton and something called the Fisher Family Trust. Lesson observations no longer last a whole lesson as the norm, although occasionally do, but an inspector will be in a classroom for 20 minutes or so in which time the teacher has to attempt to tick as many boxes as possible.
Ofsted has always worked on a four point scale of "Outstanding", "Good", "Satisfactory" and "Inadequate", or words to that effect. A school's overall judgement is heavily publicised and can have a effect on applications and enrolments of staff and students respectively. Since 2009 Ofsted shouldn't have been allowed by law to use this scale due to something called the Hampton Review, but they still continue to use it, backed by the government who know full well that the quango aren't supposed to use it but choose to ignore the fact, mainly because the gradings are used to show how well a particular policy has worked in an election manifesto.
Also as a result of the increased power of Ofsted, lesson observations whether conducted internally or by the inspectorate are no longer about support and aiding a teacher to improve their teaching but all about what grade has been achieved, which is anything but an exact science. Observers often have a pre-conceived idea of what they want to see, and unless they see those things will mark a teacher down. There is no concrete descrpition of what gives lessons certain grades, teachers and senior staff are left with little idea of how to improve. The new wording for an "outstanding" lesson contains the phrase "rapid and sustained progress of all pupils", but no-one, even Ofsted, can explain what "rapid and sustained progress" actually is or looks like. Judgements are therefore based upon the whim of the observer. It leaves teachers and sometimes schools with the feeling that they can't really win whatever they do and the judgement was made before the lesson/inspection actually begun.
The really worrying thing though is that the new Chief Inspector of Schools, Sir Michael Wilshaw and his boss, Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove seem intent on demoralising the profession with their new policies. Wilshaw has been quoted as saying "They tell me that moral in the profession is at an all time low, which must mean that we are doing something right". They say that they want to improve education in the UK but a demoralised workforce is incapable of doing this, whereas a supported, positive and motivated workforce would be.
They don't help themselves with comments like "all schools need to be above average" - not only is this a mathematical impossibility but also as schools improve, the average will rise, meaning that the bottom 50% will still be the bottom 50%, no matter what results they get. Unless all students in every school get A* grades in every subject they take, there will always be a percentage of schools in special measures, and that can't be right can it? Is that really what Ofsted was sey up to do?
The answer is clearly "No", which brings me back to my original question of "Is Ofsted capable of doing its job?"
The answer is "No".
All those in and around education realise that Ofsted is necessary to stop schools and teachers being allowed to drift along without fear of reproach. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that schools and their staff would drift into laziness if Ofsted were disbanded, as you will rarely find a teacher who isn't prepared to improve their practise when the need arises, but there will always be a few who take full advantage. Ofsted in itself was originally set up as a positive thing, there to offer support to teachers and make constructive suggestions to improve performance.
The problem is that Ofsted's remit has changed considerably over its 20 year life. Ofsted now wields far more power than it originally was afforded and essentially has the power to make or break a school, teacher or even Secretary of State for Education. As a result the chief inspector is now appointed by the Secretary of State and therefore will almost certainly be sympathic to government policy. Ofsted has therefore become a political machine, in existence to ensure that that national education policy is imposed and government targets achieved, whether they are good for education or not.
As a result of the increased power attributed to Ofsted their judgements are keenly felt by individual schools and teachers. When inspections first occured they lasted for around a week so that the inspectors could get a proper feel for the school; whole lessons would be observed and various meetings set up with different members of staff as they gathered evidence for their judgement. They now last a couple of days and rely heavily upon comparisons to similar schools using data, the school's own self-evaluaton and something called the Fisher Family Trust. Lesson observations no longer last a whole lesson as the norm, although occasionally do, but an inspector will be in a classroom for 20 minutes or so in which time the teacher has to attempt to tick as many boxes as possible.
Ofsted has always worked on a four point scale of "Outstanding", "Good", "Satisfactory" and "Inadequate", or words to that effect. A school's overall judgement is heavily publicised and can have a effect on applications and enrolments of staff and students respectively. Since 2009 Ofsted shouldn't have been allowed by law to use this scale due to something called the Hampton Review, but they still continue to use it, backed by the government who know full well that the quango aren't supposed to use it but choose to ignore the fact, mainly because the gradings are used to show how well a particular policy has worked in an election manifesto.
Also as a result of the increased power of Ofsted, lesson observations whether conducted internally or by the inspectorate are no longer about support and aiding a teacher to improve their teaching but all about what grade has been achieved, which is anything but an exact science. Observers often have a pre-conceived idea of what they want to see, and unless they see those things will mark a teacher down. There is no concrete descrpition of what gives lessons certain grades, teachers and senior staff are left with little idea of how to improve. The new wording for an "outstanding" lesson contains the phrase "rapid and sustained progress of all pupils", but no-one, even Ofsted, can explain what "rapid and sustained progress" actually is or looks like. Judgements are therefore based upon the whim of the observer. It leaves teachers and sometimes schools with the feeling that they can't really win whatever they do and the judgement was made before the lesson/inspection actually begun.
The really worrying thing though is that the new Chief Inspector of Schools, Sir Michael Wilshaw and his boss, Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove seem intent on demoralising the profession with their new policies. Wilshaw has been quoted as saying "They tell me that moral in the profession is at an all time low, which must mean that we are doing something right". They say that they want to improve education in the UK but a demoralised workforce is incapable of doing this, whereas a supported, positive and motivated workforce would be.
They don't help themselves with comments like "all schools need to be above average" - not only is this a mathematical impossibility but also as schools improve, the average will rise, meaning that the bottom 50% will still be the bottom 50%, no matter what results they get. Unless all students in every school get A* grades in every subject they take, there will always be a percentage of schools in special measures, and that can't be right can it? Is that really what Ofsted was sey up to do?
The answer is clearly "No", which brings me back to my original question of "Is Ofsted capable of doing its job?"
The answer is "No".
Saturday 11 February 2012
The Vorderman Report
Yes, you read that correctly, Carol Vorderman has penned a report for the government about the standard of mathematics teaching in England. The former Countdown co-presenter and owner of a 3rd class mathematics degree (a great CV to comment on teaching) describes the maths curriculum as "not fit for purpose".
Actually, it's not as bad as it sounds, my main issue is that a Z list celebrity has been recruited by those in charge to comment upon something they know precious little about. Her main finding are that England's mathematics provison is some way short of the likes of Hong Kong and perhaps alarmingly, Scotland.
The most sensible thing she does say, and I wholeheartedly agree with her about this, is that there should be two different mathematics qualifications available at GCSE level:
Part of the problem is also the fact that many students are just simply not interested and those who may have an interest are put off due to peer group pressure not to like the subject when they may actually have some talent in it. The option for people to take a "lifestyle" maths course instead of the "academic" one could actually see some benefit. The number of times as a maths teacher I have fielded the question "when am I ever going to use this in real life?", I would run out of fingers and toes within a week. No matter how many examples you come up with for the use of a mathematical concept in the outside world, the students tend to have an answer that gives them an excuse to avoid work. For example:
Me: "Algebra is used all the time nowadays - Excel uses it and if you are self-employed you are likely to use that when doing your accounts"
Student: "I'll pay someone to do my accounts for me."
But what does Scotland do so differently to England as far as mathematics is concerned?
Apparently Scottish students are able to "progress at their own speed". The report also suggests that all students study maths up to the age of 18, which could be purgatory for teachers with some particularly challenging students, but it may allow more time for the penny to drop with some students, so careful setting would be required in schools so that those who are less keen don't encourage those who have potential to give up.
These reviews are all well and good but it appears that no teachers were consulted as to their thoughts (why change the habit of a lifetime?), and any changes to the curriculum will require schools to spend a lot of money on new resources just a few years after the curriculum was changed and lots of money was spent. The constant tinkering with mathematics may have to bear some of the blame for the perceived low standards as teachers may not know whether they are coming or going. Maybe this needs investigating.
Get me Katie Price's number, I need a report compiled.
Actually, it's not as bad as it sounds, my main issue is that a Z list celebrity has been recruited by those in charge to comment upon something they know precious little about. Her main finding are that England's mathematics provison is some way short of the likes of Hong Kong and perhaps alarmingly, Scotland.
The most sensible thing she does say, and I wholeheartedly agree with her about this, is that there should be two different mathematics qualifications available at GCSE level:
- "Academic" maths (as we currently have).
- "Lifestyle" maths (what has been called "functional" recently, but was integrated into the current "academic" qualification).
Part of the problem is also the fact that many students are just simply not interested and those who may have an interest are put off due to peer group pressure not to like the subject when they may actually have some talent in it. The option for people to take a "lifestyle" maths course instead of the "academic" one could actually see some benefit. The number of times as a maths teacher I have fielded the question "when am I ever going to use this in real life?", I would run out of fingers and toes within a week. No matter how many examples you come up with for the use of a mathematical concept in the outside world, the students tend to have an answer that gives them an excuse to avoid work. For example:
Me: "Algebra is used all the time nowadays - Excel uses it and if you are self-employed you are likely to use that when doing your accounts"
Student: "I'll pay someone to do my accounts for me."
But what does Scotland do so differently to England as far as mathematics is concerned?
Apparently Scottish students are able to "progress at their own speed". The report also suggests that all students study maths up to the age of 18, which could be purgatory for teachers with some particularly challenging students, but it may allow more time for the penny to drop with some students, so careful setting would be required in schools so that those who are less keen don't encourage those who have potential to give up.
These reviews are all well and good but it appears that no teachers were consulted as to their thoughts (why change the habit of a lifetime?), and any changes to the curriculum will require schools to spend a lot of money on new resources just a few years after the curriculum was changed and lots of money was spent. The constant tinkering with mathematics may have to bear some of the blame for the perceived low standards as teachers may not know whether they are coming or going. Maybe this needs investigating.
Get me Katie Price's number, I need a report compiled.
Bullies Win In The End
So sure enough the primary school in London, Downhill Primary in Haringey, that Michael Gove wanted to force into academy status but fought back has been re-inspected and put into "special measures" meaning that they have to accept Gove's judgements.
This seems to be a modern tactic in education from government level all the way down to individual school level. Gove clearly had his nose put out of joint when Downhill decided to fight back - he's not used to the minions actually having an opinion after all. It is something he may have to get used to though as I am convinced that more an more of this kind of rebellion will happen as the Secretary of State attempts to force through new, ill-advised policy.
What did for Downhill initially was an Ofsted report claiming that the school was giving its children inadequate provision for education. The re-inspection was, and I quote Gove here, to "provide an indepedent assessment of the school's position". It is a well known fact in education that Ofsted inspectors will support each other through thick and thin (mainly thin), and with the previous judgement being so public, "independent" was the last thing that this inspection could claim to be.
Current pupils were reportedly distraught as their headteacher resigned having received the new judgement, and despite parental support for the school, their pleas has fallen on deaf ears. Like so much in education nowadays, Gove and his cronies clearly have targets to meet regarding the conversion of local authority schools to academies. I still don't really understand the motivation for this policy as the government ultimately still pays the money but has little say in how it runs anymore. If you held the purse strings, surely you'd want some kind of say in how the money's spent? Obviously not.
Gove's bully boy tactics have won the day, and his "best pal" Wilshaw seems to enjoy using the same tactic. In his short tenure as Chief Inspector of Schools he has managed to alienate and worry almost the entire profession. He consistently talks only to Ofsted "outstanding" headteachers at conferences, although that judgement is all relative. Surely if he wants to make a difference to schools he should talk to all the other "non-outstanding" people and try to to indoctrinate them. Maybe because he knows he will get lynched by others (the "outstanding" heads are all his mates, I should add), such is the vitriol from the teaching proffesion aimed his way. His budget is supposed to be cut this year but he's been quoted as saying that his mate Gove should sort that out. Makes you want to vomit, doesn't it?
Sir Michael (of Mouse?) has been on the television a lot recently trying to justify his appointment, enormous pay packet and the existence of Ofsted that many experts are currently claiming is too big for its boots, lacking any real accuracy or consistency in its judgements. Wilshaw is a wholly unimpressive man when interviewed; he can barely speak and looks uncomfortable. That's not to say that professionally he hasn't worked wonders in some schools; his bullying tactics of forcing his staff to work above and beyond what is healthy or sociable clearly works on a small scale (in one school at a time),as he can easily replace the few staff who refuse to sell their soul to devil, I mean Sir Michael. Nationwide there just aren't the numbers of staff in reserve to do that, and the fact that the staff in tenure of the jobs currently, beat the "reserve staff" at interview would suggest that those in reserve aren't always better. He will no doubt try though and at the same time alienate an entire profession.
No-one in education can argue with both Gove and Wilshaw's apparent philosophy of improvement of education and raising of standards, but the way they are going about it leaves a lot to be desired. Their bullying policy is a common one in schools though as teachers who dare to question their leadership (whether constructively or not) or simply fall out of favour for whatever reason, find their progression up the pay scale blocked and life made very uncomfortable indeed (mainly through aggressive and demoralising lesson observations/judgements - a headteacher's trump card over their staff) purely down to the judgement of one or two at the top.
If you are thinking of becoming a teacher, you'd better think long and hard about it, as it really isn't all it's cracked up to be. Although, on the plus side, there will be plenty of vacancies soon as current classroom practitioners race for the door, whether through retirement or career change. This coalition government has obviously set its stall out to completely ruin education in this country, and they are doing a remarkle job of it.
This seems to be a modern tactic in education from government level all the way down to individual school level. Gove clearly had his nose put out of joint when Downhill decided to fight back - he's not used to the minions actually having an opinion after all. It is something he may have to get used to though as I am convinced that more an more of this kind of rebellion will happen as the Secretary of State attempts to force through new, ill-advised policy.
What did for Downhill initially was an Ofsted report claiming that the school was giving its children inadequate provision for education. The re-inspection was, and I quote Gove here, to "provide an indepedent assessment of the school's position". It is a well known fact in education that Ofsted inspectors will support each other through thick and thin (mainly thin), and with the previous judgement being so public, "independent" was the last thing that this inspection could claim to be.
Current pupils were reportedly distraught as their headteacher resigned having received the new judgement, and despite parental support for the school, their pleas has fallen on deaf ears. Like so much in education nowadays, Gove and his cronies clearly have targets to meet regarding the conversion of local authority schools to academies. I still don't really understand the motivation for this policy as the government ultimately still pays the money but has little say in how it runs anymore. If you held the purse strings, surely you'd want some kind of say in how the money's spent? Obviously not.
Gove's bully boy tactics have won the day, and his "best pal" Wilshaw seems to enjoy using the same tactic. In his short tenure as Chief Inspector of Schools he has managed to alienate and worry almost the entire profession. He consistently talks only to Ofsted "outstanding" headteachers at conferences, although that judgement is all relative. Surely if he wants to make a difference to schools he should talk to all the other "non-outstanding" people and try to to indoctrinate them. Maybe because he knows he will get lynched by others (the "outstanding" heads are all his mates, I should add), such is the vitriol from the teaching proffesion aimed his way. His budget is supposed to be cut this year but he's been quoted as saying that his mate Gove should sort that out. Makes you want to vomit, doesn't it?
Sir Michael (of Mouse?) has been on the television a lot recently trying to justify his appointment, enormous pay packet and the existence of Ofsted that many experts are currently claiming is too big for its boots, lacking any real accuracy or consistency in its judgements. Wilshaw is a wholly unimpressive man when interviewed; he can barely speak and looks uncomfortable. That's not to say that professionally he hasn't worked wonders in some schools; his bullying tactics of forcing his staff to work above and beyond what is healthy or sociable clearly works on a small scale (in one school at a time),as he can easily replace the few staff who refuse to sell their soul to devil, I mean Sir Michael. Nationwide there just aren't the numbers of staff in reserve to do that, and the fact that the staff in tenure of the jobs currently, beat the "reserve staff" at interview would suggest that those in reserve aren't always better. He will no doubt try though and at the same time alienate an entire profession.
No-one in education can argue with both Gove and Wilshaw's apparent philosophy of improvement of education and raising of standards, but the way they are going about it leaves a lot to be desired. Their bullying policy is a common one in schools though as teachers who dare to question their leadership (whether constructively or not) or simply fall out of favour for whatever reason, find their progression up the pay scale blocked and life made very uncomfortable indeed (mainly through aggressive and demoralising lesson observations/judgements - a headteacher's trump card over their staff) purely down to the judgement of one or two at the top.
If you are thinking of becoming a teacher, you'd better think long and hard about it, as it really isn't all it's cracked up to be. Although, on the plus side, there will be plenty of vacancies soon as current classroom practitioners race for the door, whether through retirement or career change. This coalition government has obviously set its stall out to completely ruin education in this country, and they are doing a remarkle job of it.
Sunday 5 February 2012
Nervous Headteachers
Sir Michael Wilshaw, Lead Inspector of Schools has been at it again, this time threstening around 5000 headteachers nationwide for being weak or lacking leadership. The man has grand plans for Ofsted, making reports "jargon-free" and with "blunt" comments on page one so that people don't have to wade through a load of irrelevent stuff before finding out what they want to know: is the school any good or not? And no-one can really grumble with the removal of "Ofsted speak".
Wilshaw, in a fairly typical statement of intent, claims that around a quarter of headteachers in the UK "require improvement" (new terminology for "satisfactory") or worse. He blames lack of leadership on the statistic that 40% of new teachers leave the profession within two years. He has a bit of a point on this, but it's not the be all and end all of the issue. Leadership does set standards of behaviour throughout the school, but ultimately other government policy is to blame as well.
Parents (and their offspring) still hold too many cards, if not the entire pack, despite what government ministers claim. If a parent complains about anything, they are listened to, whereas if a teacher complains about a child they tend to be ignored and told to put up and shut up in various, probably more polite, ways. I have a feeling that this could be part of the reason that new staff leave the profession. It takes a few years for a teacher to establish themselves at a school, no matter how good their classroom practise is. It clearly helps when they are good teachers or better, but few start off at that level as experience often informs planning. The pressure placed upon all staff by Ofsted and therefore leadership who attempt to prepare their staff for an inspection is sometimes unbearable, and the mixed messages given out by the inspectorate don't help.
What tends to happen when a teacher is observed is that they suffer from criticism borne out of what leadership "think" that Ofsted want to see. It is almost impossible to guess at what Ofsted's flavour of the week is, leaving a teacher planning for an observation confused as to how they can impress. The other thing is that unless a lesson is awful or absolutely superb, the judgement of the lesson can vary hugely depending upon who is doing the judging. Character issues or clashes come to the fore in some cases and this is nothing short of demoralising.
Wilshaw's plans to improve teaching are fine in principal as there are poor headteachers and teachers out there, but his blunderbuss approach will win him few friends and won't aid the recruitment and retention issues that teaching currently suffers from. The silver lining in the Wilshaw cloud is that his budget appears to have been cut from around £200 million per year to around £140 million which will mean that implementing some of his ideas could be difficult due to affordability.
The problem is that Michael Gove, the puppeteer in charge of Wilshaw, has promised to "see what he can do" about the budget, so dire times could yet be around the corner for those who have chosen a career in school.
Wilshaw, in a fairly typical statement of intent, claims that around a quarter of headteachers in the UK "require improvement" (new terminology for "satisfactory") or worse. He blames lack of leadership on the statistic that 40% of new teachers leave the profession within two years. He has a bit of a point on this, but it's not the be all and end all of the issue. Leadership does set standards of behaviour throughout the school, but ultimately other government policy is to blame as well.
Parents (and their offspring) still hold too many cards, if not the entire pack, despite what government ministers claim. If a parent complains about anything, they are listened to, whereas if a teacher complains about a child they tend to be ignored and told to put up and shut up in various, probably more polite, ways. I have a feeling that this could be part of the reason that new staff leave the profession. It takes a few years for a teacher to establish themselves at a school, no matter how good their classroom practise is. It clearly helps when they are good teachers or better, but few start off at that level as experience often informs planning. The pressure placed upon all staff by Ofsted and therefore leadership who attempt to prepare their staff for an inspection is sometimes unbearable, and the mixed messages given out by the inspectorate don't help.
What tends to happen when a teacher is observed is that they suffer from criticism borne out of what leadership "think" that Ofsted want to see. It is almost impossible to guess at what Ofsted's flavour of the week is, leaving a teacher planning for an observation confused as to how they can impress. The other thing is that unless a lesson is awful or absolutely superb, the judgement of the lesson can vary hugely depending upon who is doing the judging. Character issues or clashes come to the fore in some cases and this is nothing short of demoralising.
Wilshaw's plans to improve teaching are fine in principal as there are poor headteachers and teachers out there, but his blunderbuss approach will win him few friends and won't aid the recruitment and retention issues that teaching currently suffers from. The silver lining in the Wilshaw cloud is that his budget appears to have been cut from around £200 million per year to around £140 million which will mean that implementing some of his ideas could be difficult due to affordability.
The problem is that Michael Gove, the puppeteer in charge of Wilshaw, has promised to "see what he can do" about the budget, so dire times could yet be around the corner for those who have chosen a career in school.
Friday 3 February 2012
Dropped In
It hasn't happened to me for a while, and I know colleagues of mine have been put through it recently, but I had the dreaded "drop-in" from the department's line manager. They picked a good time to drop in on me: Friday, last lesson of the week, with a bottom set in the upper school. Thanks for that.
To be honest, in my years as a teacher I've got used to this sort of thing, although having said that, this was the most menacing I've ever had. As bottom sets go this one is doing pretty well: they are a nice bunch and we get on, which helps. The line manager turned up about half way through, didn't say anything to me and just went around picking up books, presumably checking whether I'd marked them - fortunately I had done that week. Even when I tried to engage with the line manager I was totally ignored, and then 10 minutes later the line manager left. What was quite nice is that one of the students had had a go at the line manager about something that they had chastised them about.
This sort of thing, as I have said, is not uncommon. It stems from Ofsted and makes teachers feel small and insignificant. I'm sure that it's designed to do so. I was having a discussion with a member of senior staff about the origins of Ofsted, they having taught for far longer than I have. Ofsted was initially set up to make sure that standards were reasonably high in the classroom, and if a teacher was struggling, a network of support was utilised in order to help that teacher improve. Nowadays it is quite the opposite - it is not a supportive thing and because Ofsted wields so much power, senior staff in all schools feel that they have to do the same in order to get their staff used to the concept for when it happens for real.
In my 10+ years of teaching I can only remember a couple of positive experiences when it comes to observations and drop-ins. They have become an exercise in character assassination where anything that could be levelled against a teacher is levelled against that teacher, depending on whether they are flavour of the month or not. I tend not to be flavour of the month, I hasten to add.
Lesson observations are so subjective - a very good or very bad lesson stick out like sore thumbs, but those inbetween could be judged so differently by different people. I have fallen victim to this, even when observed by two people, the most senior (and one who likes me least) judgement counts. Don't start tuning up your small violins, it's not meant to be a moan or cry for sympathy at all. A few years ago I would have asked you to break into Vivaldi, but I really don't let it bother me too much anymore. That's not entirely true, I get really wound up and end up arguing with the line manager on a regular basis about judgements, but I have accepted that I will never get any positive comments because I am not an automaton or a kiss-arse.
Ofsted is a device to oppress teachers now and has lost its initial function which was to be a supportive body for schools and teachers. It is something that almost certainly needs to exist or schools could rest on their laurels, but Ofsted has got too powerful due to political rather than educational reasons. Ofsted has become a device that politicians use to justify idiotic policy changes and a desperate bid for votes at the next election. And it's just about to get worse, isn't it Sir Michael?
To be honest, in my years as a teacher I've got used to this sort of thing, although having said that, this was the most menacing I've ever had. As bottom sets go this one is doing pretty well: they are a nice bunch and we get on, which helps. The line manager turned up about half way through, didn't say anything to me and just went around picking up books, presumably checking whether I'd marked them - fortunately I had done that week. Even when I tried to engage with the line manager I was totally ignored, and then 10 minutes later the line manager left. What was quite nice is that one of the students had had a go at the line manager about something that they had chastised them about.
This sort of thing, as I have said, is not uncommon. It stems from Ofsted and makes teachers feel small and insignificant. I'm sure that it's designed to do so. I was having a discussion with a member of senior staff about the origins of Ofsted, they having taught for far longer than I have. Ofsted was initially set up to make sure that standards were reasonably high in the classroom, and if a teacher was struggling, a network of support was utilised in order to help that teacher improve. Nowadays it is quite the opposite - it is not a supportive thing and because Ofsted wields so much power, senior staff in all schools feel that they have to do the same in order to get their staff used to the concept for when it happens for real.
In my 10+ years of teaching I can only remember a couple of positive experiences when it comes to observations and drop-ins. They have become an exercise in character assassination where anything that could be levelled against a teacher is levelled against that teacher, depending on whether they are flavour of the month or not. I tend not to be flavour of the month, I hasten to add.
Lesson observations are so subjective - a very good or very bad lesson stick out like sore thumbs, but those inbetween could be judged so differently by different people. I have fallen victim to this, even when observed by two people, the most senior (and one who likes me least) judgement counts. Don't start tuning up your small violins, it's not meant to be a moan or cry for sympathy at all. A few years ago I would have asked you to break into Vivaldi, but I really don't let it bother me too much anymore. That's not entirely true, I get really wound up and end up arguing with the line manager on a regular basis about judgements, but I have accepted that I will never get any positive comments because I am not an automaton or a kiss-arse.
Ofsted is a device to oppress teachers now and has lost its initial function which was to be a supportive body for schools and teachers. It is something that almost certainly needs to exist or schools could rest on their laurels, but Ofsted has got too powerful due to political rather than educational reasons. Ofsted has become a device that politicians use to justify idiotic policy changes and a desperate bid for votes at the next election. And it's just about to get worse, isn't it Sir Michael?
Academies Aren't Doing As Well As They Claim - Duh!
A report has just been released by "School Improvement Expert", Dr Terry Wrigley claiming that most academies have appeared to raise their results/achievement by essentially cooking the books and relying on vocational qualifications.
A link to the news story is here: Click here!
This a yet another non-story if you are a teacher and therefore have some clue about the education system in the UK. Academies up to this point have been failing schools forced into a change of status to raise standards. The problem being that the same students wander through the million pound doors, and even with the best teachers in the country, these academies are going to struggle to raise standards at the rate that they claim to have done. The children that have come on "leaps and bounds" have just been placed onto courses that require 100% coursework and therefore can essentially be completed by the staff themselves. The only issue that they have is getting these children a C grade at English and Maths, and credit where credit is due, they do a very good job at that.
Now, if you don't know, many vocational courses have been worth 4 GCSE C grades up until recently, when the government decided to "downgrade" these qualifications. You can almost sense the wave of panic going through much of secondary education, but especially academy headteachers who are paid silly money, sitting in masive offices whilst playing Angry Birds on their complimentary ipad2s. As soon as their "true" results appear in August, they will all be making a beeline for the Job Centre in a blind panic.
There are a few positives though:
A link to the news story is here: Click here!
This a yet another non-story if you are a teacher and therefore have some clue about the education system in the UK. Academies up to this point have been failing schools forced into a change of status to raise standards. The problem being that the same students wander through the million pound doors, and even with the best teachers in the country, these academies are going to struggle to raise standards at the rate that they claim to have done. The children that have come on "leaps and bounds" have just been placed onto courses that require 100% coursework and therefore can essentially be completed by the staff themselves. The only issue that they have is getting these children a C grade at English and Maths, and credit where credit is due, they do a very good job at that.
Now, if you don't know, many vocational courses have been worth 4 GCSE C grades up until recently, when the government decided to "downgrade" these qualifications. You can almost sense the wave of panic going through much of secondary education, but especially academy headteachers who are paid silly money, sitting in masive offices whilst playing Angry Birds on their complimentary ipad2s. As soon as their "true" results appear in August, they will all be making a beeline for the Job Centre in a blind panic.
There are a few positives though:
- Since these qualifications have been "downgraded", employers will be able to make better judgements about who to employ as the playing field has now been levelled. Undeserving children will not feel that they have achieved by putting in zero effort and stillwalking out of school with 10 "GCSE" grades.
- The "fat cat" headteachers deserve pretty much everything they get. The good ones will stay because the results will have genuinely improved; the frauds will be unemployed, as they should be.
- The current government, who have been lauding academy status, will end up with not just egg on their face, but a whole battery farm that will hopefully lead to the sacking of the idiotic Michael Gove. Around 70% of academies will see a massive fall in their results to somewhere near where they should be. One can dream, but I won't be purchasing a "Sorry You're Leaving" card for Michael.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)