Thursday 21 March 2013

Lesson Observations

Let's be honest, lesson observations are a necessary evil; an evil that few teachers enjoy. When I first started teaching lesson observations were a pain but generally supportive and useful. I think it's fair to say that nowadays their usefulness is generally limited. It all depends who is doing the observing of course. The trouble is that many observations are given by senior leadership who rarely teach (and occasionally never have) due the the mountainous paperwork now involved in school management.

So what's changed? Essentially, not a lot. They have always been an indicator of whether a teacher should be encouraged to move on, whether to another school or another career. The main difference, and the teaching profession has Ofsted to thank for this, is that feedback is a lot more aggressive nowadays.

What does that mean though?

Ten or more years ago the lesson observation was there to check that your classroom wasn't a warzone and that you, as a teacher, were imparting the correct knowledge in a meaningful way to your cohort. Plenty of warning was given to the teacher (which probably shouldn't have happened as it gave the opportunity to refine their lesson which made it too artificial) and a relatively simple lesson plan required. There wasn't a particular style of teaching or focus (unless that was thought useful); individualism was acknowledged and respected. Students were expected to listen and do what they were asked. Feedback pointed out your good points and areas that needed work, with suggestions made as to how lessons could be improved. Phrases like "What you could have done was..." and "Something that you could try is..." were commonplace. There was little or no threat of competency, or if there was, it was uncommon and probably deserved. The grading was essentially pass or fail.

The experience isn't even close to that now. Schools try to replicate an Ofsted inspection by giving little notice for observations (a day or so is fairly commone, which should be enough in all honesty). Full lesson plans and detailed seating plans are required which show all the students with special needs and whether they speak English as a second language or receive free school meals which is a current target group for government/Ofsted and therefore schools. Books must be marked with current grades or levels and a dialogue between teacher and student which will probably involve an individual question that forces the student to practise a teacher-noted gap in their learning. During the lesson the teacher must continually assess each child individually and refer back to the lesson objective. Each child must be called upon by the teacher to give or explain an answer by name and be able to tell the observer exactly what they are learning and convince them that this happens every lesson. Lessons and activities must be "active", which means that the students discover new concepts rather than get told/taught them. The feedback then gives the teacher a grade from 1 to 4 (3 and 4 are no go areas and risk competency - they should be renamed "You are crap") and involve phrases like "They will pick up on..." and "They will expect to see...", with the "they" referring to Ofsted. Any positives are glossed over and the weaknesses are pointed out endlessly, although often no ways of improving are suggested coherently. The teacher will often leave the feedback feeling pretty down, regardless of their grade.

So the differences are:
  • It has gone from a relatively positive thing (possibly too positive at times) to being a threat to a teacher's livelihood when there is a shortage of decent teachers.
  • The focus has moved from how you could improve your teaching to what Ofsted would want to see, which is usually a guess as it's not clear that Ofsted really know what they want either.
  • Individualism was encouraged to a certain extent but now frowned upon for fear that the inspectors have a particular teaching model.
  • Teachers aren't allowed to teach; the sudents have to teach themselves as the "teacher" wanders around "facilitating" discussion.
This is purely because Ofsted now have ultimate and unquestioned power over all state funded schools in England. Their judgements are unquestioned with the impression being amongst teachers that the inspectors make their judgement before they turn up and find evidence to back that judgement up. Despite what Sir Michael Wilshaw, Chief Inspector of Schools says, inspectors have a set image of a "decent" lesson and if you don't do that you are knackered.

But apparently education in England is rigorous and fit for purpose. I beg to differ.

Sunday 17 March 2013

What "Special Measures " Means To Me

It has been well reported that Ofsted inspections are getting tougher, or more rigorous if you want to use the political speak. This should therefore mean that more schools are going to be graded in the new "Requires Improvement" category or worse, "Special Measures".

But what does "Special Measures" actually mean?

This is what Ofsted themselves say:

Monitoring inspections for maintained schools

Schools that are subject to special measures

The Education Act 2005 states that a school requires special measures if it is failing to give its pupils an acceptable standard of education, and the persons responsible for leading, managing or governing the school are not demonstrating the capacity to secure the necessary improvement in the school.
For further information for schools that were judged to require special measures, and which have had at least one monitoring inspection prior to September 2012, go to Monitoring inspections of schools that are subject to special measures (January 2012).
For further information for schools which were judged to require special measures but have not had a monitoring inspection prior to September 2012, go to Monitoring inspections of schools that are subject to special measures (September 2012).

What does mean in practise though?

It seems to me that it means the following:
  • Everyone panics, especially leadership and governors. CPD becomes compulsory and exceptionally regular for those deemed not to be up to scratch. Teachers feel inadequate (the choice of word was intentional), whether they are or aren't. New systems of "support" are put in place and many teachers are subject to action plans where they could lose their job if targets are not met. Some teachers will deserve to lose their job, but many won't.
  • Added pressure on staff means the deterioration of life outside of school. Work pressure takes over and the families of teachers suffer hugely, some with irreversible consequences. Formerly good (or better) teachers become insecure and disappear within themselves which is no good for anyone. Everyone has a cloud hanging over them whether they deserve it or not.
  • Governors all of a sudden take an interest in the school. I have never worked in a school where the governors take an active part in the day-to-day running of the place, and with their often limited teaching experience, that's generally a good thing. A poor Ofsted means that these people, who generally have the best intentions of the school at heart, try to make "helpful" suggestions and like to be seen in and around the place more often. Often this is unhelpful, despite their best efforts.
  • Parents now have an excuse for why their child is essentially lazy, not going to get good grades, lacks motivation etc. It has to be the school because Ofsted said it was rubbish. Would those who are slating the school after a bad Ofsted be singing its praises had Ofsted found that it was "Good" or "Outstanding"? No, they would still whinge, but their argument would appear to have less weight.
  • Schools face termly inspections, each time expecting to be torn apart. It's not good for the mental or physical health of anyone from staff to student.
  • The cover budget goes through the roof as stressed staff feel the strain. Students have unfamiliar teachers in front of them, who aren't necessarily an expert in the subject they are supervising, which can't be good.
Ofsted hold a phenomenal amount of power in education at present and appear to make judgements on a whim at times. Schools are graded on results alone (they are, face it) and due to the subjectiveness of interpretation of data as well as lesson judgements, one inspection team could give a school one grade, whereas a different group of parasites, sorry inspectors, could grade a school totally differently. How can this be a "robust" system?

Don't get me wrong, "Special Measures" can be a good thing. It can bring in extra money for resources, it can focus a school on its weaknesses rather than allowing it to drift along, but it takes a talented, trusted and strong leader to do that. If staff have to be moved on, it can be tough to replace them; who wants to move to a school in "Special Measures" after all? There will be some who want a challenge (these people don't generally hang around for long and can be very destructive), but recruitment becomes increasingly difficult, especially in subjects that have a shortage of decent practitioners in the first place.

Ultimately all schools are in the hands of a bunch of people who haven't been at the front of a classroom for years. They may have lots of training under their belts, but there is no substitute for actually doing the job.

Ofsted Don't Want A Show

Sir Michael is out of his hibernation period and greets schools with this: Click here!


This interview only goes to show how out of touch the Chief Inspector of Schools is. I have a number of issues with this:
  1. Not for one minute does he consider why teachers "put on a show" for Ofsted inspectors.
  2. He claims that Ofsted don't have a preconceived idea of the ingredients that make a good lesson.
  3. Schools should just carry on as normal when Ofsted are in.
Ofsted holds all the cards in education at present - they have outgrown their remit. Their judgements go unquestioned and unchallenged in the main. When someone does dare challenge an Ofsted judgement they are accused of not being forward thinking, happy with mediocrity and various other politically barbed comments from various parts of Whitehall.

Ofsted has the power to make or break careers in education with one of their judgements. Many teachers firmly believe that inspectors judge a school before they have actually arrived based upon exam results, value-added etc. As any half-competent mathematician will tell you, data can be made to show what you want it to show without too much effort. Lesson observations and conversations with management are also subjective. Observations can go a number of ways that are generally out of the control of the teacher. A really bad lesson is obvious to both inspector and teacher, but otherwise it's harder to call unless you literally tick off bulletpoints in a list of things inspectors want to see. So Wilshaw's claim that there isn't a particular type of teaching expected has to be at least partly rubbish, or the message hasn't filtered down to the Ofsted minions.

Wilshaw claims to want to see children engaged in their learning, but his inspectors seem to regard this as meaning "the teacher says as little as possible" and the students "discover" what they would have been "taught" is bygone eras. There are some things that are very difficult to "discover" and need to be "taught", although this is frowned upon by Ofsted as the learning is deemed "passive", whereas Ofsted want to see "active learning". If you are playing Education Buzz Word Bingo you may be close to shouting "HOUSE" at this stage.

A teacher should be allowed to decide whether their charges can "discover" something new or need to be "taught" it. Teachers are (still) professionals, for the time being at least. The trouble is that this decision is taken out of their hands. Thousands, if not millions of pounds are spent by schools every year on speakers who tell staff that Ofsted want to see teachers leading less from the front, "playing the Ofsted game". This money could be used to resource faculties fully rather than giving tips on Ofsted hoop-jumping. The fact is that these (presumably rich) people are employed by many schools each year, and must know what they are talking about in order to keep getting invited. So Wilshaw claiming that there is no game is frankly wrong and the fact that there is a market for Ofsted inspectors to charge £600 per day to "help" schools get through an inspection only proves this (see this article from The Independent: Click here!).

The main thing is that teachers are rarely sure of what Ofsted actually wants and their "show" for the inspectors is just like a pet trying to impress its owner, which many appear to get panned for. With Ofsted regularly changing the goalposts since Sir Michael's ascension to the "throne", teachers have no idea what to do.

Eventually teachers will just give up in a number of ways. They could leave the profession as many are doing, to be replaced by fresh faced top graduates through scheme like Teach First, but these schemes are a mixed blessing for the future of education as many of these graduates leave teaching after just a few years. How teachers should give up is by not caring what Ofsted say, and they can do this in a number of ways:
  • Don't get lesson feedback - by getting feedback you are showing the inspectors that you actually value what they think, and let's face it, no teachers really do. So don't bother.
  • Only be civil to them, never go out of your way to smile at them, even if they smile at you. Let them know that they are unwelcome because they are. Some inspectors delude themselves into thinking that they are doing schools and teachers a favour (I have had an interesting conversation with the partner of an inspector who was brave enough to call themselves "Anonymous"). They are not, they are an expensive political animal that no-one wants or likes except other inspectors, their partners or narcisistic politicians.
  • Get them involved in a lesson by asking them questions. Embarrass them; put them on the spot; after all that is what they are doing to you and your colleagues so why shouldn't they taste their own medicine? If they make a stupid comment, make it very clear that you think it's a stupid comment; I once replied to an inspector who observed a challenging class and said "They seem like a nice bunch" with the following: "How would you know? You've seen them for half an hour and just looked at books and folders, not talking to a single one of them." He left with his tail between his legs after he asked if I wanted feedback and I replied "There is nothing you could possibly tell me that would be of any benefit to my teaching practise".
Wilshaw can make all the noises he likes from his ivory tower in Whitehall, with his direct line to his mucker Gove. Ofsted is now a political vehicle, used unapologetically to drive through ill-conceived government policy without question. Wilshaw may appear to disagree with Gove on some issues but his inspectors don't appear to.

Ofsted has outgrown it's own remit and really should be abolished for the future of education in England. If this doesn't happen the exodus of staff will continue and there won't be enough teachers left.

Saturday 9 March 2013

This Academy Business Is Not Fully Thought Through

As English education careers at towards privatization, because let's face it, that's what's happening, there's something I don't quite understand: how come the buck stops with a bunch of volunteers?

These unpaid, although mostly dedicated and hard-working people generally do a great job, don't get me wrong, but ultimately a load of people with little or no experience have the final say in what is essentially a multi-million pound business. School budgets would probably stagger most people, and it is generally money well spent, but if you went to Dragon's Den asking for £3 million per year so that you could run a private hospital with your medical experience being the dishing out of Calpol to your child you'd laughed out of the room. Ok, so I'm being a bit extreme, but essentially that's what's happening up and down the country to local schools.

Actually I have no real objection to academies or independent schools, who they can hire and how much they want to pay their staff. What I do object to is that the Gove/Wilshaw show keep telling us that academy will bring immediate results, which is frankly not true. What I also be a problem is the fact that the people running these academies need both business experience/acumen as well as school experience as an employee rather than student. The issue is that the people running academies either have one or the other but rarely both.

Essentially the DfE awarding academy status is a gamble in each and every case and some will fail due to lack of expertise, which generally will be no fault of their own. Governors, those unpaid volunteers, are supposed to hold the headteacher and therefore the staff to "account". What does that mean/entail? Does anybody really know? Do most governors know enough about education to be able to effectively hold headteachers to account? And even if they do spot that something is awry, what useful advice could they offer?

Before anyone gets their knickers in a twist, I know that there are plenty of teachers who become governors of schools that their children attend, but they won't be able to walk around the school during the school day. I also know that many retired teachers become governors, but with education moving so fast, their experience is often out of date before they've started.

Wilshaw, the Chief Inspector of Schools, has suggested that governors should get paid to make them more professional, or to encourage them to work harder. This has gone down like the proverbial fart in a lift with many current governors who suggest that it could encourage people to do it for the money rather than for the good of school. He may or may not have a point about paying governors but he has failed to mention where these payments are going to come from? School budgets are already stretched to breaking point, the DfE has overspent on academies by £1 billion in a year and the country is facing a "triple dip" recession, which adds up to the fact that there ain't no money out there.

To be honest, I'm not 100% sure that Wilshaw's brain and mouth are connected as every time it opens he seems to annoy another portion of the educational world; or perhaps the annoying of everybody is all part of a grand plan and he's immensely intelligent, only time will tell. Those who have been subject, and I use that word intentionally, to the new Ofsted regime will tell you that Wilshaw pontificates from his ivory tower, making, on occasion, sensible noises about lessons/teaching that are seemingly ignored by his minions - I'm talking about there not being a "standard Ofsted lesson", but inspection evidence would suggest otherwise.

Anyway, I digress. Governors have a really important job, namely making sure that the staff are running the school to the best of their abilities. The problem is that there is a danger that the governing body will just believe what they are told by the headteacher, and due to the fact that governors hold down full time jobs as well, they may be all they have time to do. What many people don't realise is the time and effort that goes into being a governor until they become one.

As far as I can see the whole system could collapse at the drop of a hat, but Gove/Wilshaw will or should not be in post when that happens. Picking up the pieces will be an unenviable task for whoever is charged with doing so.