Data - How Useful It Can Be

Data is the new black - schools and teachers are swimming in the stuff. You can't move for spreadsheets in your planning, and planning lessons for official observations (don't be fooled into thinking teachers do all that paperwork for every lesson they teach - there are only 24 hours in a day) becomes an absolute minefield of wading through lists and numbers so that you "really know" the students in your class. Just chatting to them and getting to know them as a person is no longer required, you need to know what they got in a test that they sat in Year 6, plus other standardised tests that they may have sat.

A colleague of mine went on a course this week (a feat in itself due to massive budget cuts) and upon their return said that everyone was in the same boat.

At our school we currently assess every child once per half term in every subject. We then record their score and level/grade (depending on what key stage they are) in a spreadsheet so that their progress can be checked throughout their school career. Why are we doing this? Ofsted want to see it is the only real reason, but there's also a culture of accountability for teachers.

Is this a good thing? In short, the answer is "No". Ofsted only want it so that they get a feel of what the children in a class are like before they observe it, although data isn't always that reliable. What statistics don't take into account is that children have a flair for making friends who aren't always a good influence, doing things that perhaps they shouldn't and resisting pleas to do any work at all, but try finding an "attitude" column on a spreadsheet, or a  "what they actually do in the evenings instead of their homework" column for that matter. There's not an "are the parents supportive?" column either. All these things are just as important as the assessment data that all schools are collecting endlessly.

When you look at it, what this huge amount of data is used for is to beat a teacher over the head with when those children that stray off the straight and narrow don't reach what the data suggests they should achieve. Especially when, in our school's case, all the target grades generated by the data we've collected are what's known as "aspirational", or in layman's terms, only possible to achieve if the child works ridiculously hard. How many 15 and 16 years olds do that? Admittedly some, but certainly not all. And since a teacher's results (or those of their class) can make or break their pay progression, you will understand that data is not the most popular educational beast.

Schools even pay a senior manager (somebody who actually has some power in school) to "run" data, costing thousands of pounds per year, per school.

And all because of Ofsted - not only do they suck up £200 million of tax-payers' money directly, they also suck up millions indirectly, millions that could be spent on actually educating children.