So We're Lacklustre Now

"There are too many lacklustre schools in England which are not pushing children to reach their potential, says the annual report from Ofsted."

This is the opening paragraph from this article: BBC News Article

My immediate reaction is "Well they would say that, wouldn't they".

I can't wait for the press release from Ofsted that says "All schools are doing really well; our job is done." It will never happen of course as they'd effectively be putting themselves out of a job. You don't get too many turkeys writing glowing reports about Christmas after all.

The article says that 40% of schools inspected this year have been found to offer a "satisfactory" education to their students. To the uninitiated that sounds fine, what with the dictionary definition of "satisfactory" being "fulfilling all demands and requirements". But in education "satisfactory" means "not doing enough".

What the report fails to mention is that the goal posts have changed for Ofsted inspections, essentially meaning that everything the inspectors required last time they visited is no longer of any importance (I'm exaggerating a little here, but only a little) and so schools have been downgraded in almost all cases because they don't really know what is required of them.

Is it any wonder the public are at a bit of a loss as to how they judge a school if schools don't know themselves?

The whole article/report is Ofsted's justification for why it should continue to exist, what with a "big name" assuming its headship in the new year - Sir Michael "We're Not Worthy" Wilshaw.

Nick Gibb, the Schools Minister is quoted as saying "There are still far too many under-performing schools making painfully slow improvements." I think I may have the reason, or reasons why:

• Schools are facing budget cuts, meaning that they can't afford to adequately staff or resource schools (unless they are academies of course, where they get more money and can do what they want with it). It's the nature of the current economic climate, but you can't give anyone less and expect significantly more, whatever business you are in.
• A teachers' priority is no longer teaching, it's administration. It's marking books with "formative" comments significantly more (despite the fact that the students don't read them or seem to care that much); it's testing the students to provide data for use in planning; it's reporting home every half term so that the parents know how their child is performing (although many appear not to be bothered); it's writing detailed lesson plans containing every last bit of information on every child in that class, plus deciding what particular questions could push each individula child to progress and actually writing it down rather than allowing teachers to have any sort of spontaneity in class (planning has always been part of teaching, but nowadays the expected process is unhelpful). The list goes on, but who is all this extra work for? It's not the students, it's Ofsted. Everything I've just mentioned just uses up time that teachers could be using to actually come up with good ideas to make their students progress and hopefully enjoy learning.
• Pensions and pay freezes - no matter what job you are employed in, if your wages are frozen for years (and therefore, in real terms, your wages are cut) and you are being asked to work longer for less, you are not going to be overly motivated. Lack of motivation is disastrous for teachers, as it's a profession that relies on enthusiastic delivery to enthuse students.

Maybe I'm being a little melodramatic, but all these factors make a difference, and when you get some jumped up, data reliant, pompous idiot, who hasn't actually done the job for years (if ever) telling that you're doing it all wrong, how do you think the teaching profession will react?

What's even more worrying is that politicians actually believe every word they say.
What chance have we got?