Has Michael Wilshaw Lost It?

I read with interest the Chief Inspector of Schools, Sir Michael Wilshaw's speech to the Westminster Education Forum on 7th November this year.

You can read it for yourself HERE.

Now I don't know about you but I've not been Sir Michael's biggest fan. The reasons for this are listed below:

• From the evidence I've seen and experienced via Ofsted, I think his methods of leadership are tantamount to bullying.
• His Ofsted regime has led to a climate of fear in education in England that could be disastrous for young people for many years to come.
• He is phenomenally arrogant (although people who know me may see that as the pot calling the kettle black!).

His "raising of the bar" regarding education has been unreasonable in the sense that schools and teachers have absolutely no idea of what is now required of them. What was once graded "outstanding" is now far from being that and schools don't know why. I have no problem with bars being raised but when you've no idea what you've been doing "wrong" for years, it's difficult to put it right.

However, recently he's been saying things that I've found it difficult to argue against, namely that Ofsted should not be looking for one particular style of lesson (specifically those with group work integrated) but the lesson must exhibit good or outstanding learning no matter how it's delivered. I don't think that any educator would argue with this point of view - learning is the ultimate goal after all. The problem is that his inspectors don't appear to have got the message, as @oldandrewuk talks about in his blog "Scenes From The Battleground" repeatedly.

He seems to be trying to quash the rumour that his quango is the DfE's lapdog, by sending letters to a whole load of academies that they need to up their game and judging free schools as "inadequate", something that can only embarrass the Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove, which is no bad thing. Wilshaw still has work to do in this area, as his pro-academy leanings are well documented.

The speech on Thursday undid all the positives and gains he'd made though. As I read it my blood pressure rose. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but from classroom teacher's point of view I got the following messages from it:

1. Great teachers don't exist without great leaders.
2. Headteachers should consult with staff, but then do their own thing anyway.
3. Teachers should put up and shut up.

I'd like to deal with each point in turn:

1. Surely educational "greatness" it's a symbiotic relationship between classroom practitioner and leadership; you can't have one without the other. To dismiss the efforts of classroom teachers and place them firmly at the feet of management is frankly insulting as a classroom practitioner. What Wilshaw is saying is that "inadequate" schools must have 100% "inadequate" teachers, which simply can't be true; the school is only inadequate in the eyes of some inspectors whose judgement is potentially questionable (although not by MPs), but that's another story. But simply, on inspection, I can't believe that an "inadequate" school had 100% "inadequate" teaching.
2. Here's where Wilshaw's true colours shine through. Classroom teachers clearly aren't valued by the Chief Inspector, but he forgets that without them, schools couldn't function, or could only function if those "great leaders" went back into the classroom. He bemoans the fact that too few are being groomed for leadership in education, but when the expectation upon leaders is to be a tyrant, you can understand why few are champing at the bit to do the job. And as an aside, those who do want to do the job are probably the last people you'd want with that sort of power and attitude.
3. How to motivate an already demotivated workforce; or perhaps not. Teaching has been advertised as a short-term career for would-be city highflyers for a number of years now. Workload has become almost unmanageable for teachers and of those entering the profession from the various pathways available, only around 40% survive beyond 5 years, with some subjects facing a major shortage of staff. How helpful is Wilshaw's rhetoric? Not at all is the answer.

And I haven't even mentioned this part of the speech:

"There is absolutely nothing wrong in my view in saying to youngsters ‘do as I ask, because I am the adult, I am older than you, I know more than you and, by the way, I am in authority over you.’"

Would you want your child taught by a man who thinks this? Nor would I. Respect for authority is a good thing, but respect should be earned.

I was starting to warm Ofsted's great leader, but forget that now. Teachers will always dislike the Chief Inspector of Schools, but when I see parents slating him on social media, surely the man's position is now untenable. Fingers crossed...

Performance Related Pay - Smoke and Mirrors

We got an email recently telling us that we had to complete our Performance Management so that they can be approved by the wise and worldly at the top of the food chain. It's the usual fayre:

1. Grade related - 100% have to meet their given target.
2. Department related - how can to assist the department's move forward?
3. Professional development related - something you need to work one.
4. To do with TLR payment, if you receive one.

Now I have no problem with any of these types of target in essence - every teacher has to do them and in my experience, they are the same school in, school out. The only difference this year is that a teacher's success in achieving those targets will form the basis of the judgement upon whether they should receive a pay rise or not.

So as a result, I have a problem with one of them - the most important one as far as Ofsted, league tables and ultimately job security are concerned: target 1. The targets at our school were described by Ofsted as being extremely challenging, but teachers are expected to drag, in some cases kicking and screaming, all their charges up to those grades.

Just to explain how targets are generated, for those who don't know: in short, by various computer programmes that analyse the children's previous exam results, what they eat, and various other stuff and come up with a number of targets along the lines of:

• Target 1 - the child would get this in their sleep.
• Target 2 - what the child would get if they progress at the "normal" rate.
• Target 3 - what a child would get if absolutely everything went right, luck was on their side and the examiner inexplicably awarded you an extra 20%. Ok so not the last bit, but in order for the child to achieve this target, something special needs to happen and the child makes well above average progress.

Guess which one we use...

As a motivator, the message "your targets are almost impossible, but you still have to achieve them" is not a great one. Perhaps that's why schools are haemorrhaging staff - just a thought.

So after a rant about targets being "achievable", 100% being unreasonable when Ofsted didn't expect the wholeschool to get 100% and that some of my class don't even turn up to school, I was told exactly how I should word my targets in order to achieve without achieving them. As long as I tick a set of, frankly meaningless, boxes, it makes absolutely no difference what grades my classes get, in theory of course, because if my class' results were that bad I would fail, but as long as I get close-ish, I'll be fine.

My next thought was that this makes the entire process pointless, which hasn't changed, and I doubt ever will. The entire process is about your ability to word your targets and manipulate data in such a way that you can con your way to a tick in each box.

Of course, if you manage to word your targets correctly, you then lay yourself at the mercy of the whim of your headteacher and whether there's enough money in the pot for the school to afford your pay rise.

The brave new education world - it's rubbish.