The Holidays Are Upon Us, And We Know What That Means...

The first term of the year is always the hardest for the following reasons:

1. It's the longest term of the year, usually 15 or 16 weeks altogether (before you non-teachers moan, feel free to train as a teacher and then get back to me).
2. The days are getting shorter, the weather getting worse and therefore children less opportunities to expend energy outside.
3. Christmas always makes the students excitable and therefore drain more energy from teachers as they try (occasionally in vain) to control them.
4. You know that due to the nature of the Christmas break (you rarely relax due to the various commitments at that time of year) that you will go back in early January just as tired as when you broke up.

The trouble is that rather like the sale of turkeys skyrockets at this time of year for obvious reasons, politicians and their ilk, as well as journalists with little to write about, regard this as open season on teachers - don't they get long holidays?

Some of this year's examples are below, from a mixture of broadsheets and tabloids, containing various messages to the general public, but the main one being, in many teachers' opinions, that teachers are the scum of the earth.

• From the Daily Telegraph and suggesting that a significant percentage of teachers are suspended due to illegal activities, which is costing the taxpayer - all their good readers - thousands of pound each year. Here is the article. As a teacher I read two messages from this: 1. Lots of teachers are criminals, whereas actually less than 1% of the teaching profession is suspended, and no comparison with other professions is available; 2. This has made a significant contribution to the economic downturn in the UK, whereas actually the amount being paid to teachers, some of whom are innocent, is tiny in comparison with, for example, MP's expenses. It's a blatantly a selective use of data to illustrate a non-point; Gove would be proud.
• From the Daily Mail, Michael Gove suggests that all schools should remain open for 51 weeks per year and longer every day. The article is here. Now I don't have a massive problem with this since me and my partner spend hundreds every month on childcare costs, and I'm pretty sure that many other teachers do the same. The unions have, as is their regular tactic, moaned a lot about the idiocy of the policy and how teachers are being made to work harder for less money. But as usual the unions, the voice of teachers in the public eye, missed the opportunity to question Gove on how he plans to implement this initiative. Who will staff these extra hours, especially since there aren't enough quality staff around to man every classroom in the country as it is, according to Ofsted? How will these extra weeks and hours be funded or will teachers just have to have their contracts changed and do more for less money? When will teachers get their holiday? Flexi-time will be hard to implement in schools after all. It's the sort of sound-bite that idle journalists and editors crawl all over, and Gove knows that as a former hack himself.
• From The Guardian/Observer there was an exclusive interview with Ofsted Chief Sir Michael Wilshaw who states, amongst other things, that moaning parents are to be applauded for driving up standards. The article is here. So why pick on the parental part of what he said? simply because the parental stuff is the bit that infuriates me the most. Parents often get just one side of the story (often not bothering to listen tot eh other side), namely the myopic view of their child, who in a self-preserving way, will make themselves look angelic and the teacher some kind of ogre. How does this drive up standards? All it does is demoralise a staff who can only feel "got at" by this. A demoralised staff will not perform to their potential in the classroom, which will, in turn, mean that the students aren't getting the best from their teacher. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but that will not make us, as a nation, climb the "oh so important" Pisa league tables. I think what Wilshaw is trying to say, but extremely badly, is that all "stakeholders" (whereas my bullsh*t bingo card?) have a part to play in the improvement of schools, and he's right. He has moaned a lot about his comments being mis-interpreted by the press, so why does he continue to talk to them? Idiotic.

There are probably many more stories, but these are the ones that have stuck in my mind. You will notice that a large percentage of the column inches are dedicated to the words of Gove, Wilshaw or whoever has decided to stick their oar in despite having little or no recent classroom experience. Teachers rarely get to offer their point of view, in fact the main respondents being union leaders, who are no longer teachers, if they ever had been. Those who make decisions about classroom practise are rarely affected by them; the teachers who are affected being left with no right of reply. And herein lie the frustrations of the teaching community.

I actually tell a little porky here, teachers do have one opportunity to speak out in The Guardian's "Secret Teacher": the link is here. Now I suspect that the majority of the readership of "Secret Teacher" are teachers, and the rest of the population just see the articles on there as the regular teacher moans. Now not all teachers moan (a huge number do I hasten to add) but the press have created that impression and the unions reported at whinging at every given opportunity. If those in charge actually read the "Secret Teacher", they should be very worried about some of the practises in schools and the ramifications upon the mental state of the country's educators; I am assuming that the "leaders" haven't buried their heads in the sand over this.

Ultimately the press in this country are, in many teachers' views, in the pockets of the politicians. There's little evidence to argue otherwise and Gove, Wilshaw et al are making hay whilst the sun shines. I suppose that you can't blame them for milking the press for all they're worth, if only the unions were as clever. You can blame the journalistic community for laziness however, which is frankly, unforgivable.

Ofsted's Whimsical Judgements: The Fallout

I work in a school that has been through an Ofsted inspection within the last year. I won't pretend that it was a pleasant experience because it was anything but. A large number of colleagues were reduced to tears and a significant number have left or are leaving teaching as a result. Perhaps some of them should leave the profession, but not all.

At the time the school was certainly not outstanding, and only had elements of good, but Ofsted deemed that it should be placed in Special Measures. The reasons given were harsh but accepted by the school and everyone got on with it because there was nothing we could immediately do about it.

This Ofsted grading has had a far greater impact and could, not just in a worst case scenario, actually end up being fatal for the school. The Ofsted inspector's unquestioned judgements have far reaching consequences that these whimsical individuals fail to realise, whether through choice or ignorance.

Since the "judgement" the number of complaints from parents has increased hugely. Some are certainly justified but if all the complaints are valid then why weren't they raised beforehand? What we are finding is that parents can now justify their unquestioned backing of their "faultless" children by saying "it's the school that's crap because Ofsted said so". The kids aren't stupid either and are fuelling this to save their own bacon, but as a colleague pointed out to a serial miscreant "Would you have agreed with Ofsted if they'd have said we were brilliant?", to which the answer was "No".

Due to the Ofsted grading we now have various pressures on us as staff (not just teachers) to do exactly what HMI say in order to "improve". What staff are quickly realising is that what one person regards as improvement, another person doesn't due to teaching's subjectivity, so ultimately whatever we do as a staff body we are in the laps of the gods - you are either in favour or you're not. If the inspectors aren't in a good mood we're stuffed. Is that really fair?

New initiatives are dreamt up every five minutes it seems, and teachers are understandably jumping ship as quick as they can meaning that the school has to replace them. But who wants to come to work in a school in Special Measures? Not enough people it seems, so classes in many subjects will be staffed with supply teachers which isn't going to help anyone other than the supply agencies who fill the positions. Good exam results come from diligent children with consistent teaching from as few different teachers as possible. Constant change is a recipe for disaster, a recipe that schools in this position have no choice over.

Whatever you think of Ofsted Chief Sir Michael Wilshaw (I can't say that I'm a fan myself), he does occasionally make the right noises from his plush office in Westminster regarding inspections. Unfortunately his finger is so far from the pulse that whatever he says is irrelevant because his inspectors simply aren't doing it. Their judgements go unquestioned and ultimately they could argue that Sir Alex Ferguson was the greatest manager Chelsea ever had and people would believe it. Teachers in school are being pulled and pushed in numerous directions by a desperate management who don't really know how to get Ofsted to give the school a better grade, because even Ofsted aren't sure what they are looking for. It's making people ill (more supply staff required to cover) and forcing people out who can't be replaced (yet more supply staff required), so what chance have we got?

Ofsted is now a beast that probably can't be tamed and will destroy education in the schools that aren't fashionable in government/their eyes. They are not independent of government, in fact they have recently stated that if schools don't follow the new government Performance Related Pay guidelines, they will get downgraded upon inspection. They are too big an organisation and their inspectors too out of touch to be effective or accurate in their assessment of schools. Training is not a replacement for recent, hands-on experience. Schools genuinely close due to their whims, and this is can't be right because the inspectors are not always right.

But Michael Gove loves Ofsted, so that's ok then.

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.

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.

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:

1. 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.
2. If governors become a target of Ofsted, no-one will want to do it as they can live without the grief.

The only way schools will ever be governed properly is if local authorities or academy organisations employ "professional" governors who govern a group of schools. This will eat into the budget as far as the local authority are concerned, and eat into the academy organisations' profit. It therefore won't happen.

Nice try Michael, but once again your judgement is clouded by your buttocks.

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.

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.

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".

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.

Satisfactory Is No Longer Satisfactory

It must officially be teacher baiting season at the moment as Sir Michael Wilshaw, the new Chief Inspector of Schools has joined his boss, Secretary of State for Education Michael Gove, in kicking the teaching profession whilst it's down.

In recent weeks and months we have seen teachers face:

• A reduction in real terms pay due to a pay freeze, followed by a well below inflation rise of 1%;
• An increase in pension contributions, but a decrease in pension payments;
• The mandate that all teachers will have to work until their late sixties before collecting that reduced pension; 
• Schools being forced to adopt academy status (against parents, teachers and governors wishes), meaning that teachers see a change (usually for the worse) in their contract, pay and conditions; 
• The introduction of what is commonly being called a "bully's charter" whereupon headteachers can almost literally sack a teacher on a whim for "under-performing", or as many suspect will happen, headteachers will get rid of teachers they don't like in about a term; 
• Changes in the curriculum (meaning more work for teachers in planning) because teachers make stuff boring according to Gove; 
• The school day is to be extended and holidays shortened, but with no change in wage as far as I can see.

The list is relatively long and I have probably forgotten parts, but teachers are metaphorically black and blue as a result of these things alone.
Enter stage left: Sir Michael Wilshaw, who suggests that:

• Scruffy teachers be given official warnings (scruffy in whose eyes?);
• Ofsted inspections become far tougher to achieve the higher gradings (gradings that are in fact illegal in the first place according to the Hampton Review passed in 2005 - look it up);
• Ofsted inspectors will give schools no notice of an inspection (which will almost certainly mean increased workload for teachers as headteachers panic);
• Ofsted inspections will be more frequent for those schools who "require improvement". (Any ideas where the extra money for these extra inspections will come from?)
• And finally, "satisfactory" is being rebranded to "requires improvement". Now this last one may not seem a huge deal, but as Ofsted gets tougher, more and more schools and their teachers are going to be put under more stress to improve students (and parents) who don't want to change because they will be too busy listening to politicians tell them via various tabloid media forums that all teachers are rubbish, so why should they change in the first place.

I'm not 100% sure what the overall goal of the current regime is at the moment, although they presumably believe they are doing the right thing. If it's to totally demoralise the teaching profession, they have succeeded, outstandingly one could say. If it's an attempt to raise standards, I'm afraid they require improvement, or arguably are inadequate. And here is why:

• Teachers already work quite hard actually, despite what the gutter press tell you. Most teachers (there are always exceptions) work from around 7.30am until about 5pm at school itself, and many work at home in the evening too, as well as weekends.The work/life balance that politicians promised a few years ago has all but disappeared.
• Getting rid of so-called "satisfactory" or "requires improvement" teachers sounds wonderful, but those teachers beat worse teachers in interview to get the job in the first place, so who's going to replace these rubbish practitioners? There won't be enough new teachers leaving university of the standard talked about as it takes years to become established in the classroom. Some ought to go, that's fine, but most schools find that when they get rid of someone, the replacement is often worse.
• Are they going to change the students who "require improvement"? Of course not, they can't. In a growing number of cases, it doesn't make the blindest bit of difference what the teacher is doing, the student is not interested in learning. Social phenomena such as "X Factor" and "Britain's Got Talent" give young people the impression that they can get rich quick through fame on a reality TV show, and you don't need qualifications to do that. At our last Ofsted inspection at least two of my colleagues were told that due to the class they were teaching they couldn't get higher than a "satisfactory" grading, and quotes to staff such as "you will need to change your stock (meaning students) if you want to get higher than satisfactory" don't fill me with a huge amount of confidence.
• Making all students do more academic subjects like Latin, History and Geography, to name but a few. Some young people just aren't cut out for these subjects. Most, if not all lessons would be like bad dentistry - pulling teeth.
• Forcing schools to become academies and building them new premises is a white elephant as the "clientele" aren't going to change. I like to call this "turd polishing", meaning that "you can make it as shiny as you like, but at the end of the day it's still a turd".
• Making teachers work longer hours means that they have less hours to plan all those outstanding lessons so desperately craved by Ofsted and headteachers alike. They will also be more tired for their classes and not be able to show enthusiasm for what they are trying to get across to their class.
• Ultimately people will start leaving the profession as the pressure increases until there aren't enough teachers to go around (we are already seeing it in some subject areas), meaning that the remaining, presumably outstanding staff, are having to teach larger and larger classes that in turn makes their own standards fall and they get sacked for being inadequate in front of too many children.
• As a result of all of the above, teachers will be off sick with stress, depression, exhaustion and various other things, meaning that non-specialist cover staff will be drafted in to teach the lessons of those who are ill. These lessons will be worse than the original ones so reviled by Wilshaw and Gove.

These are all the things I can think of for now, but I'm sure other people could add some. We are currently seeing the systematic dismantling of the teaching profession and I fear for the youth of tomorrow, who as a result of the changes being made, will end up facing the consequences of this ill-advised edicts from Whitehall and get a pretty raw deal from the British educational system.

Crisis In Teaching - Just Wait Until 2012

Sir Michael Wilshaw was on The One Show the other night, and alarm bells are now ringing for when his time as Chief Inspector of Schools begins in 2012. He states that he's going to target coasting schools (hang on, that sounds like David Cameron from last week's press), because if he can do what he has managed in Hackney, then anyone can do it.

The worst thing was his response to the statement: "I can't work out if this is a modern technique or it's very old fashion".

Wilshaw said: "If old fashioned means high expectations, sure. If old fashioned means [that] we're asking them to respect each other, respect us and respect staff. If traditional means ensuring [that] there are no excuses for poor behaviour, then I'm happy to be called traditional."

You can see why politician like him.

He goes on to deny that his school is any different from any other school, other than the fact that it's been rebuilt and that he has total control over the budget.

What the report does include, interestingly, is a short interview with one of his staff who says that the pressures on the staff are too great at times - presumably he's now polishing his CV.

What the report failed to mention is the expectations on staff to provide extra lessons both before and after school for no extra pay (although due to the school being an academy, Wilshaw can pay extra initially), plus having to staff detentions and lessons on Saturdays.

It also doesn't mention stories such as when the PE GCSE results came in last summer and had dropped by 5% he phoned the head of departemnt (during the holidays) telling him that he care where his department were but they would all be at a 7.30am meeting the next morning to verbally lay into them.

Is this really the way forward? Is the profession, that is struggling for quality numbers already, really going to encourage more people in the fold?

The answer's "No" - who would choose to do extra work for nothing?

This bloke is a real worry for the teaching profession, and could be the final nail in the coffin, what with pay, pensions and conditions issues. Teacher's aren't afraid of hard work but Wilshaw's demands of teachers are unreasonable. More strikes on the way? Or are people just going to find something else to do?