Rewards - something for nothing?

This news story was floating about on social media today, a story about a middle school that held a "mufti day" only for those who had reached their accelerated reading targets. Click here to see the full story from the Telegraph.

This got me thinking about the expectations of students about to sit their GCSEs and A Levels. The Easter holidays have just begun but many secondary teachers will spend some time in school delivering revision sessions, or in the case of many of their charges, "desperation" classes for those who didn't listen in class first/second/third time around and can't be bothered or don't have the discipline to revise independently.

I had a conversation with a colleague the other day who described this telephone conversation with a parent about their underachieving child in an option subject (names have obviously been changed):
Teacher: I was just ringing to say that Alice is currently on about a C grade but is very capable of getting an A grade if she puts in a bit of effort and knuckles down for the remaining 5 weeks or so at school.
Ms Smith: "Knuckling down" isn't really Alice's I'm afraidt.
Teacher: It really wouldn't be that arduous, in fact I can tell her specifically what she needs to improve upon.
Ms Smith: I really can't see her doing it, but it's great that she's capable of getting the A grade. Is there any way she could get the A grade without putting in the work?
Teacher: Not really I'm afraid, but I was thinking that if you had a quick word that might give her some encouragement.
Ms Smith: It won't work so I probably won't, but I look forward to her A grade in August.
Teacher: *Sigh*

I'm not embellishing this conversation; it actually happened. It's not untypical in the school I work in either. Something for nothing is almost expected. The entire culture of holiday and after-school revision sessions is a toxic one that encourages this "something for nothing" attitude; one no longer has to bother to listen in lessons as you will get numerous other opportunities to be taught what you've missed. After all, teachers have to do all they can to get their classes through 4 levels of progress or whatever ministers and their quangos decide is acceptable nowadays. Ofsted's and the DfE's obsession with data/exam results is the root cause.

And who can blame the students exclusively? At home students receive rewards for nothing. An obvious example immediately springs to mind: a student who has had to leave one school due to his behaviour and is lucky to still be at his current one received but a brand new vehicle for his birthday, despite being woefully below target in every subject on his timetable. So what chance have we, as a school, got? None is the short answer.

Deadlines are not deadlines and students know that if they wait long enough a teacher will essentially be forced to write coursework for them, having been pressurised by a nervous SLT who fear a visitation if the following summer's results are below par. No wonder employers think that schools don't produce young people ready for the workplace (as this story from January 2014 highlights). I'd have to agree that they don't, but aren't allowed to, despite what ministers say.

So when a headteacher tries to highlight the fact that if you work hard you get rewarded, like the workplace, loads of people moan and pick out that those who miss out, for whatever reason, have their self-esteem damaged. You can't win.

How will those children, future members of the workforce no less, how will their self-esteem be when they can't get a job that feeds their excessive lifestyle that they see in the media because they didn't work hard? Where do you draw the line? They have to learn the lesson at some point.

Is The End Nigh For Graded Lesson Observations?

When I was training to be a teacher all those moons ago, lesson observations were generally a pretty positive experience. They were essentially pass or fail, and would have to be pretty awful to fail. They would focus on the following:

• What went well (where have I heard that before?);
• Even better if (Groundhog Day?) I did a couple of things - how I could have improved the lesson;
• My target is (Deja vu?) to try some new stuff to improve my teaching.

I actually quite liked lesson observations, although I wouldn't say that my day was made by one, but I saw them as a positive way of improving my practise.

Nowadays, in the era of "performance related pay" and express capability procedures brought in during Michael Gove's watch as Secretary of State for Education, although I suspect others would have brought it in as a desperate attempt to tighten education's belt, lesson observations can make or break a teaching career or a school, depending on who the observer(s) is. They have moved away from their supportive nature and become a threatening entity in education.

For those (presumably few, if any) of you who don't know, lessons are graded by management or Ofsted inspectors on a scale from 1 to 4:

1. Outstanding.
2. Good
3. Requires Improvement
4. Inadequate

In order to avoid "action plans" or "capability" procedures, a teacher must be consistently a 1 or 2, although the odd 3 is acceptable as everyone has a bad day, but expect to be seen again pretty quickly and make sure you get a 1 or 2 or else! You'd think that's fair enough, and so would pretty much every teacher as we all, as educators, want to produce lessons that encourage and enhance learning. And actually you knew where you were when Ofsted had a particular style of lesson/teaching that they wanted to see, because ultimately the observation was a box ticking exercise.

Now I'm not saying that I agree with Ofsted wanting to see a particular type of teaching, in fact I actively oppose it, but if a teacher's livelihood depends upon lesson observation gradings, then I don't see that you there is any fairer way. The problem is that now Ofsted have actively said that they don't want to see a particular style of teaching as long as learning is "rapid and sustained".

This therefore leaves observers in a bit of a dilemma when grading lesson observations, because it now becomes a personal opinion, which is anything but fair. One would hope that observers could set aside personal opinions regarding the teacher and just grade the lesson, but in my experience, this is seemingly impossible. Comments such as "I would have done it this way" and "I didn't like that" in the feedback are fairly commonplace, and surely it's irrelevant what the observer thinks; what the children in the class think is the important thing. Gradings that are linked to pay or, at worst, capability, become a personal opinion; expect numerous lawsuits for wrongful dismissal

So, as a result, some schools are abandoning lesson observation gradings to make teachers more comfortable and allow them to try to improve their practise without fear of reprisals if it doesn't go to plan straight away. It's brave but actually sensible. My school won't do it (for many reasons, most based upon the personality of the person at the top of the tree), and the fact that we now have numerous leaving speeches every term seems to be the modern trend (I personally find this cut-throat attitude towards staff/people unpleasant). The fact that children don't respond well to constantly changing staff seems to be ignored now, and please don't think that if a teacher is not up to the job then they should not be moved out, but many teachers who are "forced" (I did use the correct word there) out are actually pretty good in the classroom, but not liked by the person/people making the decisions. And what is rarely taken into account is whether the teacher being forced out can be replaced with somebody as good or better - often this isn't the case.

But what this also should mean is that Ofsted inspectors will no longer need to observe lessons, making an Ofsted inspection less stressful for classroom teachers, and ensuring taht leadership in schools actually earn their hefty pay packets. A "learning walk" (I hate that name too, but you all know what it means) will be sufficient to judge the atmosphere for learning in a school. Consistently good lessons will deliver consistently good results in exams. Inspectors therefore, will just need to look at the data of the school, aided by some informed words from SLT, to judge the school. This won't happen as I get the impression that inspectors like going into classrooms and making teachers uncomfortable; maybe I'm wrong.

The trouble is that I think that Messrs Gove and Wilshaw like threatening teachers, so the status quo will remain and the DfE budget will soar as thousands of teachers face capability based on the whim of SLT, or possibly because that particular member of SLT finds separating personal and professional feelings difficult.

This is without mentioning the potential exodus from the profession that already has a huge shortage ,in certain subjects, of adequate staff. Politicians and suits in large offices really are working wonders in education...

"Below Average" Kids

I found this article on the BBC News website the other day: Click here!

What a bizarre story! It essentially says that those children who turn up at secondary school with below average grades, finish secondary school with below average grades. Thank you Sherlock, I'd never have guessed.

This is fairly typical of politicians who will never admit that some children aren't cut out for academia and may have talents in other areas, but due to the nature of education in the UK and it's academic focus, these children "under-achieve". What do you expect from teachers? They can't work miracles for all those "below average" students. Some do close the gap with enormous amounts of extra help from staff, but with average class sizes still at around 30 and funding being cut, the time that politicians suggest teachers devote to these children just isn't available.

If the time required to raise these children's attainment was afforded to them, those who had worked hard before entering secondary school would have to be ignored which would therefore have a detrimental effect on their grades. Once again teachers can't win and are chastised by those in suits as a result.

What is also ignored is that these children may not actually want to learn, whatever efforts are made. A lot depends on parental support, which in many cases isn't forthcoming as statistically these children tend to be from backgrounds where schooling wasn't seen as important. You'd be surprised at how many parents support their child's lack of application at school, making excuses for their child's lack of enthusiasm for learning.

I teach an intelligent lad who entered secondary school with above average grades but has since decided to enter the tattooing and piercing profession (which is fine) and, with the support of his parents, is convinced that he doesn't really need qualifications. Due to his natural aptitude towards learning and his knowledge gained up to this point he will probably leave school with the statutory 5 A* to C grades, but well below what he has been targeted by the algorithm schools use to generate targets. Whose fault will it be? Mine, and his other teachers despite the fact that this is a choice made by the child with the full support of his parents. This doesn't really seem fair to me, as all his teachers have tried to enthuse him with little or no success.

My other issue with this report is the fact that the statistics were released by the Department for Education, who would have ploughed thousands, if not millions of pounds into the frankly obvious findings of this research, and that money surely could have been used far more effectively elsewhere.

It got the government another headline though, I suppose, at the expense of teacher morale once more.

Ofsted - clueless!

It's not just me who thinks that Ofsted are totally clueless when it comes to assessing schools. There was a letter from a teacher to Chris Woodhead (former Chief Inspector of Schools) in The Sunday Times this week bemoaning a glowing recent Ofsted on their school. The report had stated that the behaviour of the students at the school was "exemplary" whereas in reality the students ran the place with the headteacher being totally ineffective and using the Ofsted report as justification for doing essentially nothing.

The stories from this teacher, whose name is understandably withheld are truly shocking. Female staff are called "stupid bitches" to their face, students regularly "go on strike" and corridors are urinated in (by students rather than staff!). The place sounds like a candidate for academy status to me, but apart from one minor quote about behaviour in the corridors being occasionally "boisterous", the inspectors have clearly no idea what really goes on in the place, relying heavily on data to form an opinion.

You have to give credit to Woodhead who attempts to defend Ofsted, as he always does. He claims that maybe the troublemakers amongst the student body were "mysteriously disappeared" for the visit, which does happen regularly. When our school was last inspected the board listing those students on external exclusion was pretty jam-packed with the usual candidates. Woodhead does admit that due to the inspectors' reliance on data and the brevity of a visit, their judgement can be far removed from the reality of what's going on. Which would suggest that the entire inspection process is a bit of a waste of time, would it not?

The teacher is clearly exasperated with their head's totally ineffectiveness and Woodhead suggests writing, as a staff body, to the head explaining what the issues are. He then says that if the head does not accept the view from the staff then you should go to the school's governing body and/or the local authority.

This only goes to show how far removed from the reality of school life Mr Woodhead is. The member of staff would be committing career suicide by writing to the headteacher, and if they tried to drum up support from other members of staff, news would quickly get back to that headteacher about who was behind it. Bear in mind that the teacher requires a reference from that headteacher to move on, and if moving on isn't an option, they would almost certainly find that next year's (and all subsequent years) timetable would be shocking for them, and leadership drop-ins/observations would increase. On top of that teachers are very good at moaning about something, but not always so good at doing something about it.

Writing to the school's governing body would have the same result as writing to the headteacher in that essentially most of the governors don't want any grief and are doing the job either to further their career in the local community (mayor anyone?) or because their child is at the school and they want to know what's going on. A few might do something about it, but as it's not a paid position, can you blame them for wanting an easy time of things? The headteacher will often hoodwink the governors into believing that everything's going swimmingly, and they won't know any different, so won't realise that there's a problem.

The only possible action would be to write to the local authority, but that would almost certainly get tied up in red tape and take an eternity for anything to happen. Even then, when they visited, who would be the only person to have contact with the local authority employees? The headteacher. So ultimately, headteachers are untouchable. I suppose the new Chief Inspector of Schools' proposal to have local troubleshooters is an attempt to tackle this, although it remains to be seen if these troubleshooters will be effective.

The letter just highlights the fact that Ofsted are clueless, overpaid and of no use to parents, schools or children.

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.