Showing posts with label Satisfactory. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Satisfactory. Show all posts

Tuesday, 17 January 2012

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.

Thursday, 24 November 2011

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?