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.

What "Special Measures " Means To Me

It has been well reported that Ofsted inspections are getting tougher, or more rigorous if you want to use the political speak. This should therefore mean that more schools are going to be graded in the new "Requires Improvement" category or worse, "Special Measures".

But what does "Special Measures" actually mean?

This is what Ofsted themselves say:

Monitoring inspections for maintained schools

Schools that are subject to special measures

The Education Act 2005 states that a school requires special measures if it is failing to give its pupils an acceptable standard of education, and the persons responsible for leading, managing or governing the school are not demonstrating the capacity to secure the necessary improvement in the school.
For further information for schools that were judged to require special measures, and which have had at least one monitoring inspection prior to September 2012, go to Monitoring inspections of schools that are subject to special measures (January 2012).
For further information for schools which were judged to require special measures but have not had a monitoring inspection prior to September 2012, go to Monitoring inspections of schools that are subject to special measures (September 2012).

What does mean in practise though?

It seems to me that it means the following:

• Everyone panics, especially leadership and governors. CPD becomes compulsory and exceptionally regular for those deemed not to be up to scratch. Teachers feel inadequate (the choice of word was intentional), whether they are or aren't. New systems of "support" are put in place and many teachers are subject to action plans where they could lose their job if targets are not met. Some teachers will deserve to lose their job, but many won't.
• Added pressure on staff means the deterioration of life outside of school. Work pressure takes over and the families of teachers suffer hugely, some with irreversible consequences. Formerly good (or better) teachers become insecure and disappear within themselves which is no good for anyone. Everyone has a cloud hanging over them whether they deserve it or not.
• Governors all of a sudden take an interest in the school. I have never worked in a school where the governors take an active part in the day-to-day running of the place, and with their often limited teaching experience, that's generally a good thing. A poor Ofsted means that these people, who generally have the best intentions of the school at heart, try to make "helpful" suggestions and like to be seen in and around the place more often. Often this is unhelpful, despite their best efforts.
• Parents now have an excuse for why their child is essentially lazy, not going to get good grades, lacks motivation etc. It has to be the school because Ofsted said it was rubbish. Would those who are slating the school after a bad Ofsted be singing its praises had Ofsted found that it was "Good" or "Outstanding"? No, they would still whinge, but their argument would appear to have less weight.
• Schools face termly inspections, each time expecting to be torn apart. It's not good for the mental or physical health of anyone from staff to student.
• The cover budget goes through the roof as stressed staff feel the strain. Students have unfamiliar teachers in front of them, who aren't necessarily an expert in the subject they are supervising, which can't be good.

Ofsted hold a phenomenal amount of power in education at present and appear to make judgements on a whim at times. Schools are graded on results alone (they are, face it) and due to the subjectiveness of interpretation of data as well as lesson judgements, one inspection team could give a school one grade, whereas a different group of parasites, sorry inspectors, could grade a school totally differently. How can this be a "robust" system?

Don't get me wrong, "Special Measures" can be a good thing. It can bring in extra money for resources, it can focus a school on its weaknesses rather than allowing it to drift along, but it takes a talented, trusted and strong leader to do that. If staff have to be moved on, it can be tough to replace them; who wants to move to a school in "Special Measures" after all? There will be some who want a challenge (these people don't generally hang around for long and can be very destructive), but recruitment becomes increasingly difficult, especially in subjects that have a shortage of decent practitioners in the first place.

Ultimately all schools are in the hands of a bunch of people who haven't been at the front of a classroom for years. They may have lots of training under their belts, but there is no substitute for actually doing the job.