Graham Lancaster, Ofsted inspector and Area Improvement Manager for the Essex Primary Heads Association, “hit out” at the new Ofsted regime, reports the
TES. The inspector said, “The bar has been raised and it is really focused on pupil achievement as it never has been before. There has been more flexibility for inspectors in the past, I think, to take account of context, to take account of current data.” He expressed concern about the number of Essex schools that had gone from good to inadequate saying, “I don’t believe that schools have got worse since January.”
Mr Lancaster commented that “lack of trust [in teachers]” and “the continuing raising of the bar” triggered damaging headlines and was contributing to plummeting morale of teachers. “Nothing is ever good enough, it would appear.”
Since the new Ofsted framework began the percentage of schools judged inadequate has risen from 6% of schools inspected in 2011 to 13% in the first five months of 2012. Some of these judgements are disputed: Caistor Yarborough Academy, Lincolnshire has
formally complained to Ofsted about its inspection and Sinfin Community School, Derby, is
considering the same step. Downhills School, Haringey, was judged to be failing only months after a previous Ofsted inspection reported that the school was improving thanks to support from the local authority and a “core of experienced senior staff with high levels of expertise”. Now, thanks to the rushed second inspection, the head of this team of experienced staff has resigned, his career and health ruined. Both the
Downhills inspections had the same lead inspector, Kekshan Salaria. Quite how she was able to overturn her previous judgement so quickly is unclear but such rapid reversals bring Ofsted into disrepute.
It is ever more difficult to regard Ofsted as an impartial inspectorate dedicated to supporting school improvement. It is increasingly being viewed as an arm of the Department for Education especially now that Michael Gove’s favourite, Sir Michael Wilshaw, has become Chief Inspector of Schools. Sir Michael is on record as saying that a sign of low staff morale is a sign that he is doing his job well.
The
NAHT voiced concerns about Ofsted at its recent conference. So did other teacher unions. But it seems that it’s not only teachers who distrust Ofsted – Graham Lancaster can’t be the only inspector with misgivings. Perhaps it’s time for teachers and concerned inspectors to call time on Ofsted.
Comments
So, you hide under Ricky Tarr because you work for Gove then?
What are you going to do Allan, build a Jubilee beacon and burn an effigy of Ricky Tarr on it? :-)
Gove works for me.
I wish he worked for the benefit of education.
So the cat it out of the bag, Ricky. That means you are either Gove's mistress, Cleggy boy or the dreaded Cameron chap!? ;D
Fascinating though were are I suspect Cameron has been talking to rather more important people than us today.
http://uk.reuters.com/video/2012/06/07/cameron-and-merkel-still-divided-...
Must be the mistress then!:-) or Murdoch, or whoever it was who funded Celcius 7/7.:-/
No cigar, I'm afraid. I think it was Fiona's partner who coined the phrase:
Gove is a servant of the people.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9258573/Worst-civil-servants-to...
Hurrah. Sacking 90%. Again! Are the 25-year-olds to wise now at 27 and are needing to be dispatched in the sinister anti-partner mechanism to decimation? But how will Gove cope? Surely sacking 90% of the civil servants working on Free Schools will only leave him with a team of about one person per Free School? (Does anyone have a link to clear figures on how many there are at the DFE now working on Free Schools? I remember we discussed it once before).
Gove's hand maiden then, cowering under her veil of anonymity. But then transparency has never been the defining quality of this government has it? More backhanders to friends, revolving doors policy with media and police and hiding behind sobriquets and personal emails.
How do you do emoticons on this site?
Smile is colon hypen right bracket (probably colon right bracket works as well but that's not what I use). I suspect you can do a grumpy face by replacing the right bracket with a left bracket.
:-) (if that worked, thanks)
lol is okay, better than accidentally typing olo :-)
http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6243813#
http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6070585
http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2011/02/sally-morgan-to-continue-a...
You earlier linked to the Select Committee's confirmation hearing with Wilshaw, where the Sally Morgan/ARK connection was discussed.
Wilshaw said he worked to someone else (Lucy Heller) and only ran into Morgan a few times - mostly in the lift.
He also said he'd resign his ARK association if he got the Ofsted job.
I'm not sure about whether Morgan still rides both horses???
Why? What would she know about it?
She's a New Labour quangocrat and committee woman, isn't she?
Baroness Morgan is still advisor (remunerated) to ARK. She's also non-executive director at Carphone Warehouse which, like ARK, sponsors academies.
Sir Michael has given up his ARK directorship.
http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/26954
Is it? I've found that Clint Eastwood and some of the macho characters he plays such as Dirty Harry, are almost universally admired. And certainly not just by men. The recurrent theme is how moral integrity triumphs over prissy, pettyfogging bureaucracy. Indeed, Eastwood's films are so widely watched that you could almost guarantee that people would recognize a cultural reference or allusion to one.
Which is probably why Wilshaw chose the Clint reference for what he described as a lighthearted "knockabout" after dinner speech with colleagues.
That was the type of machismo I find disturbing - and equally disturbing is that some people actually admire this posturing.
And of course Sir Michael told the select committee it was only a "knockabout" after-dinner speech - he was being questioned about his judgement (and some of the committee members were making comments about "Make my Day" and "punk") and his speech had been heavily criticised at the time not least by the National College of School Leaders who tried to distance themselves from it. Sir Michael tried to excuse himself by saying he didn't realise that a TES journalist was present implying that his speech would have been more palatable if it were for public consumption.
"She [Sally Hunt] rejects claims by Ofsted chief inspector Sir Michael Wilshaw that there is a problem with FE teaching or that colleges are 'hiding' behind the complexity of FE. 'Some of it, I think. is plain insulting to education staff; some of it, I think, is ill-informed in terms of the new regime coming in,' she says. 'What we have in many cases is people who are at the front line of bringing people who otherwise would have no education, no prospects, back into the system, and they're being hammered.'
She was, however, pleased that Ofsted would consider progression as a key measure of teaching success, but had serious concerns about the "frightening regularity" of colleges being downgraded by Ofsted.
Disquiet about Ofsted is growing, and not just in schools.
Welcome to the world of Gove and Wilshaw - all must be average. Because if below-average is eradicated, then so must above-average. Or better still, ignore the rules of maths altogether - all children must be above-average, and teachers will be condemned if they're not.
http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6243850
If you look at my maths exchange with Rebecca earlier, you will see that average doesn't mean average in this context. It's a shorthand... in this case for "the percentage of students nationally achieving....blah blah."
Sir Michael Wilshaw is an exceptional individual with a nightmare job.
He deserves every right thinking person's support.
... or, sorry, to be precise, for 'grade', 'benchmark' or whatever.
He deserves every right thinking person’s support."
Sir Steve Redgrave is an even more exceptional individual but if he suddenly decided to accept the lead role in the royal ballet and the ratings immediately plummeted, constructive criticism would be offered and this is, in fact, support. To pretend all is well is not intelligent support, it is sycophancy.
Sir Stephen Redgrave is a great dancer.
He deserves every right thinking person's support.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rpr3IPxGO8
"These inspection parasites bug me":
http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6243819
"The fightback begins":
http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6243852
If people could just choose schools more freely you could shake most of these monkeys off your back, you'd only have to concentrate on the essentials like safety and you could let parents and children judge your professional offer.
Why do you think education shouldn't be allowed to have the same legal framework and principles for regulation as everyone else? Why do you think Ofsted should be unaccountable to all but themselves and politicians?
Also why do you think we don't actually want to educate the challenging kids?
Why would we have chosen teaching in tough schools if we didn't want to do that?
Gove seems to be offering this through reduced inspection criteria and more school autonomy. But here you are battling over OFSTED heavy handedness at the same time as craving a Mark II version with more beefed up local authorities.
I don't get it really, big brother OFSTED goes with the whole caboodle of state central control like mandatory attendance at local comprehensives which is an aim of LSN. I think you need to make up your mind.
You're saying we need to choose between Govian style state control and LA control Ben.
Why do you see it that way?
Why can't we just have legally accountable regulator who abides by the established principles of good inspection and regulation like everyone else?
Or you can stick with being government minions and being told what to do by people so uninterested and evasive that they won't even tell you their name on the telephone, whether they are OFSTED, LA or whatever government good squad is order of the day.
Ben do you actually know anything about inspection and regulation? Or are just spouting whatever happens to come into your head?
As you rightly say, when politicians start blabbing about benchmarks, averages and so on it's just blah, blah, blah - nothing more than meaningless statements made by
politicians who want to appear "tough" because it'll be good for their political careers. Or because they want the admiration of people who are impressed with this apparent machismo.
Not really. I confess that I do it sometimes and so do most people on here. For instance, I'd bet most of us have used the phrase 'the local authority average' when what we really meant was "the percentage of all pupils within the LA achieving 5XGCSEs (or equivalent) including English & Maths GCSEs." Which is quite a mouthful.
Nor is it so daft for people scoring below the average to use getting over the prevailing average mark as an aiming point for improvement. Of course, if they do score higher next time, the average will go up, and yes, you're right, there will always be those who are under the new average. But this process of ever rising averages is precisely what we want. It's called improvement.
Some people want to be allowed to focus some of their energy for improvement on the things which matter to their students life opportunities rather than always being forced to focus only on the very narrow targets which matter to Michael Gove.
An appropriate balance could be struck if we have an intelligent system of inspection rather than a brutally ignorant one.
And as the average rises, so the rhetoric of politicians must also rise. A few years ago, there was no A* grade at GCSE but when so many pupils reached As then an extra grade had to be added. A few years ago, the benchmark was measured by how many pupils gained 5+ GCSEs A-C. When this number rose, then an extra hurdle was added - the benchmark had to include GCSEs in Maths and English. I expect in a few years time the benchmark will be increased to X number of pupils must gain A or A* (or A double plus platinum star, or whatever).
And so this "improvement" goes on. It's time to call a halt. Either re-calibrate GCSEs to 1987 standards or scrap them altogether before Grade C becomes nothing more than the most basic of school leaving certificates (as GCSE G was meant to be).
If you are right, then the situation is even worse than we thought. And the teaching profession even more shockingly incompetent than the politicians hint at already.
Number 1: Ensure academic targets are only an appropriate part of school assessment, (not absolute targets which precipitate the destruction of the school if they are not met) by reforming Ofsted to make it fit for purpose by obligating it to the standards and prinicples to whichother UK inspectorates are legally bound.
Number 2: Move beyond narrow high stakes assessment to far more intelligent and revealing systems of formative and summative assessment by creating the policy environment in which the major education companies will feel confident in investing in and developing they kind of systems described here: http://mathseducationandallthat.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/assessing-student...
Sadly neither of these things have happened even though they were blindingly obviously what was needed when this government came to power as Gove has instead focused on spinning everyone in education as being incompetent, destroying the infrastructure of education, shutting down and disabling the consultative networks in education which generate intelligent policies and pursuing his own pet projects instead.
Your statement that grade inflation would prove that "the teaching profession [is] even more shockingly incompetent than the politicians hint at already" is incorrect. In the 2009 OECD PISA tests UK pupils were at the OECD average for Reading and Maths, and above-average for Science.
Stating that UK pupils were average in two out of the three subjects tested by PISA isn't, however, a plea for complacency but neither is it a sign that UK state education is unfit for purpose. In the 2007 Trends in Science and Maths Survey (TIMSS) English pupils topped the European league in both Science and Maths. This was reaffirmed by the Eurydice maths report published in late 2011.
But education is far more that pushing pupils through tests. As OECD warned, there is too much emphasis on raw exam grades in England and this is having a negative effect on education (OECD Economic Survey UK 2011). "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted. " (attributed Einstein)
http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2011/03/rallying-cry-from-ms-birba...
http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2011/01/england-top-european-count...
http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2012/01/england-scores-more-highly...
http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2012/01/primary-schools-are-not-ru...
When you say, "... teaching profession even more shockingly incompetent than the politicians hint at already." may I suggest that you either temper the thrust of your comment or better still be more precise. I float this to you because the cause of grade inflation is not at the door of schools and teachers, it falls to the examining bodies and the grade boundaries that they set and how they administer these. Even for those elements of GCSE work that contribute to the final grade that are internally marked these are also internally moderated and standardised with exam boards calling for randomly selected papers for external mderation. If the latter meets the scrutiny then all internal marks stand but if they fail then papers are called for and remarked externally. The main examination papers are all marked externally.
It follows then that the 'inflation' aspect rests outside the gift and remit of schools and teachers.
E.g.:
"A Durham University study said grade inflation was a very real phenomenon over the past two decades, particularly at A-level. The 2008 study said: "Candidates of comparable ability are being awarded higher grades each year, both at A-level and at GCSE. From 1988 to 2007, achievement levels at A-level have risen by an average of just over two grades in each subject considered in the research." (25 Aug 11)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/aug/25/gcses-beginning-end-grad...
"Yesterday's damning data is based on GCSE results awarded this summer, and follows research from Durham University showing a 'U' in maths in 1998 is now equivalent to a B grade." (21 Oct 11)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2051637/GCSE-passes-soar-23-15-y...
But don't you just love the Mail's reporting of education which reveals more ignorance that analysis. First the writer mixes up A level with GCSE and applies research about the former to the latter. Then in a sentence which begins with a comment about GCSE, she says that a "U" grade in maths in 1998 is now equivalent to a B. Would that be a "U" grade at GCSE level? In which case, the 3.5 maths grade inflation would be between GCSE E and D. Nonsense, of course, because the Durham research was about A level but the writer's sentence implies it refers to GCSE. And, this being the Mail, the writer spews out the tumbling down the league tables in nine years data (it must be permanently stored on her clip board) despite knowing that the OECD has found the 2000 stats for the UK to be flawed and has warned that they should not be used for comparison. And I know she knows, because I wrote and told her.
http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2010/12/state-education-suffers-fr...
http://fullfact.org/factchecks/school_standards_oecd_pisa_data_media_con...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/more_or_less/8200392.stm
When I was teaching English we were inspected by the British Council and the Border Agency because at that time they were the parties for regulating English language schools that took visa students. At least the British Council published information so that you could comply with their requirements, and they had a reasonable approach to compliance. The Border Agency were an example of a government black box, coming up with off the cuff requirements and providing such unhelpful intimidation as "we have a file this thick on you" to the owner of the business! We had to use our MP to get some of their unreasonable behaviour noticed. Granted they have a tough job but their conduct is typical of the government and you will continue to get dumped on from a great height whilst you conceive of teaching as a large state business.
If you start to see the role of professionals as contracting with government for delivering services then you are in with a chance of being properly regulated. I would not expect to see a huge number of profit driven schools arising from this, or rather I would see any profits being socialised through charitable structures or similar. But people would be free to use schools run for profit if the alternatives were not good enough.
It seems many teachers are not really comfortable to act this way which says something about how they are conditioned through their institutions. They are almost like the asylum patients of the 1960s described by Erving Goffman. The teacher as child and the state as parent. Start behaving like adults, yes I would be in sympathy with a profession which insisted on OFSTED being rather different but you will also have to change your way of thinking and behaving.
Why is it necessary for me to "see the role of professionals as contracting with government for delivering services" for the government to pass an order obliging Ofsted to the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act(2006) for all its activities and what precisely do you mean by this Ben?
I would have thought that all it would take would be for Michael Gove to propose the order and for the other politicians to agree.
Ben. You taught English?? But you are incoherent and your grammar is all over the place! Were you qualified to teach? Have you thought of applying to a free school?
Ofsted inspects schools to check on standards of teaching. The Border Agency raided "English Language Schools" because there was evidence that enough of them were fronts for illegal immigration. Not the same thing at all. Instead of lumping in the Border Agency with what you consider all government departments, you might want to lump them in with just the law enforcement agencies. You might then appear less confused.
I don't really think OFSTED is the best arrangement for school and teacher inspection. I would expect teachers to emulate people like nurses and surveyors and have bodies which are at least democratic through election to a council which makes decisions (I mean to the professional body, not local government). It would have more consent of its members then and be changeable according to their opinion.
Having said that we at least have reduced, more focused inspections. We also have more freedom for schools. Make your service attractive and effective to the general public, insist on more ability for parents and children to choose, OFSTED can then become less powerful and important.
Probably there are many mistakes, I am more interested in the incoherence. Maybe you can explain this sentence: role of professionals as contracting with government for delivering services. It is as the heart of teachers' relations with bodies like OFSTED and why it is dysfunctional.
All the state institutions get the right to sponsor students automatically and in some instances have abused it. The University of Wales was recently abolished in part due to visa problems. In contrast if you a private body you have to pay for and earn this right.
I don't see a big difference between the BA and OFSTED. They are bodies established by statute to enforce law. I think OFSTED should be more like other professional bodies and less like BA. It should indeed be more accountable to teachers who in turn need to be more accountable to parents and children.
Pages
Add new comment