education

Keep calm and carry on.

theprimaryhead7 Comments

It’s only a game so put up a real big fight.

Big Break theme tune. circa (probably 90s when Saturday entertainment was at its lowest – then again I watched ‘Take Me Out’ last night and nearly wept myself into a dry husk)

The world of education spins at a relentless pace. Being inside the world of education can occasionally feel like you’re in a washing machine that is refusing to stop: swirling around getting bashed about and tangled up with whatever washload of edubabble that has been put in the drum with you; outside beyond the glass it all looks lovely and calm but before you can see what they’re actually doing out there you’re whisked away again as Gove’s trouser leg tightens its grip around your neck.

Why are we moving so fast and why is it all so complicated? Sometimes I blame Twitter. There are days when I can’t get through a single swipe on my Twitter timeline without reading countless contradictory opinions and analysis on effective teaching methods or government initiatives. Normally I would say that this is a positive thing: free speech, the ability to argue, the opportunity to reflect. But occasionally it all seems a bit much and my poor little noggin gets confused. (This probably explains why I’ve started following @FacesPics – nothing eases my confused mind better than occasionally looking at inanimate objects that look like they’re frowning.)

The problem with Twitter being such a rich source of information and opinion is that it constantly reminds me of the million things I’m not doing or simply don’t know about: I don’t know what ‘dichotomy of teaching’ actually means! I also couldn’t honestly tell you what teaching style I prefer…I don’t think I have one: one that works? Or is that too vague?

Don’t get me wrong, I love reading everything that people put out there and it makes me think but therein lies the danger. It often makes me want to try EVERYTHING! My deputy and I had to make an agreement at the start of this year or rather I had to make a promise: any fabulous idea that I had stumbled upon I had to keep to myself. This was because our morning conversations often went like this:

Deputy: Morning, how are you?

Me: Oh fine, fine. You?

Deputy: I’m fine. So today I’m meeting with the support staff to go through how to use numicon.

Me: That’s great. I read this blog last night and I think we should be teaching maths through role play!

It just wasn’t helpful anymore. So now I still read Twitter and blogs but when my head starts swimming with ideas I close my eyes, say my safe word and find a picture of a stapler that looks like it’s laughing. And everything is OK.

Now to the game. This is a cliché isn’t it: it’s all a game. Lesson observations are a game, ofsted is a game, learning objectives are a game, PE is a-well that sort of is a game isn’t it. I don’t know why we label everything that we feel we have to do as being a game. By doing so what are we actually saying? Are we saying that we don’t value a process but are doing it anyway? If so aren’t we then removing ourselves from any accountability? (I did it, I didn’t do it well because I didn’t believe in it and therefore it hasn’t worked but that’s not my fault because if you remember I did say at the beginning that it was just a game?) Or are we becoming conditioned to feeling like we do not own our profession anymore but we lumber on because somewhere we can remember why we chose this profession in the first place.

A week doesn’t seem to go by when a new rule isn’t added to this game. Many schools are pressured/advised into doing things in a particular way or focussing on a specific element of teaching in order to show progress: mark like this, write learning objectives like this, differentiate this way, structure lessons like that, challenge pupils by doing this not that. Many of the ideas will be perfectly valid and if it genuinely helps why not but this isn’t the game is it? The game has now become the evidencing of it all. The evidence that we are required to show in order to prove that we did it…the proof, it seems, is no longer in the pudding.

For example: a senior leader and I were discussing a work scrutiny focussed on differentiation and marking. We couldn’t see clear differentiation three ways. We talked about it and started to focus on what this teacher needed to do – and then we stopped. What were we suggesting? Were we suggesting what the teacher had to do in order to meet the needs of the pupils or what the teacher needed to do so that we could see ‘differentiation’ when flicking through the books? If it was the latter than sadly, we would be playing the bloody game. And what would be the real point in that? I spoke to the teacher a couple of days later and I can honestly say that they know each and every pupil like the back of their hand and they know exactly what they need to do in order to get there. I think that is good enough for me. As I said earlier…I think I like whatever works.

I think it is time to pause the spin cycle. Ignore populist and current ideas. Put to bed systems that only demonstrate what management did during non-contact time. We must be brave and focus on what we know our pupils need; not what we are told makes a generic good school. If we do focus on what our pupils need and work hard to make sure they get it, how can we fail in becoming a good school? Then hopefully, others around us will see the value in what we’re asking them to do and will support us in doing it consistently every day. Maybe more importantly,  they won’t fear or be suspicious of our methods or involvement in their teaching.

Education: it is not a game but it is worth fighting for.

No school is an island…Director’s Commentary

theprimaryhead1 Comment

Well. There’s always a fear that what you chuck up on a blog will upset and offend. I personally do not do this intentionally but in a particular post on partnerships I appear to have done just that. What with Wilshaw spitting blood and a group of Heads spitting feathers over my thoughts on partnerships, all I need to do is start spitting beaks and we’ll have ourselves a whole chicken.

I never like to go to bed on an argument so I thought I would revisit my post and hopefully offer some clear insights into its content with the sole intention of reassuring my fellow Heads that no offense or particular focus on any one partnership was intended. What follows is a Director’s commentary: I hope it is read in the spirit it is intended.

Partnerships

This friendly sounding word is fast becoming a synonym for ‘quality assured school improvement’. It really isn’t. It’s actually symbolic of crumbling local authority power and conquering egos and downright laziness. In the confusing landscape of academies and free schools, locally maintained schools were drawn into a panic – even the local authority was clambering around all over the place desperately asking Head Teachers to write down on post-it notes their ideas for ‘what should a local authority do?’ Surprisingly the common answer of PROVIDE A SERVICE AND A DIRECTION FOR SCHOOLS YOU SCHMUCKS didn’t seem to resonate. And as their power crumbled and their money ran out and their capacity for ideas vanished there was suddenly a new expectation for schools: become a partnership.

I WAS AT THAT MEETING AND IT WAS GENUINELY SAD. THE LOCAL AUTHORITY WAS ASKING FOR HELP AS IT HAD LOST ITSELF. IT WAS AS IF THEY FELT UNABLE TO OFFER A STRONG CASE FOR BEING A LOCALLY MAINTAINED SCHOOL. THIS HAD BEEN FELT BY SOME SCHOOLS WHO HAD STARTED WORKING TOGETHER VERY SUCCESSFULLY. THEY WERE A TRUE SUCCESS STORY AND I GUESS THE LA WERE HOPING IT WAS THE ANSWER: SOMETHING THEY COULD SUGGEST THAT RELIED ON SCHOOLS PROVIDING AND LEADING THEIR OWN IMPROVEMENT JOURNEYS.

The logic is simple: the local authority cannot offer any significant ideas or support schools in any sustained capacity (three visits a year if you’re doing ok, sack the head and put in a temporary ‘superhead’ replacement until you become an academy if you’re not) so why not join up with other schools and work together to improve each other. On paper it sounds like ‘The Waltons’ but in reality it’s more ‘The Apprentice’. A bunch of self-serving Heads who use the partnership process to artificially validate their development plan whilst smugly identifying the weaknesses in other schools. When together they fawn over each other and regale people with how the partnership is the only thing that allowed them to improve: ‘It’s so much more robust than an Ofsted inspection and we really challenge each other.’ No you don’t: you say you do so when Ofsted arrives you can say: ‘well if you disagree with me you disagree with four other schools – and you gave two of them outstanding six months ago so…’

THE PARTNERSHIPS THAT HAVE EVOLVED HAVE DONE JUST THAT: EVOLVED, BASED ON THE NEEDS AND INTERESTS OF THE SCHOOLS. BUT SURELY ANYONE CAN SEE A REAL DANGER IN EXPECTING THIS TO BE ‘THE MODEL’. THERE ARE SO MANY POTENTIAL DANGERS. ONE OF THEM COULD BE HEADS WHO HAVE GONE ABOUT THE PARTNERSHIP IN A SUPERFICIAL MANNER– HORRIBLE TO CONSIDER BUT IT IS A POSSIBILITY. UNLESS THERE WERE SOME PRETTY ROBUST GROUND RULES IN PLACE TO PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING WITH CLEAR REGULATIONS BUT NO ONE SUGGESTED THAT.

But these partnerships are fast becoming the expected model for all schools and lauded by the local authority. We are all told to learn from them because it’s a fool proof solution isn’t it: ‘Just gather a group of schools together and get improving’. Hmm, call me old fashioned but I prefer, oh, what’s it called…oh yes, substance. These partnerships are like Shell Suits: fashionable for a time but sooner or later they’re going to become yesterday’s fad or go up in flames.

THIS IS MY BIGGEST FEAR. THE LACK OF REGULATION DUE TO DECREASED CENTRALISED POWER FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY WOULD MEAN THAT THERE WOULD BE AN INFINITE NUMBER OF PARTNERSHIPS ALL WORKING SEPARATELY FROM EACH OTHER. THIS SOUNDS LIKE A DISASTER WAITING TO HAPPEN.

I mean, what happens when one of them fails – how are the other schools responsible? They’re not. Will they help pick up the pieces? Or will they suddenly be too busy running their own schools? And when that failing school gets converted will they want to be part of the partnership? I doubt it. What happens when one of the Heads leave? Will the incoming Head want to automatically be part of this magical partnership? Possibly not, so what then? Does the partnership just gradually die? Do the Heads still meet up each Christmas and remind themselves of what a dynamic team they made and reminisce about the good old days they spent together furthering their own careers?

THIS BIT IS ABOUT LONGEVITY AND CONTINGENCY PLANS THAT NEED SERIOUS CONSIDERATION IF THE IDEA OF SCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS IS GOING TO WORK. SOMEWHERE AMONGST MY QUESTIONS OFFER A PARADOXICAL DILEMMA: IF THEY ARE SCHOOL TO SCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS WITH MINIMAL CENTRALISED DIRECTION WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE STRUCTURE OF THE SCHOOL CHANGES-WHO HAS RESPONSIBILITY? WILL THERE BE A POOR SCHOOL LEFT OUT IN THE COLD?

What about the schools that aren’t in partnerships? I mean we all have our cluster groups but should these partnerships be dictated by geography? If so will they all be equally effective? And there’s the main point of the epipha-not: there’s no logic, strategy, plan behind the idea of partnerships. It’s just something that some schools have done and some have been successful so therefore it is now seen as ‘the’ successful model of school improvement for our age. It’s also a sentence Ofsted can happily cut and paste into their report: ‘the school forges effective links with a local school partnership that has played an integral part of the school’s self-improvement plan’.  At which point the local authority officer will pipe up and say ‘I told him to join a partnership’ and all the other schools in the partnership will quickly add a self-congratulatory line in their own SEF.

THIS IS ABOUT HOW WE CREATE THESE PARTNERSHIPS. THE SUCCESSFUL ONES (AND THEY ARE MIGHTILY SUCCESSFUL) ARE SO BECAUSE IT HAS HAPPENED NATURALLY. THEY ARE (AND PLEASE DON’T TAKE THIS THE WRONG WAY) FREAKS. THERE MUST BE SOME JOINED UP CENTRALISED THINKING OTHERWISE SCHOOLS UP AND DOWN THE LAND ARE AT THE MERCY OF NATURAL SELECTION. SURELY THAT IS THE POINT OF A LOCAL AUTHORITY: THEY MAKE SURE EVERYONE HAS A FAIR CHANCE OF DOING WELL FOR THE CHILDREN AND FAMILIES WE SERVE.

So forgive me if I’m not inspired to forge a partnership with other schools. Forgive me that I want something better for my school and all the other schools in the city I work bloody hard for.  And forgive me that the more I hear about these superficial partnerships the more I feel that they are nothing more than a cheap piece of smoke and mirrors that help the movers and shakers of education sleep better an night. And please, please, please forgive me for thinking that there’s got to be something better around the corner. Maybe Bristol’s new Director of schools (or Director for people and houses (or something)) can provide us with something better. I hope so – otherwise what’s the bloody point?

THE MEETING THAT INSPIRED THIS BLOG HAPPENED LAST SUMMER WHERE IT FELT LIKE THE LAST DAYS OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE. NOW WE HAVE A MAYOR’S VISION (UM, MAYBE I’LL COME TO THAT LATER) AND A NEW DIRECTOR. I MET HIM. HE SEEMS NICE. HE SEEMS SINCERE AND I HOPE AND EXPECT HIM TO BRING BACK THE VISION AND STRUCTURE TO THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AND I HOPE HE KNOWS THAT HE WILL BE SUPPORTED AS HE DOES IT BY ISLANDS AND ARCHIPELAGOS IN EQUAL MEASURE.

Hey that’s it. I Did it make anything clearer? Who knows? But I wouldn’t want to upset people (unnecessarily). No personal attack was ever intended, that’s just your paranoia. Now I’ve got blood, feathers and beaks to clear up. 

Ofsted Inspections: Fairly without fear or favour…who are you kidding?

theprimaryhead10 Comments

Image

It is hard trying to run an organisation whilst simultaneously trying to improve it: this is made doubly hard when you are doing so in an open environment. When you are constantly made aware of the unpopularity  of your decisions  by the very people whom you are trying to improve or trying to make improvements for. It really doesn’t help then, when the people above you behave in a way that makes you wish you could put them on the naughty step until they’re sorry – voicing their opinions which seem to contradict previous agreements, or putting pressure on you to change course. So no wonder that Wilshaw is ‘spitting blood’ over some of Gove’s alleged words and actions against Ofsted.

Poor Wilshaw, I thought, that really has the potential to ruin your weekend. Then I read another quote from Wilshaw about Ofsted: ‘As long as we exist we will do the job fairly, without fear or favour’. And at this point I had to laugh at the sheer self-pitying and self-indulgent notion of this statement. How about you, Sir Michael, consider those F words from the perspective of the people who are at the mercy of your blunt instrument of torture improvement.

Fairly

Is Ofsted fair? I am the first to agree that schools need support and validation from an independent and external body in order to help improve achievement for all children in the country. But is the current system fair? No. A system cannot be described as being fair when it lacks a key ingredient for fairness: consistency.

I strive for consistency. I truly believe that it is the key for sustained school improvement. Find out what works and do it well. If you apply this to any aspect of school life it will have a positive impact right across the school. Yet it is impossible to apply this to Ofsted. Having recently heard a Head who is in the middle of their training to be an inspector, I was alarmed when he said the following:

‘The entire focus was on how to fill in the evaluation forms: you don’t write a judgmental statement down unless you can back it up with evidence. You have to be able to have a chain of evidence that backs up the reason behind your judgement.’

That sounds ok doesn’t it…but he continued:

‘We then saw examples of a lesson and we had to evaluate it as if we were carrying out an inspection. Around the trainees in the room, our judgement on the quality of teaching varied from inadequate to good. I suggested that this was something we should probably discuss but was told the variety in judgements did not matter…all that mattered was that we each could refer to evidence behind our judgements. It didn’t matter what we thought only that we could argue it.’

How is that fair? How can a school’s inspection result being mainly determined by the lead inspector’s whim and own personal interpretation of what the school ought to be doing be a fair system through which to judge the quality of education across the country?

Without Fear

Is it any wonder that schools fear Ofsted? When it is so transparently clear that schools are not judged in a consistent or fair manner you can’t blame schools for living Monday to Wednesday 2:00pm in a state of fear. How can you prepare for something when you have no idea what tangent the inspection will go off on? Is the lead an early year’s specialist, a data obsessive (which normally means they can only interpret data if it’s presented in a way they like), someone who has judged the school before entering, someone who values PE above everything else, someone who prefers a particular teaching method? There is no consistency in what individual inspectors are looking for or think, so, schools cannot trust the teams entering their school.

I appreciate that every school is different but that doesn’t mean inspections should vary so wildly. Inspections should be focused on the consistent effectiveness of schools over time. They should gather information and work with the leadership team to find out how good the school is based on agreed national expectations (no data myths) and against the school’s contextual information. We would all know where we stand and we would all be able to welcome Ofsted into our schools.

Without Favour

Actually the idea that Ofsted aren’t doing anyone any favours isn’t wildly inaccurate – but that’s probably not what Wilshaw was inferring. (I get it Mike, and you have my permission to charge into every free school like a massive bull in a tiny china shop and go knock yourself out.) I want to love Ofsted. In my particular experience I got the result the school needed in order to help get everyone on board with my improvement plan.  But the inspection itself was a truly horrendous experience that did nothing to suggest that Ofsted are robust bastions of education. Instead I felt that it was a hoop, a barbed wired hoop being held by an ignorant bully, which I had to squeeze my school through in order to get on with improving my school. That is not right.

So I support Wilshaw’s rhetoric of ‘fairness without fear and without favour’ but after he’s got to the bottom of his gripes with Gove – he’s still got a long way to go.