The Edudicator

I've got to go

2013-05-08T15:16:00.002+01:00

I'm sorry to say I'm wrapping things up for the time being.

I just can't commit myself to you as much as I want as I'm a full time working, part time studying Mum now.

I'm leaving the content up but disabling the interactive aspects of the blog until I can dedicate more time to this.

In the future I intend to pursue a career in employment law and human resources, and this blog has been valuable experience. I'd like to turn the work that I've done here into a book.

Thank you all so much for the praise and support, and I've been more happy than you know to discover that I've not been the only one, not by a long shot. I hope I've been of help to you, so far.

Contact your union or post on TES Forums if you need advice.

Ed

Frightened Staff: why school managers want teachers to be scared

2013-05-01T10:00:00.000+01:00

It’s better to be feared than loved, apparently. This Machiavellian belief is very evident in schools today, where senior managers deliberately create cultures of fear amongst their staff.

Personally, I think there is a difference between being feared and creating fear. The former is encouraging proper respect in your employees, so that your presence creates a desire to work hard whether they believe in the work or not, they will at least want to please you. This is a good leader.

The latter is creating a permanent atmosphere of fear in employees, that is there whether you are or not. Staff think that any one tiny infringement against the establishment will definitely result in ‘terrible things’ happening. They may or may not work hard, but they will certainly work cautiously and on egg shells, yet at the same time know absolutely that it is only a matter of time before their human nature causes them to make a mistake, and that will be the end of them. This is a bad leader.

I think the second description is most prevalent in schools today because the response to raising standards has always been to raise pressure, not to improve conditions. Passing this pressure down the hill has been allowed to evolve unchecked, so that adding more fear is both allowed and encouraged.

Finding another way of operating would, in this environment of institutional bullying, be seen to be weak, and no one is willing to be the trail blazer and stick their neck out to change it. Running a school is a job for conformists.

Managers want teachers to be afraid of losing their jobs, their livelihoods, their reputations and their entire careers. All are within the control of internal SMTs and the destruction of them requires no input from external ombudsman, leaving teachers with little protection against managers who want to destroy them in this way. Excessive fear, even if nothing happens, contributes significantly to mental health issues.

Heads have, over the years, campaigned and won the right to this exclusive control over their staff in order to maintain the culture of fear properly. SMT now create this fear by spying, manufacturing evidence and using unofficial references, meaning that even teachers who have done nothing wrong should still be afraid.

Businesses know well enough that creating such an atmosphere would result in staff leaving for a better deal. I hope that the increasing numbers of teachers leaving the profession, and the difficulty that even politicians acknowledge there is in recruiting good staff, will result in a major shift that allows teachers to work without fear.

Are you teaching in fear? Have you been a victim of bullying and felt that you have been used as an example to invoke fear in other teachers? Please feel free to comment below.

Workplace dilemmas FAQs

2013-04-24T10:00:00.000+01:00

“Workplace Dilemmas” as they are termed on TES forums are so commonplace in teaching so as to warrant an entire forum dedicated to them. There are countless teachers who are experiencing a crisis at work that threatens their future in the profession as well as their sanity.

It makes for depressing reading, although some comfort is found in the fact that a lot of the complaints are very similar, i.e. you are not alone. These are the most common dilemmas, as well as some accompanying advice.

Student teacher, no support, bullied, failing placement

Contact regional representative of union

Report to university but expect no support

Ask that everything be referenced to proper standards – don’t allow personal/irrelevant criticisms onto written documents

Most likely outcome: repeat placement, graduate later

NQT, workload too high, bullied, failing assessment, changing schools

Contact regional representative of union

Ask that everything be referenced to proper standards – don’t allow personal/irrelevant criticisms onto written documents

Look for other jobs, negotiate an agreed reference.

Most likely outcome: supply, eventual permanent post, extension on NQT

Established teacher, not getting easier, mental health issues

Go to your GP, follow their advice

Try and cut corners with no one noticing

Look for other jobs, negotiate an agreed reference

Most likely outcome: find a nicer place to work or change career

Very experienced teacher, too expensive, being bullied out

Contact regional representative of union

Go to your GP, follow their advice and request visits to occupational health

Beware of traps and manufactured evidence

Most likely outcome: early retirement or downgrading to a different job

Middle management or SMT (not head), punching bag for head

Be assertive and just don’t allow it

Look for other jobs, negotiate an agreed reference

Beware of traps and manufactured evidence

Most likely outcome: find a nicer place to work

This is all very basic and very general advice, meant to simply highlight your first points of call in a situation. Additional action should be taken as appropriate to your case, and each one will be different. If you think I can help, please email me, but I’m no substitute for the other ports of call. At least you know it’s not only happening to you, and that you fall into a group of teachers who are all being persecuted in the same way.

Teaching on the Cheap

2013-04-17T10:00:00.000+01:00

Austerity measures are very familiar to every single person in this country, I’m sure, no matter what profession you’re working in. Everyone is trying to do everything on the cheap, with ‘doing more with less’ as their mantra. Teaching is no exception.

While it is fairly obvious that a reduction in spending will reduce standards anywhere, I think it’s worth highlighting how this is being done in particular in education. Every public service is fighting their corner in order to justify their existence and their funding, and this is intended as an argument as to why you can’t scrimp on education.

There are two main ways in which costs are kept down in teaching: by using inexperienced staff and by using unqualified staff.

Teachers in their first few years on the job are cheaper, and hiring them means you can get the same amount (not quality) of work from them for less money. You could argue that a lot of the bullying and workload issues are caused by SMT trying to get quality from inexperienced staff, i.e., by forcibly squeezing it out of them.

The problem here is that teachers automatically move up the main scale each year, so that employing an NQT as a cheap option becomes expensive by default. This could be one reason why new teachers are bullied out of the job early on: they are cannon fodder, and can be easily replaced year on year with desperate unemployed graduates.

Similarly, I’ve noticed a new trend in older, more expensive teachers suddenly being hounded out of their job on capability proceedings, after years of good and outstanding lessons. The truth is that evidence they are incapable has been manufactured to get them out of the door, to be replaced with someone cheaper.

There has been a rise in recent years in the use of unqualified staff to teach lessons in order to reduce costs. Most notably this has been in the creation of the role of cover supervisor, who covers all lessons internally in a school where previously external supply teachers would be used. Supply agencies generally now only sign up cover supervisors and there is zero work for a qualified supply teacher.

Higher level teaching assistants are used in a similar way, some even planning and delivering lessons regularly. In positions where there is a high staff turnover of teachers, unqualified staff can be left covering lessons for an extended or large percentage of the time.

So, some students receive most of their education from unqualified teachers, and the new school models of free schools and academies further erode the requirement for a teacher to actually be qualified.

As I’ve already mentioned in part, costs are also kept down by bullying and workload issues. Qualified, experienced staff employed on a long term basis can still be used to provide a cheap service by piling more work on them, in particular administrative duties, which will allow less staff to be employed overall. Bullying someone can force them to agree to unreasonable demands like this.

Have you been replaced by someone cheaper? Have you witnessed quality suffer through the use of unqualified staff? Please comment below.

Subject Specific Misery

2013-04-10T10:00:00.000+01:00

I’ve noticed that teacher’s lives are made more difficult by the way in which ‘the system’ works. It’s well known that there is a huge problem with excessive reform leaving teachers with an instable and chaotic working environment. Another example is the issue with exclusion – in order to keep exclusion figures down, students who deserve this sanction are often left in school, and teachers are then held solely accountable for their behaviour.

In addition to these whole school issues, there are some subject specific ones that I’ve had teachers complain to me about. These not only can make a difficult job impossible, but as they are subject specific, can often mean a member of SMT is unsympathetic towards them if it is outside their subject specialism, adding to the misery.

I start with my own subject, music.

Two tier Music

In order to study GCSE and A level music, you have to have achieved a certain level of performance ability. This is not taught in keystage 2 or 3 music, so that in order to be able to study for these qualifications, you need to have instrumental tuition outside of school. Those that don’t get the tuition, can’t progress to qualifications in this subject.

There are schemes to counteract this, such as wider opportunities or schools subsidising lessons through a music service, but none of this is consistent across all schools. This effects the uptake of music beyond keystage 3, and can effect results where students have been accepted onto a course and have no instrumental tuition, both things that I’m sure you’re aware can land a teacher in serious trouble.

Drama and Dance in other subjects

I’ve worked in performing arts departments, and currently Drama is featured as a section within the national curriculum for English, and Dance appears in the PE document. Whereas you are unlikely to find a weekly lesson of Dance at keystage 3, Drama is regularly included as a separate lesson in a student’s timetable.

This causes two problems: firstly there is much less information for a teacher to plan their lessons with than if it was a standalone subject. This makes provision across different schools too varied, leaves teachers vulnerable to in house manipulation by SMT creating their own requirements, and gives new teachers less of an idea of what they should be doing. Secondly, it diminishes it’s importance in everybody’s eyes, to the point where students see it as an easy lesson.

Behind the times ICT

Everyone knows that the world of computing, by it’s very nature, moves fast and those working with IT need to constantly update their skills in order to remain current. The national curriculum and exam specifications don’t do this enough for this subject, which leaves student’s knowledge obsolete. There is also a distinct lack of coding, networking and ‘administrator’ activities and too much of a focus on ‘end user’ activities.

Irrelevant MFL

Most schools offer French, Spanish and maybe German as MFL options, with Welsh featuring across the border. Are these really the most relevant languages currently? It’s the equivalent of only allowing music students the choice of a few traditional, easy choice instruments. What about offering Mandarin, Hindi or Arabic to allow students to compete in the modern business world?

Maths is too abstract

All teenagers say that they don’t need half the stuff they learn in Maths, and we’re all familiar with attempts to make maths relevant by starting questions with, “Susie is on a train travelling at 40mph, and leaves the station at 11:20am...” But I don’t think this goes far enough, and I’m speaking as someone who loved discrete abstract maths and took it at A level. Students are crying out for education in personal finances, business accounts and economics as well as discrete study that supports scientific subjects.

RE too variable

RE lessons have no National Curriculum, only non statutory guidance. Non-denominational schools have their curriculum set by the local education authority, through the advice of a local SACRE and ASC groups, who produce an agreed syllabus. Denominational schools take their advice from their own denomination.

Are there any other subject issues that you’d like to add? Do you agree with what I’ve written, or have I got your subject all wrong? Please comment below with your thoughts.

High standards vs unreasonable expectations

2013-03-20T10:00:00.000+00:00

Expectations of teachers are getting higher and higher. Teachers are being expected to work longer hours, take on more and more tasks, teach to ever increasing standards and be ever more exemplary in their conduct when off duty. I also often come across teachers who are set targets internally that are obviously unattainable, and sometimes doing that is used as a bullying tactic.

I understand the importance of continual improvement, and that of high standards, but there is also a point where that all becomes unreasonable, and this is never acknowledged. It is perfectly possible that standards are set so high that 100% of the people can’t achieve it, everybody is a failure and the bar that you’ve set becomes completely unrealistic.

It is also possible that expectations become so high that doing them results in most people making huge sacrifices in terms of family and personal life, suffering mental health issues, making the salary received not worth it and causing talented people to leave the profession for a better deal.

I’ve often thought of why this happens, and what’s in it for management, and the following is what I’ve come up with.

Firstly there is the belief that if you have high expectations of students, then they will surprise you by actually achieving them. A nice idea, designed to stop teachers labeling students as weak and consistently presuming they are not very able. Managers, like many other things, then apply this to their staff as if they are students, and suddenly you have a situation where managers work under the premise that, ‘if you set it as a standard, it will automatically happen’.

I can expect all my students to achieve an A, but I have to also accept the fact that some of them won’t. It was meant to be used as a motivational tool: an exercise in thinking and potential, rather than reality and results. All teachers are expected to be good, all teachers want to be, but that doesn’t make it happen.

I think there is also a culture of ‘do unto others, before they do to you’ in education, so that the bar is set unreasonably high to remove any sense of weakness on the part of management. If you allow people the luxury of human error, grey areas and bending the rules, then that’s an inch too much to give, and you’ll get hung with it.

I’ve mentioned already that it can be used to bully, so that managers can set a target that is unachievable and state that in their opinion it is reasonable. When the teacher inevitably doesn’t achieve it, then that forms evidence that can be used to ruin them.

And that’s it: that’s everything I can think of. Can you offer any other explanations? Please comment below.

How to Use TES Forums

2013-03-13T10:00:00.000+00:00

TES Forums are brilliant when you are trying to navigate the unwritten rules in teaching, and if you’re not already using or contributing to them, then start now. You can get an answer to any kind of question you have, and support with any kind of issue you are having. Here are some tips on how to use them to best effect, and who exactly can help you.

Stay anonymous: don’t just create a username that bears no relation to your name or you as a person, but don’t give away any details that will allow you to be recognised. That goes for in private messages as well: you never know who you are talking to.
Post it in the right forum: some of the forums aren’t used at all and so your post won’t get seen. Helpful TESsers will tell you if they think you’d be better posting it somewhere else, and sometimes it’s worth posting in more than one.
Ignore the trolls: there are plenty of SMT wannabes who think they know everything and that all teachers except them are useless, and chances are you’ll run into one. Treat them like any other internet troll and don’t feed them.
Ignore the dogooders: If you’re attempting to uncover what’s really going on, and someone gives you a response that you could have guessed yourself, i.e. “If you are the best person for the job then the interview process will uncover this.” Yeah, right! Ignore them, and listen to those that seem to speak from experience.
Don’t take advice as gospel: Answers to questions related to the law, health and human resources issues should only be taken as indicators, not as definitive answers.
Don’t get depressed: TES forums are a negative place, full of accounts of bullying, malicious behaviour and mental health problems. But, you know, welcome to education.

There are certain people who you can ask questions of directly. With the exception of gardening leaves, they won’t reply to private messages, so you will need to post a new thread beginning with “Dear <person>,” to get their attention.

Tom Bennett: “Dear Tom” for issues on behaviour management

Theo Griff: “Dear Theo” for issues on job seeking and careers

Sagacious: “Dear Sage” for student and NQT issues

Gardening Leaves: for legal issues

Happy TESsing!

http://www.tes.co.uk/forums.aspx

How Ofsted Grading Criteria Can Be Manipulated 5

2013-02-27T10:00:00.000+00:00

This is the fifth and final post in a series where I look at the Ofsted grade descriptors and show you how they are open to manipulation. I’d really like to hear from people who feel that their performance has been given a grade that is not accurate in order to meet someone’s personal agenda. If this has happened to you, please comment below, or email me.

5. Grade Descriptors: overall effectiveness

Outstanding: Practice in the subject consistently reflects the highest aspirations for pupils and expectations of staff. Best practice is spread effectively in a drive for continuous improvement. Teaching in the subject is likely to be outstanding and together with a rich curriculum, which is highly relevant to pupils’ needs, it contributes to outstanding learning and achievement or, in exceptional circumstances, achievement that is good and rapidly improving.

Good: Effective action is taken in the subject to enable most pupils to reach their potential. Pupils benefit from teaching that is at least good. This promotes very positive attitudes to learning and ensures that achievement in the subject is at least good. Leadership and management of the subject play a significant role in this and are good overall.

Satisfactory: Achievement, the quality of teaching and learning and leadership and management of the subject are all likely to be at least satisfactory with some significant good practice.

Inadequate: Achievement is inadequate. The quality of teaching is inadequate. The curriculum is inadequate. Leadership and management are inadequate.

Firstly, there is a confusion of whether the achievement of students needs to be good or outstanding in order to achieve an outstanding overall. Also, you can have ‘significant good practice’ and still be classed as satisfactory. The actual difference between the grades is therefore very woolly, and your grade can be argued up or down by an observer very easily.

Similarly, students are in control here, because if they choose to not work and therefore underachieve, or as described in the good section, that they don’t achieve their potential, they are ruining your performance, not their own. This creates the situation most teachers complain about, where if the students don’t do the work, you have to do it for them, or it’s you that suffers.

What I find most frustrating is the description for the inadequate grade, which simply states ‘x is inadequate, and y is inadequate’. So, the only evidence you need in order to give someone an inadequate is someone’s opinion that that is the case.

Outstanding: Thoughtful and wide-ranging promotion of the pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development in the subject enables them to thrive. Consequently, pupils and groups of pupils have excellent experiences in the subject, ensuring they are very well equipped for the next stage of their education, training or employment.

Good: Deliberate and effective action is taken to promote the pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development. A positive climate for learning exists and pupils and groups of pupils have highly positive experiences in the subject so that they are well prepared for the next stage in their education, training or employment.

Satisfactory: Reasonable steps are taken to promote pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development. Pupils and groups of pupils have a generally positive experience in the subject and are not disadvantaged as they move to the next stage of their education, training or employment.

Inadequate: There are important weaknesses in the promotion of pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development resulting in a poor climate for learning in the subject where pupils or groups of pupils are unable to thrive.

This is actually one of the most lucid set of criteria from Ofsted, because you can clearly see the difference between the grades, and sections of it are directly compatible. Much of the descriptors are missing that clarity.

I would argue that many a student would say that they had not had a positive experience of any of their schooling, despite the teacher’s best efforts, in which case you cannot achieve above ‘inadequate’. It’s allowing students to control the outcome for the teacher again, and making teachers responsible for things that they cannot control.

So, in conclusion of this whole series, the Ofsted grade descriptors are generally vague and not explicit enough or requiring very much evidence other than someone’s opinion. It is difficult to tell the difference between grades in some sections, and some parts seem to directly contradict themselves. There is an emphasis on making teachers responsible for things that they can’t control, and there are many logical errors that simply cannot actually exist on reflection.

The chance of you actually being given an accurate assessment of your performance given all the above is very slim.

If you want to read the full Ofsted grade descriptors they can be found at this link.

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/generic-grade-descriptors-and-supplementary-subject-specific-guidance-for-inspectors-making-judgemen

How Ofsted Grading Criteria Can Be Manipulated 4

2013-02-20T10:00:00.000+00:00

This is the fourth post in a series, where I look at the generic grade descriptors from Ofsted, and show you exactly how vague they are, and how grades are based more on personal opinion rather than actual evidence. As with previous sections of the criteria, it was difficult to split the descriptors up into comparable sentences, and this fourth section was particularly jumbled.

4. Grade Descriptors: quality of leadership and management

Outstanding: Key leaders focus relentlessly on improving teaching and learning, resulting in teaching that is likely to be outstanding and at least consistently good.

Good: Key leaders and managers consistently communicate high expectations and ambition in the subject.

Satisfactory: Key leaders and managers provide a concerted approach to improvement in the subject.

Inadequate: Capacity for further improvement is limited because current leaders and managers have been ineffective in securing essential improvements.

In the first instance, I notice that in order for a head of department to achieve an outstanding, all the teachers in that subject need to have achieved a ‘good’. This creates a situation where HODs are putting enough pressure to be counted as bullying on teachers who fall below this standard.

I’m also very confused by the difference between the grades of good and satisfactory, the former requiring managers to ‘consistently communicate high expectations and ambition’ and the latter ‘a concerted approach to improvement’. I just don’t see a clear path from bad approaches to improvement to good approaches there. I’m no Ofsted inspector, but I’m also not stupid, and this lack of clarity would allow someone to manipulate an inspection result very easily. Perhaps if the good descriptor said something along the lines of, ‘an effective approach to improvement’ it would be much more linear.

Outstanding: Actions are based on a deep and accurate understanding of performance in the subject.

Good: Planned actions based on accurate self-evaluation to overcome weaknesses have been concerted and effective. As a result, achievement has improved or consolidated previous good performance.

Satisfactory: Planned actions by leaders and managers have improved the quality of teaching so that very little is inadequate.

Inadequate: Leaders and managers are not taking effective steps to secure satisfactory and better teaching for all groups of pupils, including disabled pupils and those who have special educational needs.

What’s with the use of the word ‘concerted’ all the time? Not only that, but here it’s jumped from the satisfactory grade to the good. If someone is being ‘concerted’ then you can argue that they are either satisfactory or good, whichever one the observer feels like. And if everyone has got to achieve good, then this will make or break whoever you are assessing.

Again it’s difficult to see a clear path from inadequate to outstanding, as the language changes around so much between grades. A ‘deep and accurate understanding of performance’ in outstanding becomes ‘accurate self-evaluation to improve weaknesses’ in good: would good not better be described as simply ‘an accurate understanding of performance’? You can then clearly see that in order to achieve an outstanding grade, you need to deepen your understanding of how your subject is performing.

Outstanding: The pursuit of excellence in all activities relating to the subject is demonstrated by an uncompromising and highly successful drive to strongly improve achievement, or maintain the highest levels of achievement, for all pupils including disabled pupils and those who have special educational needs, over a sustained period of time.

Good: They model good practice and demonstrably work to monitor, improve and support teaching, encouraging the enthusiasm of staff and channelling their efforts and skills to good effect. As a result, teaching is improving and is at least satisfactory, with much that is good.

Satisfactory: Capacity to secure improvements in the subject is demonstrated by a trend of sustained improvement in achievement although a few significant weaknesses remain.

Inadequate: Despite remedying a few small areas of weakness, perhaps recently, improvements are fragile, too slow or depend on external support.

Now the grades seemed to have jumped again, so that in order to achieve a good, then most teaching needs to be good. That’s how I see it anyway, but you could also interpret what’s written here as the teaching needs to be satisfactory in order to achieve a good as a head of department.

I’m also concerned that SEN students only appear in the outstanding criteria. The wording for that particular grade also contains the word ‘uncompromising’, which I think encourages HODs to again put as much pressure on teachers as they possibly can. I’ve seen and heard of a lot of inhumane, bullying and unreasonable behaviour towards teachers, all done in the name of high standards, and it’s exactly that zero-tolerance approach that has caused it.

If you want to read the full Ofsted grade descriptors they can be found at this link.

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/generic-grade-descriptors-and-supplementary-subject-specific-guidance-for-inspectors-making-judgemen

Do you agree that these descriptors are worded in a confusing and unclear manner? Do you think they imply that managers need to relentlessly expect more and more of teachers, no matter what the human cost? Please comment below.

How Ofsted Grading Criteria Can Be Manipulated 3

2013-02-13T10:00:00.000+00:00

This is the third in a series of posts that looks at the generic grade descriptors published by Ofsted, and shows you exactly how someone could manipulate them to meet their own ends. So far, the main problems that have been unearthed are:

- the requirement for teachers to do something that is out of their control in order to meet a certain grade

- logical impossibilities relating to the requirement to reach at least a ‘good’ and regarding average student ability and expectations

- vagueness and lack of explicitness that is inconsistent across different grades, in general the criteria for outstanding being much more explicit than that of inadequate

3. Grade Descriptors: the curriculum

Outstanding: The curriculum in the subject provides highly positive, memorable experiences and rich opportunities for high quality learning, has a very positive impact on pupils’ behaviour and, where appropriate, their safety, and contributes very well to pupils’ achievement and, where appropriate, to their spiritual, moral, social and cultural development.

Good: The curriculum in the subject provides well organised, imaginative and effective opportunities for learning for all groups of pupils including disabled pupils and those who have special educational needs, promotes positive behaviour and, where appropriate, their safety, and provides a broad range of experiences that contribute well to the pupils’ achievement and, where appropriate, to their spiritual, moral, social and cultural development.

Satisfactory: The curriculum in the subject is generally matched to pupils’ needs, interests and aspirations and provides adequate preparation for the next stage of their lives, whatever their starting points.

Inadequate: The curriculum in the subject fails to meet the needs of pupils or particular groups of pupils.

Firstly, the inconsistency between the different grade descriptors is very profound here. The most striking is that the only mention of SEN students is within the good criteria (although ‘particular groups’ are mentioned in inadequate), and you can see very clearly that as the grade gets lower, there are noticeably less words used to describe that grade. This means less evidence is required to give someone an inadequate, and more is required to give an outstanding. Surely the amount of evidence generated from a lesson of any level of quality should be the same?

Within the outstanding and good categories itstates, 'curriculum needs to be designed to impact on student’s behaviour': I’m not entirely sure why the two are linked – surely the only thing that can possibly impact behaviour is good behaviour management? Certainly activities can be pitched at students who are known to behave better or worse, for example, better behaved students can cope better with group tasks. But is this not contradictory to high expectations? Also, in order to impact on behaviour, does that not require a restriction in available curriculum opportunities?

Also with regards to this particular requirement, in good you are simply required to ‘promote’ good behaviour, while in outstanding you are required to have an ‘impact’ on it. Did you know that you only need to promote good behaviour to achieve a good, not actually get the students to do the good behaviour? That doesn’t sound right at all, and certainly is not how it is interpreted ‘on the ground’.

If you want to read the full Ofsted grade descriptors they can be found at this link.

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/generic-grade-descriptors-and-supplementary-subject-specific-guidance-for-inspectors-making-judgemen

Can you explain how to make sense of these particular descriptors? Are you satisfied with how your curriculum is being assessed? Please comment below.

How Ofsted Grading Criteria Can Be Manipulated 2

2013-02-06T10:00:00.000+00:00

How Ofsted Grading Criteria Can Be Manipulated

This is the second post in a series showing you exactly how Ofsted grading criteria can be manipulated in order to fit an inspector’s or other assessor’s personal agenda. Exam marking schemes have recently been described by a TES forums poster as, “so vague you can drive a coach and horses through,” and this comment appeared in a recent Ofqual report.

This is not the only framework that is too vague, virtually everything in teaching is tacit, subjective and relies on opinions as evidence, and the Ofsted grade descriptors are no exception. You could argue that this is the most important post in this series, because this is the one that is used to judge your teaching.

2. Grade Descriptors: the quality of teaching

Outstanding: Much of the teaching in the subject is outstanding and never less than consistently good. As a result, almost all pupils are making rapid and sustained progress.

Good: As a result of teaching that is mainly good, with examples of outstanding teaching, most pupils and groups of pupils, including disabled pupils and those who have special educational needs, are achieving well in the subject over time.

Satisfactory: Teaching results in most pupils, and groups of pupils, currently in the school making progress in the subject broadly in line with that made by pupils nationally with similar starting points. There is likely to be some good teaching and there are no endemic inadequacies across year groups or for particular groups of pupils.

Inadequate: As a result of weak teaching, pupils or groups of pupils currently in the school are making inadequate progress. Teaching over time fails to excite, enthuse, engage or motivate particular groups of pupils, including those who have special educational needs and/or disabilities.

So, the opening sentence for the criteria for outstanding, states that the teaching needs to be outstanding. This is repeated in the good category as well, where the teaching needs to be ‘mainly good’. I think this is the best example I’ve found yet of how vague these descriptors really are. Can you not give us more information?

There is also an emphasis on student achievement here: so that whether they fail or succeed is solely your responsibility and none of theirs. Your teaching ability is judged on their learning ability, and this creates the current situation where best practice from the best teachers is to spoon feed to the point of virtually doing the work for them.

Also the only mention of engagement and motivation appears in the inadequate category, so that if students show any signs of boredom, you’ve failed your lesson observation. It also says ‘over time’, which begs the question: how much time? Inspectors aren’t going to come back and observe you throughout the year, so how can that possibly be assessed?

Outstanding: All teachers have consistently high expectations of all pupils.

Good: Teachers have high expectations of all pupils.

Satisfactory: Teachers’ expectations enable most pupils to work hard and achieve satisfactorily and encourage them to make progress.

Inadequate: Teachers do not have sufficiently high expectations.

I don’t understand this section at all. The difference between good and outstanding is ‘teachers’ and ‘all teachers’ – so the judgement of your teaching is based on all the other teachers in your subject doing the same.

Secondly, expectations don’t actually enable anyone to do anything: there is much more to getting students to work hard than simply expecting it to happen. The requirement of high expectations is designed to stop teachers from discouraging low ability students. That’s it.

Outstanding: Drawing on excellent subject knowledge, teachers plan astutely and set challenging tasks based on systematic, accurate assessment of pupils’ prior skills, knowledge and understanding. They use well judged and often imaginative teaching strategies that, together with sharply focused and timely support and intervention, match individual needs accurately. Consequently, pupils learn exceptionally well. Teaching promotes pupils’ high levels of resilience, confidence and independence when they tackle challenging activities. Teachers systematically and effectively check pupils’ understanding throughout lessons, anticipating where they may need to intervene and doing so with notable impact on the quality of learning. Time is used very well and every opportunity is taken to successfully develop crucial skills, including being able to use their literacy and numeracy skills. Appropriate and regular homework contributes very well to pupils’ learning. Marking and constructive feedback from teachers and pupils are frequent and of a consistently high quality, leading to high levels of engagement and interest.

Good: Teachers use their well developed subject knowledge and their accurate assessment of pupils’ prior skills, knowledge and understanding to plan effectively and set challenging tasks. They use effective teaching strategies that, together with appropriately targeted support and intervention, match most pupils’ individual needs so that pupils learn well. Teaching generally promotes pupils’ resilience, confidence and independence when tackling challenging activities. Teachers regularly listen astutely to, carefully observe and skilfully question groups of pupils and individuals during lessons in order to reshape tasks and explanations to improve learning. Teaching consistently deepens pupils’ knowledge and understanding and teaches them a range of skills including literacy and numeracy skills. Appropriate and regular homework contributes well to pupils’ learning. Teachers assess pupils’ progress regularly and accurately and discuss assessments with them so that pupils know how well they have done and what they need to do to improve.

Satisfactory: Due attention is often given to the careful assessment of pupils’ learning but this is not always conducted rigorously enough and may result in some unnecessary repetition of work for pupils and tasks being planned and set that do not fully challenge. Teachers monitor pupils’ work during lessons, picking up any general misconceptions and adjust their plans accordingly to support learning. These adaptations are usually successful but occasionally are not timely or relevant and this slows learning for some pupils. Teaching strategies ensure that the individual needs of pupils are usually met. Teachers carefully deploy any available additional support and set appropriate homework and these contribute reasonably well to the quality of learning for pupils, including disabled pupils and those who have special educational needs. Pupils are informed about the progress they are making and how to improve further through marking and dialogue with adults that is usually timely and encouraging. This approach ensures that most pupils want to work hard and improve.

Inadequate: Learning activities are not sufficiently well matched to the needs of pupils so that they make inadequate progress. Pupils cannot communicate, read, write or use mathematics as well as they should, as appropriate, in the subject.

I’ve had to present the rest in one large chunk, as it’s so difficult to match similar sentences to make clear sections, such is the lack of clarity in these descriptors. The result is that it’s very difficult to look for a certain aspect of teaching and grade them: for example, there is no mention of subject knowledge in the satisfactory and inadequate criteria.

The descriptor for inadequate omits the most information, including differentiation and core skills, and not much else. Therefore, it doesn’t take much in the way of evidence to fail a teacher’s lesson observation.

Finally, interest and working hard form part of the outstanding and satisfactory descriptors respectively, which I consider to be something completely outside of the teacher’s control. You can promote hard work and be interesting, but that doesn’t mean that students are actually going to do that. Hence the phrase, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.”

If you want to read the full Ofsted grade descriptors they can be found at this link.

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/generic-grade-descriptors-and-supplementary-subject-specific-guidance-for-inspectors-making-judgemen

Do you disagree with anything else that appears in these grading criteria? Have you been given a satisfactory or inadequate for petty or far-fetched reasons? Please comment below.

How Ofsted Grading Criteria Can Be Manipulated

2012-12-19T10:00:00.000+00:00

I recently posted about how the new Teacher’s Standards are open to manipulation, (New Teacher’s Standards – how they can be manipulated) and I’ve looked at the Ofsted grade descriptors here in a similar light. Over the next few weeks I’m going to go through the generic aspects of the documents found at the link at the bottom of this post, and show you exactly how they can be manipulated to serve someone’s personal agenda, starting this week with the grade descriptors for achievement. There’s quite a bit to get through so I’ll just get onto it.

1. Grade Descriptors: achievement of pupils

Outstanding: Almost all pupils, including, where applicable, disabled pupils and those with special educational needs, are making rapid and sustained progress in the subject over time given their starting points.

Good: Pupils are making better progress than all pupils nationally in the subject given their starting points. Groups of pupils, including disabled pupils and those with special educational needs, are also making better progress than similar groups of pupils nationally.

Satisfactory: Pupils are progressing at least as well in the subject as all pupils nationally given their starting points. Groups of pupils, including disabled pupils and those with special educational needs, are also making progress in line with similar groups of pupils nationally.

Inadequate: Pupils’ learning and progress, or the learning and progress of particular groups, is consistently below those of all pupils nationally given their starting point. Learning and progress in any key stage, including the sixth form, lead to underachievement. The learning, quality of work and progress of disabled pupils and those with special educational needs show that this group is underachieving.

To me, this is completely illogical. It’s well known that satisfactory is officially no longer satisfactory any more, and that’s been the case unofficially for a while. Here, in order to be satisfactory, your students need to be doing as well as ‘all pupils nationally’. So, in order to be good, which is where you need to be to avoid being in trouble, then your students need to be making better progress than average.

So all the teachers are expected to be good, and have students above average, which makes above average the new average, which causes teachers to have to raise their game again in order to achieve good and so on and so on… It’s just not possible for all teachers to achieve the required grade of good, and they are therefore being set up to fail.

Outstanding: They learn exceptionally well and as a result acquire knowledge quickly and in depth, including in the sixth form and areas of learning in the Early Years Foundation Stage.

Good: Pupils acquire knowledge quickly and are secure in their understanding of the subject.

Satisfactory: Pupils generally learn well in the subject, with no major weaknesses.

In this particular section, there is far too much leeway in terms of interpretation. In particular the phrase ‘pupils generally learn well’ is so open to individual manipulation: can you really form evidence for grading something as inadequate on the basis that there was a general lack of not learning very well? Anyone could say that about anything.

Also, I think the emphasis on ‘acquiring knowledge quickly’ presumes that all students have the ability to do this. A teacher with a class full of slow learners cannot achieve the ‘good’ grade that is required of them, and may even have been given such a class on purpose.

Outstanding: They develop and apply a wide range of skills to great effect, including reading, writing, communication and mathematical skills that will ensure they are exceptionally well prepared for the next stage in their education, training or employment.

Good: They develop and apply a range of skills well, including reading, writing, communication and mathematical skills that will ensure they are well prepared for the next stage in their education, training or employment.

Satisfactory: They acquire the knowledge, understanding and skills, including those in reading, writing, communication and mathematics that will ensure they are prepared adequately for the next stage in their education, training or employment.

Inadequate: Pupils’ communication skills, including in reading and writing and proficiency in mathematics overall, or those of particular groups, are not sufficient for the next stage of education or training.

I acknowledge that requiring students to be ready for the next stage in their education is nice and specific, which is exactly what is needed to avoid manipulation. Here you could argue against an observer who is trying to grade you as inadequate when you are not by showing results and requirements of possible progression routes. That’s exactly what the entirety of these grade descriptors should consist of.

However, developing ‘a wide range of skills to great effect’ is possible to be graded on tacit evidence only. You could argue that it is my opinion that they did not develop them to great effect (outstanding), they only acquired them (satisfactory). It’s possible another person might have a completely different opinion. How can you prove one or the other?

Outstanding: The standards of attainment of almost all groups of pupils are likely to be at least in line with national averages for all pupils with many above average. In exceptional circumstances, where standards of attainment of any group of pupils are below those of all pupils nationally, the gap is closing dramatically over a period of time.

Good: The standards of attainment of the large majority of groups of pupils are likely to be at least in line with national averages for all pupils. Where standards of any group of pupils are below those of all pupils nationally, the gaps are closing. In exceptional circumstances, where attainment is low overall, it is improving at a faster rate than nationally over a sustained period.

Satisfactory: The standards of attainment of the majority of groups of pupils are likely to be in line with national averages for all pupils. Where standards of groups of pupils are below those of all pupils nationally, the gaps are closing overall. In exceptional circumstances, where attainment is low overall, it is improving over a sustained period.

Inadequate: Attainment is consistently low showing little, fragile or inconsistent improvement, or is in decline. There are wide gaps in attainment and in learning and progress between different groups of pupils and of all pupils nationally that are showing little sign of closing or are widening.

Here the grades are skewed in comparison to the first section. There, in order to be good you had to have students that were above average. Yet this section requires them to be average in order to achieve good. Which one is it? I showed that the first one was a logical impossibility, so this one is much more likely. But which one will your observer decide to judge you against? It’s up to them entirely.

I also find the requirement of bringing below average students up to scratch odd. So that if you have a less able class, you need to work even harder to ‘close the gaps’ between them and an average student in order to reach the required standard of good. They are required to improve at a faster than average rate in order to achieve good as well, leaving us in that loophole again of needing to be better than average to achieve good, where all teachers are required to be good, which then makes that above average standard the average…

If you want to read the full Ofsted grade descriptors they can be found at this link.

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/generic-grade-descriptors-and-supplementary-subject-specific-guidance-for-inspectors-making-judgemen

Can you see any other problems with the above grading criteria that you’d like to share? Do you feel like you’ve been assessed under these descriptors and had your result manipulated downwards? Please comment below.

Similar post: If Sir Michael Wilshaw says Ofsted aren't looking for a certain way of teaching, why do teachers think they are?

Performance Related Pay – an exercise in money saving and teacher bashing

2012-12-12T10:00:00.000+00:00

Everyone is talking about the move to progressing teachers along the pay scale according to performance rather than time served, which was the previous model. A nice idea which on paper looks to be a reasonable move designed to raise standards, and stop all those lazy stupid teachers who are hell bent on ruining student’s lives from getting pay rises.

Except there aren’t a lot of those types of teachers at all. That’s a myth, put in place by the government, Ofsted and managers with the help of the media in order to make it easier to fulfil their own agendas. One of the things on those agendas is this. See how easy it went down?

The measurement of performance in teaching is already highly corrupt. It is mainly based on lesson observations, which for a start are universally acknowledged to require a standard of time and effort unsustainable in every lesson every day.

The grade descriptors used to assess these performances of teaching are based mostly on subjective opinion, rather than factual evidence. This allows any observer with an agenda to give any grade they like, without the need for any evidence other than, “That’s my professional opinion.” Winning personal favour with management is more important than teaching well.

Management can already manufacture your poor performance causing you to be put on capability proceedings which most likely will cause you to lose your job. They now don’t need to go to all that trouble. They can simply dock your pay, if they feel like it.

In some ways this might potentially be better. Firstly, it might stop the high numbers being artificially put onto capability and bullied out of the profession – for a few reasons:

Expensive, experienced teachers that get pushed out to save costs will now simply not become expensive in the first place.
New, cheap NQTs will now no longer be used as cannon fodder, i.e. pushed out year on year and replaced with another newbie on a starter salary. This removes the need to do that.
If management don’t like your face then you might not be shown the door anymore – you’ll just never move up the pay scale.

There will definitely be a drop in the overall amount spent on teacher’s salaries. Of course, the result will be that the best staff leave teaching in order to find their fortune elsewhere. Don’t kid yourselves that this is any more than a cost saving exercise.

Are you considering leaving teaching because of this move? Have you experienced a ‘you wouldn’t be against this if you were any good’ attitude? Please comment below.

Similar post: Do Teachers Only Get Paid Part Time?

Staff Turnover: Why It's Bad, Why It's Bad In Teaching

2012-12-05T10:00:00.000+00:00

The turnover of staff in education is getting higher and higher. It started out that schools with a particular behaviour problem would have a high staff turnover, as teachers finally had enough and left. Then, when I was working in schools, high staff turnover appeared in places that had bullying senior managers, as the staff went off with stress and depression, and eventually left.

Now, I’m receiving requests for advice from more experienced, and therefore more expensive teachers who are being particularly targeted to be pushed out through bullying, and who are being replaced with cheaper staff.

Aside from being cheap, schools benefit from having less experienced staff because they are more likely to agree to do additional duties and are more likely to accept new initiatives and not be jaded by the constant stream of them. They are less likely to kick up a stink about poor working conditions as well.

These are all things that, unfortunately, make a school successful in the current climate. It is actually a good strategy to carry out what Ofsted want and what the government want. However, it doesn’t necessarily make a school successful in providing the best education for students.

There’s an odd expectation in teaching that brand new teachers must teach to an exemplary standard right from the word go, and stay at that level constantly year after year. In the real world, teachers start off with basic skills and build on them with experience, so that more experienced teachers teach better lessons. Hence the existence of a pay scale.

Having a load of cheap, inexperienced teachers that consistently hit grade 1 and 2 in observations might look like value for money, but in actual fact the lessons are of a lesser quality no matter what the observation grades show. Indeed, bullying new teachers into reaching unattainable standards is one way of getting more value out of them.

High staff turnover also has the effect of causing a talent drain, over time. As good workers realise that as time goes on they are becoming less and less employable they are seeking their fortune elsewhere, leaving only those who have no other choice. This further erodes the quality of teaching, meaning managers have to bully more in order to get the performance required out of the staff they have.

Constantly changing teachers means that behaviour management techniques, which a lot of experts agree is based on a teacher’s status in the school and their long term relationships with students, don’t work as well. Everything becomes short term, and any supply teacher or cover supervisor will tell you, that makes it harder.

Students’ learning also suffers from a lack of continuity not only by changing schemes of work and pedagogy, but a constant 'starting again from day one's means students can’t see their own long term progress as well. Within the staff, departments can’t make continuous progression or develop as well.

If you want better teachers, don’t make it easier for managers to run those they don’t like out of the career for good or offer bribes and making it easy to train as a teacher. You need to make long term investments in people and give them good reasons to stay and develop and improve. Do you agree with me? Please comment below.

Change for Change's Sake: How Excessive Reform Creates Instability in Education

2012-11-28T10:00:00.000+00:00

A common complaint from struggling teachers and those that choose to leave the profession is that the endless government initiatives and constant reforms are happening far too frequently. While I acknowledge that continual improvement is important, I maintain that excessive change is a hindrance to good teaching.

There are three factors that contribute to the current situation. Firstly, any change is seen as good, so that change happens for change’s sake, although I doubt this is exclusive to teaching. There are also too many government officials trying to make their mark on education and make a legacy for themselves, none more so than Michael Gove.

Finally, and I see this as the most important problem, is that everyone thinks they know what constitutes good teaching, their only qualification being that they were once a student. I’ve written in more detail about this problem here: The Six Worst Assumptions Other People Have About Teaching

Excessive reform means that more teachers are working in unfamiliar ways, which will decrease confidence and decrease the quality of teaching. While I value adaptability and recognise that living with uncertainty is an essential skill, there has to be a balance. Most of the teachers need to be confident they know what they are doing most of the time, and the high amount of procedural questions appearing online is proof that they don’t.

Constant change also decreases expertise. There are less teachers who have experience simply because the current way of working has not been around long enough for anyone to get experienced in it. It effectively renders experience obsolete, because new teachers have been working in that way for just as long as the more experienced teachers. Similarly, continual improvement requires continual retraining, which is time consuming and expensive.

Endless reorganisation has the effect of reducing serious reform to the state of a superficial trend or fad. Teachers know that whatever initiatives come into play will be replaced by another one so quickly that there is no point treating them as important or getting deeply involved with them. Most new schemes are taken on board by teachers on a lip service basis only.

Equally, many teachers will be able to tell you about the cyclical nature of these reforms. The way people learn and the way their brains work will never change, and neither will the majority of your subject matter. So why does the teaching and learning attached to this need to be in a constant state of flux? The current scrapping of GCSEs is a fine example – apparently O-levels were better after all.

Finally, all this change fosters a climate of instability and chaos in institutions that are often the only stable influence in young people’s lives. Think about the negative effect of having a constant stream of different short term teachers has on students, and this has much the same impact.

Where do you think the balance lies between improvement and chaos? What are your opinions on current reforms and their durability? Please comment below.

Book Review: Wasted, Why Education Isn't Educating, Frank Furedi

2012-11-24T10:00:00.000+00:00

If you like Andrew Old's blog Scenes From The Battleground, then you might like this book. Written in 2009 under the reign of Tony Blair and his motto of, 'education, education, education', it seeks to show how education has been warped by a series of politicians with their own agendas into something that is wholly ineffective. It's certainly a piece of writing that could be picked up and carried on seamlessly to take us to the present day, when these issues still haven't been addressed.

He makes several excellent and valid points that I completely agree with. Most notably, is that teachers are charged with the task of fixing all of societies ills, and he argues that schools are not the place in which to do that. True. He also talks at length about how teachers are no longer viewed as authority figures because of the obsession with students leading the learning, and how this has lowered standards. Also true. I found a lot in here to hook my own beliefs about education onto, and a lot that can be said to still be true 3 years later.

However, unlike Andrew's blog, he fails repeatedly to give us a lot of evidence to back up his claims. His arguments are tacit and subjective, despite being highly persuasive and probably true, and read more like a politician's debate rather than a scholarly report.

He is also very repetitive, making the same point throughout the book, in rather the same way that I do on this blog. I've got to admit: I didn't actually read the whole book, and I still understood his point completely.

If you want something that is going to provoke you into thinking for yourself about education then this is the one. But if you want real arguments and evidence, go visit Scenes From The Battleground. And if you want someone who can't change the record, then stay here.

Why Teaching Is Attractive: Incentives, Bribery and Desperate Graduates

2012-11-21T10:00:00.000+00:00

Everyone knows that there are a high number of people who train as a teacher, and leave within the first few years of their career. In part, I acknowledge that this is because the job is very attractive for a number of reasons and this causes a lot of people to try the career who wouldn’t otherwise. Then, when they realise how awful it really is, they leave.

You have to ask yourself – why are there so many incentives to try this career? Why do people need to be bribed and cajoled into undertaking teacher training? What would happen if there were none of these incentives?

If education could concentrate on retaining the teachers it has rather than desperately trying to recruit replacements, then not only would staff turnover decrease, but I guarantee it would improve achievement in students through hanging on to happy fulfilled productive staff.

Training Bursary

You get a bursary for doing most ITT courses, and even better than that, on the GTP programme you get paid a proper wage. For some people that’s a major consideration when choosing a career to train into, especially in this economic climate. At the end of the day, it’s a down and out bribe for you to do the course. There are plenty of other courses where most of the students self-fund, and that’s a massive indication that it’s worth it.

Training Length

One year, and you’re a teacher. That’s it! Your ITT will either be a separate course you enrol on at the end of your degree, or will be an additional year on your undergraduate degree. Would anyone really go for teaching if the training time was longer? It seems like a very quick fix to a graduate who is stuck for a direction to take, especially with the bursary taken into account.

Degree Subject

It doesn’t really matter what degree subject you’ve taken, you can either squash it and squeeze it to fit one of the subjects, or go primary. As long as you have a basic level of literacy, numeracy and IT skills that’s all that matters. For someone who didn’t know what they were going to do with their degree when they began it, which is pretty much everyone nowadays, then this can be very attractive. The door isn’t closed to anyone, and this should set your alarm bells ringing.

Starting Salary and Golden Hello

The salary is not great in teaching, but it’s not bad either. You can start on at least £20K, but this is after just one year of being paid to train having no previous experience. I can’t think of any other professional career where you can start off like that. Also, you get a golden hello. It’s more bribes isn’t it? The amount of work you will actually have to do is probably worth a much higher salary, and you will very quickly realise that it’s just not worth it.

Jobs Anywhere

There are schools and colleges everywhere all over the country, and this can be a big incentive to try teaching, and of course, it’s not a manufactured bribe type incentive like the ones above. In some post-industrial towns it’s one of the only professional jobs on offer to a graduate. However, be aware that the lack of jobs at the moment might mean you are travelling a long way or even moving to start your first post.

You Know What It Will Be Like

We’ve all been to school and we’ve all seen what teachers do. For some people, the choice to be a teacher is a ‘better the devil you know one’. The assumptions of non-teachers that they know how education works is very dangerous, and there is no exception here. You don’t know what it’s like, not on the other side of the coin you don’t.

Everyone Knows One

A teacher that is. Because it’s a job that everyone tries and then moved out of, everyone knows someone who has tried or is still a teacher. For some, the incentive is, “Well, if they can do it, then so can I.” But if everyone else jumped off a cliff, would you?

Did you choose your teaching career because of the incentives? Would you have made the same decision without them? Please comment below.

Good Teachers Leaving The Profession: The Extent Of The Talent Drain In Education

2012-11-14T10:00:00.000+00:00

In the media, alongside all the teacher bashing and cries from those at the top that they want teachers’ heads on a spike, you will often hear about new initiatives designed to recruit and retain better staff. Most recently, there have been suggestions that the difficulty bof the key skills tests for teachers should be increased.

There is also a perception that there are hundreds of rubbish teachers, hardly doing any work at all, failing students all over the place, having a grand old time of things and getting away with it. Anyone working in education will be able to tell you that the reverse is true: teaching is filled with staff who work themselves into the ground, despite being treated terribly on all sides from managers, students and parents.

My point is that there is a perception that there is a lack of talent in teaching, and that the staff we have now need to be booted out and replaced with something better. What I believe is actually happening is a talent drain: it appears to have the same effect, which is a low standard of performance in staff, but it occurs for completely opposing reasons.

Teaching is actually rubbish and the standard of it needs to improve. It’s not because the wrong people are coming into the industry and are sticking in it like a barnacle on the side of a very cushy ship.

It’s because of this: passionate, talented, able students are choosing to become teachers. The working conditions of teachers are so shocking that they are leaving the industry for something better. Those that are less able and have less options are staying.

By poor working conditions I mean that the workload is too high, the status and pay is too low and, most significantly, there is an epidemic of workplace bullying. Bullying occurs more often for student teachers and NQTs because it is easier to get rid of someone at that stage that you have a slight dislike for, rather than take a chance and be stuck with them further down the line when they may possibly be less than 100% perfect.

New and talented teachers are realising at an early stage that this is going on, and either chose to leave for something better, or more likely, are forced to leave through mental health issues, capability proceedings and compromise agreements. Some are now being put off in advance of starting their ITT programmes, as they are being warned off by other teachers.

Improving teachers working conditions will attract and retain a better quality of employee. It will improve teachers’ performance by allowing talented staff to thrive, rather than only allowing untouchable, dog eat dog, spin doctor type teachers to survive. You could even argue that success as a teacher simply happens at random, through being lucky enough to avoid being bullied by nothing more than chance.

There is a definite attempt to come down harder on teachers in order to raise performance. This will actually achieve the opposite, making working conditions worse, which will in turn make more talented staff leave, or never join in the first place. This will over time erode performance and mean more and more teachers are not up to standard.

Do you agree? Have you witnessed a talented teacher leaving the profession? Were you a teacher who has left and found success somewhere else? I’d love to hear from you, please comment below.

Ofqual and GCSE English marking fiasco: are teachers being blamed or not?

2012-11-07T10:00:00.000+00:00

If you don’t know about what’s been going on with Ofqual then you’ve done very well, because this is probably the most prominent education news story of 2012. Essentially, English grade boundaries were revised upwards during the marking process this summer – leaving students with lower grade results than were expected. Students taking the exam in January were not subject to this boundary change and so received higher grades. Teachers had their goalposts moved long after they were able to do anything about it and without warning.

The latest news is that a report from Ofqual has said that the last minute change was necessary because of the high number of students achieving grades C and above. They suggest it is the internal marking of coursework and predicted grades from teachers that are to blame, with overmarking and cheating becoming so much the norm that they were forced to take this action.

Is this more teacher bashing, or not?

The initial reaction would, of course, be to say yes. Accusing teachers of cheating in order to make themselves look good, seems to be in line with the current presumption that there are teachers all over the country who can’t do their job and aren’t being held accountable for that. Not only are they all teaching rubbish lessons, they are covering up that fact by inflating their students grades.

On close inspection, however, that’s not actually what Ofqual are saying. In reality, the report exposes the ridiculously high expectations that force teachers to cheat and over-inflate grades just to keep their jobs and careers. Tom Bennett has become very good at exposing the misquotes and overzealous cries of bullying that accompany every media article about teachers now. I can’t explain this any better than he has, so you should read his article: The Empire Strikes Back: Ofqual, and the omnishambles of assessment

I am concerned though, that in deciding it is not teacher bashing is again blaming teachers: if not for cheating then for calling bullying where none exists. I think there is that much bullying and bashing now, that teachers pointing this out are said to be making malicious allegations as a way of bullying them further. Is calling teachers cheats, and then calling them over defensive for contesting this, not just like teacher bashing squared?

I don’t for a second think that the vast majority of people are going to see this for what it is: some evidence and an admission that teacher’s working conditions are causing poor standards, and that pressure and workload on front line teachers needs to reduce dramatically in order for this sort of thing to stop. I think most people, including politicians and inspectors, are going to use it as a reason to and evidence with which to bash teachers.

Do you think the Ofqual report is blaming teachers? Are you under pressure to cheat and overmark? Please comment below.

High Workload: Why It's Such A Problem In Teaching

2012-10-31T10:00:00.000+00:00

As a teacher, you are more than likely very familiar with people commenting on what a great deal you’ve got in terms of holidays and the length of your working day. You’re probably also familiar with people being very negative about that, stating that you wouldn’t cope with a ‘proper job’ in the ‘real world’ and are lazy, have it cushy and have an extremely easy time of it.

Aside from telling them there’s nothing stopping them from training as a teacher and getting the same good deal for themselves, and also to go and boil their heads, you are probably likely to respond with the fact that you don’t have a good deal at all. Because you don’t.

The holidays are merely times when you are not required to be in front of a class teaching: you are still required to work. I think at most teachers take 4 weeks completely off a year, the same as any other job, only you have to take them at set times during the year and can never book leave. That’s the opposite of a good deal.

In terms of working day length and hours, most teachers will work in excess of 50 hours a week, and it doesn’t take a genius to figure out you can’t do that if you finish at 3pm every day. There is a lot of hate directed at teachers, and most of it comes in the form of telling you your workload is low when it is in fact through the roof.

In order to reduce workload, I think the following things need to happen:

Stricter, more enforceable legislation on the protection of PPA time
Stricter, more enforceable legislation on teachers performing teaching and learning duties only
Reduction and legislative limiting of the amount of paperwork required from teachers
Slow down of rate of reforms and new initiatives

I mentioned in my post about low staff morale (Low Staff Morale: Why It's Such A Problem In Teaching) that,

“Although the reverse is true, some people may believe that pushing people to the limit increases productivity by simply squeezing more out of them… In reality, it’s a proven fact that pushing people this hard… reduces performance and productivity. It only allows those who put work before anything else to succeed, meaning students are deprived of contact with well rounded, family orientated people who are active in the community.”

And this, in essence, is the whole issue. School managers consider high workload to be a good thing because they believe it gives them value for money, by employing less staff than is required to get that amount of work done. In actual fact they are probably right as well.

In business, pushing people to the limit reduces productivity which reduces profit, and therefore is not a cheaper option. But in the public sector, pushing people to the limit reduces productivity which reduces standards: it has absolutely no effect on finances, and therefore is a cheaper option. It does, as I said, reduce standards though, which is perhaps why there is currently such a hateful witch hunt to turf out all the bad teachers.

As schools reduce their reliance on public funding, through academies and free schools, will that mean eventually teachers will have to be allowed a good work life balance in order to boost the school’s finances? Will payment on performance link money to standards enough so that work life balance is improved? Actually, I’m hopeful.

The fact remains though that excessive workload is a major barrier to raising standards, and is one of the most common reasons cited for teachers becoming ill or leaving the profession.

What Do Managers Gain By Bullying?

2012-10-24T10:00:00.000+01:00

Sometimes people tell me they think that the bullies they encounter in teaching are, to use the phrase my readers do, psychopaths. They speculate about how people with severe personality disorders end up running schools in such numbers. I don’t think that’s what’s really happening here.

I do think that there are no consequences for bullies in teaching. Senior managers can bully staff if they want to, and there is not enough in place to stop it, as well as it being too easy for a lot of the bullying to happen under the radar and off the record.

The issue is, why would senior managers, given this free reign, want to bully?

I think the main reason is that it is easier to get the results you need by bullying than it is by being a good manager using positive methods. You do not need to develop your management techniques as much, which is a difficult thing to do, because you are not actually managing.

Bullying requires much less brain power, much less experience and much less effort. There are not enough hours in a day for one person to fulfil all the requirements of a senior manager’s post, and so bullying is a way of cutting down the workload.

Secondly, if teachers are under a lot of pressure, then senior managers are under more. Pressure comes from the government and simply rolls down the hill, through managers, and to teachers. Managers are treating teachers this way because they are being treated that way themselves.

There is a lot of teacher bashing in the media as well, and senior managers may simply be joining in with the general atmosphere. When everyone else is having a go at teachers, to be the only one not doing so shows weakness.

Also along these lines is that there is a culture of ‘every man for themselves’ in education. So managers are simply bullying before they can be bullied themselves, or defending themselves by attacking first.

It’s not a simple answer, and tackling it will be a case of unravelling the problems one by one. What is your opinion on why managers in education bully so often? Do you agree with the reasons I’ve given? I’d love to hear from you, please comment below.

If Sir Michael Wilshaw says Ofsted aren't looking for a certain way of teaching, why do teachers think they are?

2012-10-17T10:00:00.000+01:00

If you’ve not read the post by Andrew Old about Sir Michael Wilshaw stating what Ofsted are looking for when they come to observe your lesson, then go and read it here: What OFSTED Say They Want

Essentially, Sir Michael is stating that Ofsted are not prescribing a certain style of teaching, are not advocating a ‘teaching by numbers’ approach and are not dogmatic in forcing teachers to teach in a way that is unnatural to them.

I’m telling you, that the vast majority of teachers are frightened that the reverse is true. You can see there are several comments about Andrew’s post that state so, on his blog, on Twitter and everywhere else his article is being talked about.

So how come we all believe something about Ofsted that isn’t true?

The most popular and most likely explanation is that this information is not trickling down to the opposing forces of the Ofsted inspectors and the senior managers in schools. Either Ofsted inspectors are stating explicitly that they expect to see things like three part lessons and group work during feedback sessions to schools, or senior managers are making educated guesses that this is what Ofsted will be looking for and are forcing them upon teaching staff.

It goes without saying that I’ve both met personally and have heard many other accounts of senior management teams who are petty, anally retentive, micro managing bullies who are highly likely to design a way of teaching that would get themselves an outstanding lesson observation from Ofsted, and then make all teachers in their charge teach in that exact way down to the minutest of detail, instead of allowing them to develop their own style.

They have never been told that is what Ofsted are looking for, they are just putting a lot of effort into guessing.

Another group of people who are doing this are education consultants and those that run ‘How to teach and outstanding lesson’ type courses. They are also attempting to devise a formula that will please Ofsted, and are using this to sell their services and courses. It’s practical, quick fix advice that sells better than the promise of being nurtured and supported to find your own methods.

Similarly, Ofsted are taking their observation criteria and are interpreting it in the way that they want. It is a very vague set of criteria, and I plan a future blog post where I show you exactly how they can be manipulated, in a similar way that I did with the new teachers standards: New Teacher’s Standards – how they can be manipulated

As a result, Ofsted inspectors are thinking about what would get them personally the top grade, and go out looking for that. This specific, personal opinion then appears in feedback, which is interpreted as what they literally want to see, rather than just a good example. Senior managers get a heads up on this from looking at recently inspected school’s reports.

In short, it’s caused by those who are trying to support teachers devising their own perfect lesson and then promoting that as gospel. That’s an easier, quicker way of working, looks better and is easier to sell than developing teachers to find their own approach.

Why do you think this is happening? Have you experienced having a method of teaching forced on you? Please comment below.

Low Staff Morale: Why It's Such A Problem In Teaching

2012-10-10T10:00:00.000+01:00

This is my first post in a series that will detail human resources type issues that I think need addressing in education. Please subscribe for free using the links on the right to stay updated with the rest of them.

Sir Michael Wilshaw summed up education’s attitude to staff morale when he said, “If anyone says to you that 'staff morale is at an all-time low' you know you are doing something right." This comment effectively was an admission of what teachers had suspected for a long time – that education considers low staff morale to be a desirable thing.

It’s widely known in business that the exact opposite is true, and to be honest, I can’t find a definitive reason as to why someone would think of it as good. I can make an experienced and educated guess though.

Low staff morale creates people who are downtrodden and are more likely to accept someone’s absolute authority over them. This allows senior management to implement their micro management techniques more easily. It creates people who are in competition with each other rather than working with each other, which could be interpreted as some strange kind of teacher ‘free market’ which aims to drive up standards.

Although the reverse is true, some people may believe that pushing people to the limit increases productivity by simply squeezing more out of them. Also, there is a perception that having outrageously high standards reduces absenteeism, by making people so frightened of taking a day off they wouldn’t even dare try.

In reality, it’s a proven fact that pushing people this hard and forcing them to work when they are tired and sick reduces performance and productivity. It only allows those who put work before anything else to succeed, meaning students are deprived of contact with well rounded, family orientated people who are active in the community.

Not allowing enough compassionate leave breaks down the relationship between management and teachers, meaning managers need to come down even harder to get teachers to comply as resentment is built up.

More resentment is created by forcing schools to be run as ‘my way or the highway’ and reducing questioning of management decisions. This also increases mistakes by encouraging a culture of ‘yes men’, and it reduces standards by making teachers work in a way that is not the best for them personally.

Finally, an environment where there is no teamwork because teachers are selling each other out to gain immunity and favour from management will eventually erode progress. More and more reform will need to be shoved down teacher’s necks in order to artificially get progress going, which will increase instability and inconsistency.

There are two choices in management really – do you want autonomous, happy, creative staff achieved through high staff morale or do you want uniform, compliant, frightened staff created by low staff morale?

Either are good for a manager, although the latter is generally preferable for lower end, repetitive, unskilled type jobs that are becoming more and more obsolete as we move into the ‘knowledge economy’. Positions that the workers see as ‘just a job’ and wouldn’t do properly unless there were proper consequences.

That’s clearly how senior management and the government see teachers.

Have you experienced low staff morale at work? Have you witnessed it's negative effects on teachers, and students? Please comment below.

New Teacher’s Standards – how they can be manipulated

2012-10-03T10:00:00.000+01:00

Everyone is asking me about the new teacher’s standards which came into force on 1^st Sep 2012. You can view the official document via the link below.

While the general consensus is that they are simpler and more concise, I refuse to believe that, in the current climate of bashing and bullying teachers to within an inch of their life, these changes are anything but bad news.

I’m playing devil’s advocate in this post and showing you how your senior managers can manipulate and interpret the new teachers standards to catch you out. I’m probably going to come across as very negative and very cynical, but I guarantee these are the things you will be encountering in the next academic year during your performance appraisals.

1 Set high expectations which inspire, motivate and challenge pupils

• establish a safe and stimulating environment for pupils, rooted in mutual respect

• set goals that stretch and challenge pupils of all backgrounds, abilities and dispositions

• demonstrate consistently the positive attitudes, values and behaviour which are expected of pupils.

This first point is open to manipulation firstly on the ‘mutual respect’ point. If a student does not respect you, as students generally tend not to, then it is your responsibility. Also, I’m concerned about the last point, which states you must demonstrate certain behaviours, without stating what those behaviours are. Senior management are free to make up what they are retrospectively, so that you can be told you are not demonstrating something which you had no idea you were supposed to be.

2 Promote good progress and outcomes by pupils

• be accountable for pupils’ attainment, progress and outcomes

• be aware of pupils’ capabilities and their prior knowledge, and plan teaching to build on these

• guide pupils to reflect on the progress they have made and their emerging needs

• demonstrate knowledge and understanding of how pupils learn and how this impacts on teaching

• encourage pupils to take a responsible and conscientious attitude to their own work and study.

The first point here states outright that you are solely responsible for students attainment in it’s entirety, and therefore implies that the student isn’t responsible at all. So that a student that makes no progress and doesn’t achieve very much through their own means will still mean that you are in trouble. The last point also starts with the word ‘encourage’ which to me states that you merely need to try to get them to be conscientious, but I know that senior managers will interpret this as you have to achieve a conscientious attitude in students.

Finally, the fourth point is far far too vague for my liking, and whether you have achieved this or not will need to be entirely based on an opinion rather than any evidence. It seems to imply you need a knowledge of all the latest faddy pedagogy and how to apply it, so if you do want evidence, senior managers can find one you’re not using and claim you have no knowledge of it.

3 Demonstrate good subject and curriculum knowledge

• have a secure knowledge of the relevant subject(s) and curriculum areas, foster and maintain pupils’ interest in the subject, and address misunderstandings

• demonstrate a critical understanding of developments in the subject and curriculum areas, and promote the value of scholarship

• demonstrate an understanding of and take responsibility for promoting high standards of literacy, articulacy and the correct use of standard English, whatever the teacher’s specialist subject

This whole point is rather dodgy, particularly if you are the only teacher of your subject in your educational establishment. There is no reference to any kind of subject audit, so that you could be judged on this point by someone who knows nothing about your subject.

Also, I have never heard the phrase ‘the value of scholarship’ in my life, and find that particular point vague enough to leave it too open to manipulation. Senior management could pull something irrelevant out from your subject, and claim you don’t have a ‘critical understanding’ of it, and fail you on this standard with manufactured evidence.

4 Plan and teach well structured lessons

• impart knowledge and develop understanding through effective use of lesson time

• promote a love of learning and children’s intellectual curiosity

• set homework and plan other out-of-class activities to consolidate and extend the knowledge and understanding pupils have acquired

• reflect systematically on the effectiveness of lessons and approaches to teaching

• contribute to the design and provision of an engaging curriculum within the relevant subject area(s).

Point 1 is again too vague, and doesn’t state what is an effective use of lesson time. You could think you are using it effectively, and your appraiser can just disagree based on nothing more than opinion.

Although the second point says you merely need to ‘promote’ ‘intellectual curiosity’, I think senior management can interpret that as your students need to be engaged and curious about your lesson 100% of the time. You can promote it to death, and if a student is still not interested, then you’re in for it.

5 Adapt teaching to respond to the strengths and needs of all pupils

• know when and how to differentiate appropriately, using approaches which enable pupils to be taught effectively

• have a secure understanding of how a range of factors can inhibit pupils’ ability to learn, and how best to overcome these

• demonstrate an awareness of the physical, social and intellectual development of children, and know how to adapt teaching to support pupils’ education at different stages of development

• have a clear understanding of the needs of all pupils, including those with special educational needs; those of high ability; those with English as an additional language; those with disabilities; and be able to use and evaluate distinctive teaching approaches to engage and support them.

The first two are once again vague enough to allow a someone to fail you based on their opinion alone without any evidence. The term ‘taught effectively’ is particularly bad, and I can imagine senior managers saying something along the lines of, “Yes, you’ve done everything I asked you to, but the students still aren’t being taught effectively.”

Also the last point implies you need specialist knowledge in all aspects of SEN, rather than just being able to support them properly using in house SENCOs, you now need to do it all yourself, it seems. It also makes a distinction between SEN and students with disabilities, which I think is odd.

6 Make accurate and productive use of assessment

• know and understand how to assess the relevant subject and curriculum areas, including statutory assessment requirements

• make use of formative and summative assessment to secure pupils’ progress

• use relevant data to monitor progress, set targets, and plan subsequent lessons

• give pupils regular feedback, both orally and through accurate marking, and encourage pupils to respond to the feedback.

I think the second point is a brilliant example of everything that is wrong with teacher assessment. It starts off brilliantly, asking for formative and summative assessment, so that a teacher could show they were using both, and that’s job done on that standard. However, there’s a get out clause at the end of it, ‘to secure pupil’s progress’, so that you can be using both types of assessment, but a senior manager can then say, “…but in my opinion it hasn’t secured progress,” and suddenly you’ve failed on this standard after all.

7 Manage behaviour effectively to ensure a good and safe learning environment

• have clear rules and routines for behaviour in classrooms, and take responsibility for promoting good and courteous behaviour both in classrooms and around the school, in accordance with the school’s behaviour policy

• have high expectations of behaviour, and establish a framework for discipline with a range of strategies, using praise, sanctions and rewards consistently and fairly manage classes effectively, using approaches which are appropriate to pupils’ needs in order to involve and motivate them

• maintain good relationships with pupils, exercise appropriate authority, and act decisively when necessary.

Here’s another example of teachers being asked to simply ‘promote’ something rather than be responsible for it, in this case it’s ‘good and courteous behaviour’. I don’t for one second think that any teacher will be able to argue that they’ve promoted this effectively yet the student still chooses to misbehave – you will still be solely responsible for their behaviour.

It does however state that you are responsible for maintaining a good relationship with every single student in your care – I’m sure you agree that this is a tall order in some cases and you can, in theory, be failed on this standard as soon as one student takes a permanent dislike to you.

8 Fulfil wider professional responsibilities

• make a positive contribution to the wider life and ethos of the school

• develop effective professional relationships with colleagues, knowing how and when to draw on advice and specialist support

• deploy support staff effectively

• take responsibility for improving teaching through appropriate professional development, responding to advice and feedback from colleagues

• communicate effectively with parents with regard to pupils’ achievements and well-being.

Notice how this does not state that you will photocopy, do displays, collect cash or any other administrative tasks that teachers are asked to do regularly. However, you could argue that they all count as ‘wider professional responsibilities’ because your refusal to do them could be seen as not making a positive contribution to the school, as in the first point.

To summarise, I think senior managers are going to get you on these standards in the following ways:

Some of the standards are vague and it can therefore be argued that it is the manager’s opinion that you have not met it.
Some standards mention you only need to ‘encourage’ or ‘promote’ things that teachers are currently held completely responsible for, and I don’t think a distinction between the two levels of accountability will be made.
Some standards make you responsible for student’s attitudes and opinions, such as their relationship with you or the amount of respect they have for you, which you cannot possibly control in their entirety without learning mind control or brainwashing techniques. A student may take an irrational dislike to you, and you’re in trouble.
Some standards ask senior managers to make a judgement on things they may know nothing about and therefore can’t possibly judge accurately, particularly with regards to subject knowledge.
There is use of language and particular phrases that are not widely used or understood, and are frankly a little bit odd. This leaves them open to interpretation, e.g. ‘the value of scholarship’, or, ‘intellectual curiosity’.
You seem to have sole responsibility for all SEN in your class, with no mention of external support.

https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/teachers%20standards.pdf

Are you worried about the new teacher's standards? Have you fallen foul of them already? Please comment below.

New Capability Procedures For Teachers Starting 1st Sept 2012

2012-08-15T10:00:00.000+01:00

Everybody knows there are new capability procedures coming into force from 1^st Sept 2012, and that they are designed to give headteachers more freedom to come down on teachers harder and faster.

This is a prime example of the completely unfounded fear that there are hundreds of completely incapable teachers doing a rubbish job and getting away with it because headteachers’ hands are tied. It’s reached the point of actually forming new legislation now.

Here’s a bulleted list of the main changes, which can be read about in more detail via the links at the bottom of this post:

The ‘3 hour’ observation rule has been scrapped. You can now be observed for as long as your SMT want to observe you during the course of the academic year.
There is now no informal capability stage: there is just an annual appraisal cycle, followed by capability.
New employers will know if you've been put on capability previously.
Schools are free to design their own policy completely, there are merely ‘recommendations’ that don’t have to be followed.
One of these recommendations is that the review time is between 4-10 weeks, not 20 weeks as recommended previously.
NQTs should still not be subject to this procedure, they have their own separate assessment procedure, as should be the case now

Of course, this is bad news. SMT are now more free to take an instant dislike to you and threaten you with a quickie capability and dismissal. This new legislation is much more open to manipulation and is easier to use as part of a bullying campaign.

I have several concerns about what is coming over the next academic year in relation to these updates:

You can be observed to death, if that’s what SMT want. Repeatedly measuring something has no effect on the quality of what you are measuring, and repeatedly criticising something in the same way does not count as support. The stress and pressure of excessive observations, that are based on tacit opinion only and are open to manipulation of their results is a form of bullying.
Just being put on capability, even if it is dismissed as being groundless, is a way of marking your card forever because all future employers will know about it. There are already underhand off the record ways of finding this information out, and many teachers complain of having their card marked already, but it is now a formal requirement. A head who has it in for you now has the absolute power to not just take away your job, but your whole career.
You can be out the door in 4 weeks. The suggestion is that there needs to be a reasonable amount of time to improve, but who decides what’s reasonable? It’s the head, who is free to use an unreasonably short amount of time to improve as a form of bullying. Your career could literally be over forever in less than a month.
There is even more scope and freedom for SMT to partake in practices that we all know happen too often already, because they are designing the process themselves: manipulation of appraisals, manufacturing of evidence and being unreasonable yet insisting it’s reasonable.
Some NQTs end up on capability now, even though they’re not supposed to be. I was. This will continue, and if the school is designing the process themselves, can all be made to be above board. You could theoretically have a career that lasts 4 weeks now.
The suggestion is that you can still go through capability while on long term sickness, so that teachers with mental health issues can still have the boot stuck in while they are at their lowest ebb. I don’t want to think about the implications of this on suicide.

http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/leadership/deployingstaff/a00201884/new-arrangements

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/115/contents/made

What are your concerns about the capability procedures in the new academic year? Are you anxious about being treated like a criminal and finding yourself without a career? What are your school planning for their new self-designed appraisal policy? Please comment below or email me with your thoughts.