I'm just asking, and a litle bit surprised........

The School Food Plan published this week is interesting from a number of perspectives.

First of all there is no doubt that this is a well-researched and useful document which recognises the progress made in recent years and highlights good practice that currently exists. All good stuff.  However this blog is not about the content of the plan (our reaction is elsewhere on the ASCL website).

http://www.ascl.org.uk/News_views/press_releases/resources/increasing_school_meal_take_up_is_right_aim_not_banning_packed_lunches

Instead I want to reflect on a number of aspects that seem to indicate a striking departure from existing approaches of the coalition government:

1.    At 149 pages, this is the longest and most detailed report I remember from this government, which has steadfastly resisted issuing guidance of any length.

2.    The report allocates funding to a centrally coordinated programme of training and support  – another thing the government has steadfastly resisted.

3.    Whilst not prescribing new regulations, it does emphasise a large number of  specific things that heads might be ‘encouraged’ to do, with the prospect of Ofsted monitoring.

4.    It indicates that all schools, maintained and academies, will be required to adhere to the new food standards .

5.    It commits to a programme of data collection that will have serious bureaucratic implications .

I am not commenting on the rights or wrongs of such an approach.  I am just a bit surprised.

Is there, I wonder, an emerging  recognition that there are some things that cannot be left to 25,000 individual schools to sort out? Perhaps the obesity problem is one of them? It would certainly seem that the government has recognised that the best way to address this is though a coordinated and pretty prescriptive approach. In doing so it has recognised the centrality of heads in making it work (although I personally would like to have read more about teams led from the front rather than heroic heads). 

And, in a most welcome way, the plan is genuinely evidence based. The review was led with great skill by Henry Dimbleby and John Vincent, supported by DFE officials, and involved extensive consultation with experienced people. We were shown drafts of the plan and our suggestions were taken on board.

You can probably guess what I am going to ask next. Is it not time for ministers to talk to the profession about other aspects of our education service that need our input? This will  ensure that changes are also implemented in a coordinated way so that all young people have access to the same opportunities and that all professionals in schools and colleges can deliver the highest standards of teaching, learning and achievement.

The last thing I want is to return to a regime of central prescription and regulation but I would be delighted if this is a sign of a more coordinated approach. I would suggest that we begin by talking about what that might mean for: school support, CPD, careers guidance, and implementation of the new curriculum and qualifications. It’s a start.

Some National Curriculum questions as the pre-announcements abound

It has been another one of those weekends. Whilst trying to relax fully in the lovely sunshine, teachers and school leaders have had to put up with yet another set of pre-announcements and heavily biased reporting about the proposed National Curriculum before being able to see any of the detail that the media  have been told will be published  on Monday. And the current curriculum has been derided again in order to justify the changes. So, we read that ‘history will be taught properly’ from now on and that it was ‘left wing academics’  who were critical of the proposed draft, that tests will be harder and the brightest children will be identified and placed on a trajectory to university at the age of 5.

Now I must have taught in some very unusual schools. In all five state comprehensives schools I worked in, students were taught about the chronology of history, they read whole books – including Shakespeare plays – and they certainly learnt their times tables, fractions and all of the other aspects of Maths which the press reports – obviously informed by government sources –  hailed as innovations. And like the vast majority of teachers I agree that these should be part of the curriculum. Why wouldn’t we?

Don’t get me wrong. I am really pleased to hear that the design technology curriculum has been rewritten as a result of the widespread concerns expressed by experts in that field. What is allegedly now in that curriculum looks remarkably like what I have seen being covered in design technology lessons in recent years so I look forward to reading the detail.

ASCL has been asking numerous questions about the curriculum proposals throughout the consultation period especially as  representatives of the teaching profession and school leaders were not involved nor consulted during  the drafting process. These are immensely important for the future of our education service and  young people if they are not to be guinea pigs for the next ten years.  Those questions remain unanswered so are now urgent. Here are some of them:

1.       Has the government thought about the implications of implementing the whole curriculum at once?
2.       If the curriculum is introduced in secondary schools in 2014 how will this serve incoming students who will have been taught the existing curriculum throughout their primary schooling? For example, they will have no access to any history pre 1066. Wouldn’t it be better to introduce the curriculum in stages, starting with Key Stage 1, so that students do not lose out?
3.       How will the Key Stage 1-3 curriculum link up with the KS4 one and the new qualifications and how will schools prepare students approaching the new GCSEs when they have not followed the previous curriculum in KS1-3 which, one assumes might have some relevance to these examinations?
4.       What will guarantee access to all of the content which the government deems important for children who attend academies and free schools which decide not to adopt the NC?
5.       Where programmes of study list topics, how will schools decide what to teach and at what level to pitch it? For example what exactly should schools teach about Winston Churchill or the Stone Age.  We don’t need every detail to be prescribed but some notion of progression needs to be incorporated.
6.       As National Curriculum Levels are being abandoned how will progress be measured across all subjects between KS1 and 3 and most importantly benchmarked against what other schools are doing?
7.       Will schools be allowed to have some additional training days to plan for these enormous changes?
8.       Will the DFE provide any kind of support in the form of access to training programmes or guidance or just leave this to schools?

Finally, was the current National Curriculum all bad or is there anything in it that ministers believe worth retaining?

Until these questions have been answered I cannot imagine (in spite of extensive experience as a curriculum planner and manager)  how any school can do anything other than carry on teaching the current curriculum and looking to see whether any of this content might usefully be worked into it.

Therefore I leave you with one final question: Why on earth didn’t the government avoid all of this grief and upheaval and amend the professionally written curriculum we already had?

*****************************************

Note:
In its response to the National Curriculum consultation, ASCL recommended nine changes to the proposals. For the full consultation response see http://www.ascl.org.uk/News_views/consultation_responses/reform_the_national_curriculum_england

Recommendation 1

Extend the consultation period, (ideally until July 2013) and engage the profession more extensively in a debate about the philosophy and aims of a national curriculum, with a view to clearly articulating a vision for our national curriculum, its aims and its scope.

Recommendation 2

Revisit the balance in the proposed curriculum between knowledge and other dimensions of the curriculum, in particular: the application of knowledge, the cyclical revisiting of central concepts in progressively more challenging forms, critical and creative aspects of learning, and cognitive development.

Recommendation 3

Retain levels and sublevels at least for core subjects in KS3, with appropriate definitions, or develop and pilot an alternative framework for measuring progress within key stages before moving away from the existing system.

Recommendation 4
Propose an implementation plan and timescale which is manageable, has regard to other major curriculum changes, and which builds through incrementally from KS1 to KS4.

Recommendation 5

Implement a nationally sponsored, properly resourced, and strategically planned retraining programme to build the capacity for schools and teachers to deliver computing rather than ICT.

Recommendation 6

This programme of study (DT) should be significantly rethought in order to give sufficient emphasis to the application of new technologies to product design.

Recommendation 7

Engage with the full range of opinion amongst history teaching specialists and develop an approach to the content and teaching of history across all four key stages which responds to their grave concerns.

Recommendation 8

A nationally sponsored, properly resourced and strategically planned retraining programme will be needed to build the capacity for schools and teachers to deliver the languages programmes of study.

Recommendation 9

A long-term development plan to ensure that all young people have access to high-quality sports facilities should be prepared to underpin this programme of study (PE). This will need to include arrangements for all KS2 children to access swimming facilities.

 

 

 

 

Ofsted highlights curriculum contradictions

Anyone who wishes to gain insight into the profound contradictions underlying current government thinking on the curriculum would be well advised to read a recent Ofsted best practice report: ‘Apprenticeships for young people’. ( http://bit.ly/ICSXFr )

The findings of this informative report included the following:

·         A recognition that ‘young people who had previous experience of vocational training were more successful in making good progress with their apprenticeship framework than those starting straight from school without it.’

·         A strong emphasis on the value of work experience for school students and commentary on the incompatibility of this with a GCSE based curriculum. ‘Employers saw successful work experience at school as an important factor.’

·         A strong recognition of the importance of employability skills: ‘Most of the providers or employers did not see pre-entry qualifications such as GCSEs as a deciding factor in choosing applicants.’

·         A strong case for all school students to have access to high quality impartial careers guidance.

·         Some examples of schools discouraging ‘bright’ pupils from ending their general education at 16 to pursue apprenticeships.

Recommendations to government and schools included the following:

·         ‘improve the national availability of careers guidance on post-16 options so that young people can make informed and independent choices about their education and training’

·         ‘improve the local coordination of work experience so that willing employers can respond to more requests for such experience across a wider time-frame’

Now, contrast this with some of the DfE’s policy announcements in the last 12 months:

·         Accepting the Wolfe report recommendations that all 14-16 year olds spend no more than 20 per cent of time on vocational subjects

·         Cutting £200 million from the national careers budget and replacing a face-to-face Connexions service with a telephone line and website

·         Removing the requirement for schools to provide careers education and work experience

·         Giving the National Curriculum Review a remit that focuses on knowledge and academic subjects rather than employability skills

·         Drastically cutting the number of vocational qualifications that count in school league tables  

Considering that concerns about Ofsted’s independence or otherwise from government have been expressed in a number of places, it is encouraging to see Ofsted draw its own evidence-based conclusions. However, I wonder how this will inform future policy development:

·         Since potential employers clearly see the value of vocational courses for pupils aged 14-16 does this report not present a strong case against their marginalisation in the curriculum?

·         Since this report reflects the desire consistently expressed by employers for young people to leave school with a range of employability skills should these not be at the heart of the national curriculum?

·         Does this report justify the removal of the requirement on schools to provide careers education or work experience?

·         Does the accountability framework including the proposed destinations measure value schools which guide pupils onto apprenticeships rather than towards higher education?

·         Why has the provision of careers advice for school age pupils been left to individual schools when the case for national and local coordination is so clear in this report?

I am just asking……….

A truly educational experience

Yesterday I had the absolute privilege of visiting  Deptford Green School in London to hear Bill Gates addressing students about his annual letter http://bit.ly/wINL46 as part of the Speakers for Schools initiative (http://www.speakers4schools.org/). For obvious reasons the visit was cloaked in secrecy and even the students sitting in the hall waiting for him to arrive did not know who exactly was coming apart from the fact that it was somebody really famous. As the introduction started one boy sitting near us turned round and said ‘It isn’t Bill Gates is it? As he and others realised who  it was the excitement in the hall was palpable.

Deptford Green is an inner city school in a challenging area of London. As soon as you walk through the door you can tell that it is a school which passionately cares about the life chances of every student – a message enthusiastically confirmed by a parent governor who told me of her admiration for the staff and gratitude for the excellent education her child was receiving. The school has a highly developed programme of global education. A partner school in Uganda was on a live link to the event which was followed by a BBC World Service broadcast involving both of those schools and some others .

The event took place because one of the teachers had heard about Speakers for Schools and registered the school never dreaming that they would get someone as famous as Bill Gates. The Speakers for Schools project exists because Robert Peston - BBC Business Editor passionately believes that young people in state schools should have the opportunity to hear from role models just as their peers in independent schools do. Working with the Employer Education Task Force  he made his brainchild a reality. ASCL is proud to be associated with this initiative.

As students from the school council eloquently and confidently introduced the speaker -talking about the 4Rs of resilience, relationships,  responsibility and results - they embodied those qualities.

Gates spoke passionately and convincingly about his own life story and about the importance of taking responsibility for global issues describing the impressive achievements of the Bill Gates Foundation to eliminate diseases like polio and malaria and improve the life chances of people in the poorest countries. He demonstrated  convincingly the  link between improving agriculture and increasing access to education and life chances.

He told the students how much he had valued receiving their contributions and ideas. The students were obviously impressed and moved as I was by the way he almost casually explained  that he had to give the money to his foundation;  ‘otherwise I would have had more money than anyone else in the world.’ His sense of social responsibility is humbling and infectious.

This event was  a glowing  example of how a leading figure can be an inspiring role model to young people. The young people in this inner city school have been able to directly influence the content  of his annual letter and the important work of his foundation. His visit sent out the resounding message to every student in the room that they can make a difference. They will remember this event for the rest of their lives. No league table measure will ever recognise educational experiences like this.

No notice inspections make a mockery of notions of a high status profession

The announcement by the Chief Inspector less than two weeks into the implementation of a new inspection framework is quite extraordinary number of counts:

No notice inspections were not introduced after the previous consultation for very sound reasons.  School inspections are not simply an audit of compliance like the inspection of health and safety in a restaurant or care home. They are about making informed, evidence-based professional judgements about a wide range of complex institutions. By definition this implies that such judgements need to be based on a solid and reliable evidence base. Arriving with no notice at all to do a spot check on behaviour following a critical inspection is a completely different issue and cannot be compared with a full inspection leading to a published report on a wide range of aspects of the school's work.

The current inspection framework draws on a wide range of data prior to and during the inspection visit together with observations of life and work of school. Key staff  are rigorously interviewed, time is spent in the classroom the views of staff and students are gathered. Their assessment is informed by appropriate evidence arising from their self-evaluation processes.  The idea that the new Parent View website which is so open to abuse in any way strengthens that evidence base  makes a mockery of the considerable efforts schools currentlyto elicit feedback from parents  .

Schools currently receive up to two or possibly three days notice. This just about gives sufficient time to rearrange diaries in order to ensure that everyone who needs to be available for the inspectors is on-site and that the information that needs to be available for inspectors is ready for them. The idea that this length of time would be long enough to pull the wool over inspectors’ eyes is an insult to the inspectors and the professionals who work in those schools.  Some commentators have been asking whether this decision was a knee-jerk reaction to the report last week about bribes paid to children to stay away from school.  If there is any truth behind this anecdote then the unacceptable activities of a small number of individuals are not a reason to change the whole system.

No notice inspections are based on the idea that everyone who needs to be seen by an inspector will be available when they arrive. The question is therefore begged what happens when the headteacher is off-site at a perfectly legitimate meeting or key member of staff responsible for an area the inspectors want and need to investigate is attending a child protection meeting or on an educational visit. The absence of these key people could lead to flawed judgements based on inadequate evidence which are reaching implications for the reputation of the school.

Above all however this proposal is deeply insulting and makes a complete mockery of the government’s increasingly hollow claims that it wishes to create a high status profession. How can a profession which cannot even be trusted to be given the courtesy of 24 hours notice for inspection be described as high status?

An experienced, highly regarded headteacher of a school which has been graded outstanding by Ofsted described this as a ‘cavalier disregard for consultation’ and ‘ongoing contempt for the professionalism of schools and teachers.. which is starting to look like persecution’. The government should be extremely concerned when leading professionals like this ASCL member feel disenfranchised and demoralised and are talking of resignation.

ASCL has always been quite clear that inspections are an important and necessary part of school accountability. Effective, modern inspection is challenging, rigorous, identifies and spreads good practice, validates self-evaluation processes and helps schools to improve. All of this is achieved by working with school leaders not by playing cat and mouse with them.

Evidence based policy or policy on the hoof?

I am fascinated by Sir Michael Wilshaw's call for local school commissioners which took everyone by surprise as they were digesting their Christmas pudding. Was this simply a story for a quiet day which was short on bigger news or was there more to it?

If this is a proposal which is more than an off-the-cuff idea the possible interpretations become interesting.  Why would  a new chief inspector, even before taking up his post, come up with a proposal which was effectively an devastating critique  of government policy, based on the premise that the move  an autonomous system of academies without local accountability has massively increased the risk of school failure?  If thisis a sign of things to come we are certainly in for ‘interesting times’ 

An alternative  interpretation might be that the debate that has been started is a ‘kite being flown’ as an attempt to find a politically acceptable way to get the government out of a hole it has created by fragmenting the system?  That argument seems highly implausible bearing in mind that the proposal is predicated on a return to expensive field forces and external intervention and flies in the face of the whole thrust of coalition policy which is based on freedom and autonomy.

Another interpretation might be to view this as a bid to build up an Ofsted field force. That would seem premature but also very worrying in itself if Ofsted is being seen as  a hit squad which will go out and sack ‘incompetent’ heads and teachers. It raises all kinds of questions about the purpose of Ofsted and indeed the role of the Chief Inspector.

But the biggest question this raises for me is how education policy is developed. There is nothing wrong with a healthy public interest in education debated actively via the media. However there is a difference between the discussions any of us might have over dinner or a drink and making that official policy.  Over and over again  policies develop which are based on ideas arising from  the personal experience and views of individuals -whether they be employees of think tanks, officials or even ministers.  These get adopted and superimposed on whatever set of policies currently prevails adding further initiatives and turbulence for those in the field. This characteristic is not limited to the current government; we all remember it happening after the previous government published the Children's Plan which was to set out the whole range of policies and to which all kinds of others were added almost before the ink was dry.

For a number of years ASCL has been arguing for an alternative to this disruptive approach which actually militates against school improvement and adds immense difficulties to the role of school leaders whose job it is to implement government policy effectively. We believe that the one appointment the government should make is of a Chief Education Officer similar to the Chief Medical Officer. It should be a Crown appointment whose role as a leading expert with the highest levels of specialist knowledge and experience would be to evaluate proposed and existing government policies with complete independence. In such a context  a proposal of this kind be would substantiated by a robust, credible and above all independent evaluation of its merits before a Chief Inspector announced it on the front page of a national newspaper.

There has never been a better example of why this is necessary than the debate that has taken place publicly over recent days.

A high status profession does not deserve insults.

The appalling comments by the Prime Minister in the Telegraph on Monday (http://t.co/aj0al19v) are evidence of one of two things: either they show how out of touch Number 10 is with what is happening on a day to day basis in schools, or they demonstrate that the Prime Minister is willing to sacrifice hardworking teachers and schools leaders to score political points. The cynic in me thinks that it’s easier to justify stripping pensions when the message is that teachers and support staff don’t deserve them in the first place.

The Government does not have a monopoly over high aspirations for our education service. School leaders are at the forefront of driving up standards and strive tirelessly to build upon the improvements that have been achieved to date.  

Don’t get me wrong, we know there are examples of ‘coasting’ schools where the catchment is less challenging, where students have more advantages, yet they do not make the progress that they could or should. But these schools are hardly endemic, and to assume the problem stems from complacent and uncaring teachers is frankly an insult.

Of course there is more to do, but that work requires the support, not the denigration, of our political leaders. It also requires an understanding of the fact that not only inner city schools face challenges – some of the most entrenched deprivation is in rural and coastal areas.

The coalition government proudly states that it believes in a high status teaching profession. Assertions by the Prime Minister, of all people, that schools are content to ‘muddle through’ and accept mediocrity make a mockery of teachers’ commitment and demoralises a hardworking profession which is battling to continue the trajectory of improvement in the context of falling budgets, worsening pay and conditions and stinging cuts in front line services.

The Prime Minister and his government need to work with, not against the profession.