First, check this out.
How many Libdem voters do you think will support the idea of National Curriculum History being reimagined by a Neo-Victorian Imperialist? Come to that, how many sane, properly educated people will be impressed? Probably Cameron will because he will have been indoctrinated with this twaddle at prep school and Eton, but there must be many Tories even who are shaking their heads in disbelief. Talk about a backwards step.
And as for the Academies promotion......... Words almost fail me. Adonis has got a lot to answer for. As have Blair, Brown and Balls. On the back of the big lie about schools failing will be built an education universe which can only widen the unforgiveable social gulf for which this country is renowned.
Sunday, 30 May 2010
Saturday, 22 May 2010
Schools Sell-Out
The Association of School and College Lecturers, to which most secondary heads belong, had its members polled before the election and found that the LibDem plans for schools were preferred. Most heads could see the absurdity, particularly in the light of the deficit, of deliberately setting out to create surplus places (the plan for 'free schools') and unsurprisingly there was little confidence in Michael Gove after his ridiculous wish to see a return to 'traditional' education:
“I’m an unashamed traditionalist when it comes to the curriculum,” Mr Gove said. “Most parents would rather their children had a traditional education, with children sitting in rows, learning the kings and queens of England, the great works of literature, proper mental arithmetic, algebra by the age of 11, modern foreign languages. That’s the best training of the mind and that’s how children will be able to compete.” (Not straight out of 'Private Eye' but from The Times, 6/03/10).
It turns out that short-trousered Michael Gove, who looks and sounds like he should still be wearing them, was a member of a successful primary school quiz team. So what? However clever he and presumably his proud parents may think he is, he makes a common bar-room mistake in equating the accumulation of often useless knowledge with intelligence. I have to be restrained every time a 'Millionaire' contestant says of a 'phone a friend' nominee, 'She'll know, she's very clever'. But more importantly, there's no evidence whatsoever that parents want their children to sit in rows and 'learn' useless facts. Now, of course, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with the proposed content - apart from the kings and queens of course: the sooner we ditch them the better off we'll be - but the implied pedagogy sucks.
Then there's the tension between such bizarre and prescriptive statements by a Secretary of State and the declared intention to set schools free.
Things would not be quite so depressing if education wasn't one of the policy areas where the LibDems appear to have totally sold out to the Tories. Or if the schools minister was a LibDem who could bring some sense to bear. Sarah Teather, one of the most impressive politicians in any party, is actually a minister in the department but she has responsibility for children - a graveyard slot, if you will.
Instead of someone sensible, we have Nick Gibb who is reported to have told officials in the Department for Education on the day after his appointment: "I would rather have a physics graduate from Oxbridge without a PGCE teaching in a school than a physics graduate from one of the rubbish universities with a PGCE."
First off, Physics graduates are a lot less easy for schools to come by than he appears to believe. Secondly, as any fule kno - and as we have explained previously on OSAA - academic excellence (let's assume for the sake of argument that 'graduate from Oxford' equals
'academically excellent', whatever that means) is absolutely not a marker for excellent teacher: it's often quite the reverse, probably because people who find learning easy find it hard to understand why lesser mortals find it difficult.
I understand Gibb is an accountant and I'm quite prepared to believe that he's good with figures.
So overall, it's looking pretty grim. A hung parliament was supposed to keep the loonies in check, not put them in power.
P.S. Gove incidentally still talks about 'headmasters'. Not that clever or intelligent then. Must have thought all those women he saw at the Heads' conference were their wives or mistresses.
“I’m an unashamed traditionalist when it comes to the curriculum,” Mr Gove said. “Most parents would rather their children had a traditional education, with children sitting in rows, learning the kings and queens of England, the great works of literature, proper mental arithmetic, algebra by the age of 11, modern foreign languages. That’s the best training of the mind and that’s how children will be able to compete.” (Not straight out of 'Private Eye' but from The Times, 6/03/10).
It turns out that short-trousered Michael Gove, who looks and sounds like he should still be wearing them, was a member of a successful primary school quiz team. So what? However clever he and presumably his proud parents may think he is, he makes a common bar-room mistake in equating the accumulation of often useless knowledge with intelligence. I have to be restrained every time a 'Millionaire' contestant says of a 'phone a friend' nominee, 'She'll know, she's very clever'. But more importantly, there's no evidence whatsoever that parents want their children to sit in rows and 'learn' useless facts. Now, of course, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with the proposed content - apart from the kings and queens of course: the sooner we ditch them the better off we'll be - but the implied pedagogy sucks.
Then there's the tension between such bizarre and prescriptive statements by a Secretary of State and the declared intention to set schools free.
Things would not be quite so depressing if education wasn't one of the policy areas where the LibDems appear to have totally sold out to the Tories. Or if the schools minister was a LibDem who could bring some sense to bear. Sarah Teather, one of the most impressive politicians in any party, is actually a minister in the department but she has responsibility for children - a graveyard slot, if you will.
Instead of someone sensible, we have Nick Gibb who is reported to have told officials in the Department for Education on the day after his appointment: "I would rather have a physics graduate from Oxbridge without a PGCE teaching in a school than a physics graduate from one of the rubbish universities with a PGCE."
First off, Physics graduates are a lot less easy for schools to come by than he appears to believe. Secondly, as any fule kno - and as we have explained previously on OSAA - academic excellence (let's assume for the sake of argument that 'graduate from Oxford' equals
'academically excellent', whatever that means) is absolutely not a marker for excellent teacher: it's often quite the reverse, probably because people who find learning easy find it hard to understand why lesser mortals find it difficult.
I understand Gibb is an accountant and I'm quite prepared to believe that he's good with figures.
So overall, it's looking pretty grim. A hung parliament was supposed to keep the loonies in check, not put them in power.
P.S. Gove incidentally still talks about 'headmasters'. Not that clever or intelligent then. Must have thought all those women he saw at the Heads' conference were their wives or mistresses.
Sunday, 2 May 2010
Get real Ed
Balls has an opportunity, at this very late stage, to finally face the fact that SATS are dead meat. Invented by regressive educationists, they have never been anything other than a con and Labour should have abolished them in 1997. They don't reliably assess kids or schools. They have distorted the curriculum and dumbed down pedagogy. Even their name, borrowed from the US because these clowns always assume that America equals state of the art when in reality it usually manages to combine the extremes of the spectrum, is ridiculous - the US SATS are something entirely different, though possibly just as silly.
Wales and Northern Ireland are managing to cope very well without SATS and they have never been used in Scotland (incidentally, I'd be voting SNP if I could as I agree with every policy I hear Salmond put forward). Key Stage 3 results have already collapsed under the weight of their own manifest futility and injustice. IT'S TIME TO CALL IT A DAY. So get real balls, Ed. They're not going to happen any way and you might even win yourself some votes.
Wales and Northern Ireland are managing to cope very well without SATS and they have never been used in Scotland (incidentally, I'd be voting SNP if I could as I agree with every policy I hear Salmond put forward). Key Stage 3 results have already collapsed under the weight of their own manifest futility and injustice. IT'S TIME TO CALL IT A DAY. So get real balls, Ed. They're not going to happen any way and you might even win yourself some votes.
Thursday, 15 April 2010
More Sharon Shoesmith
I don't know the truth about Shoesmith, who was sacked as Director of Children's Services for Haringey following the death of baby P - and neither does anyone else. There's currently a court case about it. Shoesmith is claiming that she was deliberately targeted - to make Ed Balls look strong and decisive rather than the smarmy prat he so clearly is, no doubt - and that Ofsted were pressurised into denouncing her (see 11 November post).
Now David Bell, permanent secretary, Department for Children, Schools and Families, has written to the 'Guardian' (Letters, 5 April) stating that Ofsted, being an independent inspectorate, could not have been influenced by ministers when it condemned Shoesmith following the death of "Baby P". Could this by any chance be the same David Bell who, as Her Majesty's Chief Inspector, was previously head of Ofsted? What a small world this is!
In reality, everyone who has followed Ofsted's grisly history knows how these things work. Balls had made very clear what he wanted to happen and, as in several previous cases, the independence of Ofsted melted like snow falling on hot bricks. I just hope that the independence of the courts proves more robust.
Now David Bell, permanent secretary, Department for Children, Schools and Families, has written to the 'Guardian' (Letters, 5 April) stating that Ofsted, being an independent inspectorate, could not have been influenced by ministers when it condemned Shoesmith following the death of "Baby P". Could this by any chance be the same David Bell who, as Her Majesty's Chief Inspector, was previously head of Ofsted? What a small world this is!
In reality, everyone who has followed Ofsted's grisly history knows how these things work. Balls had made very clear what he wanted to happen and, as in several previous cases, the independence of Ofsted melted like snow falling on hot bricks. I just hope that the independence of the courts proves more robust.
Wednesday, 31 March 2010
I agree with every word
of this letter which appears in today's 'Guardian'. What's more, as the impressive list of signatories suggests, it would command widespread support throughout the world of education. Only the pathetic politicians, and our simplistic, ignorant, lazy media (the 'Guardian' excepted, obviously) would disagree. Chief amongst the clowns lining up to spout garbage about our schools is Michael Gove who has a remarkable eye for madcap ideas, often from the U.S for God's sake, which will certainly make schools very different and bases his policies on these ideas whilst insisting that schools will be autonomous. Oh yeah? But Ed Balls isn't far behind. I see all the DCSF press releases. Most of them are recycled propaganda, and fortunately don't refer to anything that actually happens or is likely to happen, and some of the others are very similar to Gove's nonsense. One reason why I am quite excited by the prospect of a balanced parliament is that whoever is in, or supporting, the government will find it much more difficult to push absurd and extreme policies and may even be more inclined to look at sensible solutions like that put forward in this letter.
Wednesday, 13 January 2010
Hold on to your seatbelts.......
......it's that time of year again. Yes folks, school league tables will be published tomorrow. Stand by for the usual torrent of abuse for the 'worst' schools and the hyping of the 'outstanding' schools. Don' forget though: 'Schools do make a difference and mostly they make the same amount of difference'.
The advance media yowling suggests that the schools particularly under attack this year, as every year, are likely to be those that have failed, despite the threat of closure as punishment for this failure, to meet the government's arbitrary 'floor target' of 30% of students achieving 5 or more GCSE A*-C grades including English and maths. What is never pointed out is that there are schools that haven't got a cat in hell's chance of reaching the floor targets however good they are and however hard they try. The fact is that not everyone is capable of getting 5+ A*-C including English and maths or to put it another way we can't all be James Purnell (probably just as well). You can argue about the proportion of the population who will never make it. Let's be optimistic and say it's around 20% of the population. Now there are schools which have far more than their 'fair share' of this 20%. There are even schools that only have a handful of the 80%. So these schools will never reach the 'floor' ('aim for the floor' does not make a very inspiring slogan, we might note in passing). But these are not necessarily underperforming schools.
Imagine what it must be like to teach in or lead these schools. No matter what you do, no matter how well you teach or lead, the government and the media will always tell you that you are losers.
The one positive about the league tables is the evidence they will provide that academies are not the answer. They're actually doing worse than the schools that haven't had resources squandered on them. And some of the academies that have done so poorly will be 'popular' schools (see previous post). In fact, if you believe the government all the academies are popular schools.
You will need more than a pinch of salt to understand these league tables. There'll be no salt left for the roads on Friday.
The advance media yowling suggests that the schools particularly under attack this year, as every year, are likely to be those that have failed, despite the threat of closure as punishment for this failure, to meet the government's arbitrary 'floor target' of 30% of students achieving 5 or more GCSE A*-C grades including English and maths. What is never pointed out is that there are schools that haven't got a cat in hell's chance of reaching the floor targets however good they are and however hard they try. The fact is that not everyone is capable of getting 5+ A*-C including English and maths or to put it another way we can't all be James Purnell (probably just as well). You can argue about the proportion of the population who will never make it. Let's be optimistic and say it's around 20% of the population. Now there are schools which have far more than their 'fair share' of this 20%. There are even schools that only have a handful of the 80%. So these schools will never reach the 'floor' ('aim for the floor' does not make a very inspiring slogan, we might note in passing). But these are not necessarily underperforming schools.
Imagine what it must be like to teach in or lead these schools. No matter what you do, no matter how well you teach or lead, the government and the media will always tell you that you are losers.
The one positive about the league tables is the evidence they will provide that academies are not the answer. They're actually doing worse than the schools that haven't had resources squandered on them. And some of the academies that have done so poorly will be 'popular' schools (see previous post). In fact, if you believe the government all the academies are popular schools.
You will need more than a pinch of salt to understand these league tables. There'll be no salt left for the roads on Friday.
What a clown!
James Purnell (who resigned from the government some months ago hoping that others would follow him - nobody did) has written an article in 'The Guardian'. It is one of the most bizarre ever published by an allegedly intelligent politician. The part that interests us here is a madcap proposal about school organisation, one of a number of equally absurd ideas which are supposed to make Labour re-electable.
Tuesday, 5 January 2010
No Easy Answers
This should be written large in every school, Local Authority education department and education minister's office. There's an interesting article in Guardian Education today about a 'hero head'. You would have thought they'd gone out of fashion when too many of them lasted about eighteen months, but this one seems to have a bit going for him having allegedly resurrected two schools, developed a successful Academy and having 'a bewildering variety of other jobs' including an 'executive principal' post and an 'executive headship' position. Phew!
But wait, he doesn't do it all by himself. So is he a part of various teams then? Not exactly. He has people who are 'united and focused on the things I believe in'.
You'd think that he wanted people who believed in these things themselves, wouldn't you? In which case, surely, they would focus on the thing we believe in. The truly successful leader uses 'I' sparingly and never when s/he should say 'we'.
And what are these magic ingredients? The usual things: 'rigid discipline and traditional approaches to teaching and learning (no mixed-ability classes; subjects, not themes; heaps of homework). Pupils are sent home for wearing the wrong shoes, hair must be neither too long nor too short, ties must be straight, and there's even a Mossbourne woolly hat for cold weather. Visits to nearby fast-food shops are banned, even on the way home....' And breaches of discipline are punished by no notice detention until 6 p.m.
Leave aside the fact that this last feature is probably unlawful and that in many areas neither parents or young people would accept it, all the magic ingredients are practised in many relatively successful and many relatively unsuccessful schools. There always have been some courageous schools who have successfully persevered with mixed ability teaching (knowing that there is absolutely no evidence that any form of learner grouping is inherently superior to any other). Equally, there are still successful schools that do not find it necessary to demand that young people wear outrageously camp uniforms to prove that they attend a proper school. There are fewer schools now that use themes, although this approach appears to be becoming fashionable again, but amongst those that do can be found good and less good schools.
We're told by the article's author, Peter Wilby - who often approaches these issues with a rather breathless enthusiasm - that this is a head revered by Labour and Tories alike. Of course he is. They love easy answers, particularly ones that they assume are popular with parents. So a successful head who says, 'We are traditional here and make no apologies for it.' is always a likely candidate for a knighthood and ultimately beatification.
What a pity for them that the record will show that just as many of the relatively few schools that are deemed to fail would claim to be 'traditional' as would call themselves 'progressive'. Likewise, schools which are a bit better than most ('outstanding' in the stupid Ofsted categorisation) are by no means all carbon copies of the Mossbourne Academy, thank God.
So, there really are no easy answers. But only a fool would ever dream that there were.
But wait, he doesn't do it all by himself. So is he a part of various teams then? Not exactly. He has people who are 'united and focused on the things I believe in'.
You'd think that he wanted people who believed in these things themselves, wouldn't you? In which case, surely, they would focus on the thing we believe in. The truly successful leader uses 'I' sparingly and never when s/he should say 'we'.
And what are these magic ingredients? The usual things: 'rigid discipline and traditional approaches to teaching and learning (no mixed-ability classes; subjects, not themes; heaps of homework). Pupils are sent home for wearing the wrong shoes, hair must be neither too long nor too short, ties must be straight, and there's even a Mossbourne woolly hat for cold weather. Visits to nearby fast-food shops are banned, even on the way home....' And breaches of discipline are punished by no notice detention until 6 p.m.
Leave aside the fact that this last feature is probably unlawful and that in many areas neither parents or young people would accept it, all the magic ingredients are practised in many relatively successful and many relatively unsuccessful schools. There always have been some courageous schools who have successfully persevered with mixed ability teaching (knowing that there is absolutely no evidence that any form of learner grouping is inherently superior to any other). Equally, there are still successful schools that do not find it necessary to demand that young people wear outrageously camp uniforms to prove that they attend a proper school. There are fewer schools now that use themes, although this approach appears to be becoming fashionable again, but amongst those that do can be found good and less good schools.
We're told by the article's author, Peter Wilby - who often approaches these issues with a rather breathless enthusiasm - that this is a head revered by Labour and Tories alike. Of course he is. They love easy answers, particularly ones that they assume are popular with parents. So a successful head who says, 'We are traditional here and make no apologies for it.' is always a likely candidate for a knighthood and ultimately beatification.
What a pity for them that the record will show that just as many of the relatively few schools that are deemed to fail would claim to be 'traditional' as would call themselves 'progressive'. Likewise, schools which are a bit better than most ('outstanding' in the stupid Ofsted categorisation) are by no means all carbon copies of the Mossbourne Academy, thank God.
So, there really are no easy answers. But only a fool would ever dream that there were.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
His idea may be so deranged because he has never attended a proper school or had to 'choose' one as a parent (or had a proper job come to that).
Where to start? First, many parents around the country effectively only have one school to 'choose', and appear to be quite content with this arrangement; it's only in large urban areas that the issue arises. Secondly, how many parents would want to apply two or three years in advance? Thirdly, he confuses popularity and effectiveness; as regular readers of this blog will understand, there are many popular schools that are not particularly effective and many not very popular schools that are very effective. Fourthly, a lot can change in two to three years. In Tameside, where Purnell's constituency is located, there was a very 'popular' school that expanded very quickly and became very large, as lots of schools would in Purnell world. When it reached a certain size, the systems that had made it a reasonably effective school started to break down, behaviour deteriorated and before long it was in special measures. All those parents who had made their choice two or three years before entry would be understandably after Purnell's blood.
But it's not remotely practical anyway. How quickly does he think oversubscribed and therefore almost certainly overcrowded schools could be 'expanded'? Perhaps he has in mind inflatable classrooms? He could certainly provide the wind required.
But if you could build new facilities in time, what would happen when, in perhaps two or three years, another school in the area became the 'popular' one?
I could go on. The most extraordinary thing is how this comedian could have got a first at Oxford.