Normal service may be resumed

I haven't posted in a long time.  Two reasons: Gove's stupidity, demonstrated in the media almost daily, makes comment superfluous.  But it's still fun to highlight it.  The second and more significant reason is that I have been very preoccupied by family illness.

However I noted this exchange between Gove and an interviewer a while ago and thought that he had taken the art of ignoring the question totally to a new level (well, he has to be good at something):

Questioner: 'Did you overrule the committee?' 

Govey: 'Playing fields are better protected under this govt than at any time before'.

Teachers don't know what stress is!!!!!!

Humpty again. Wilshaw seems absolutely determined to alienate teachers by stupid remarks like these:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/may/10/teachers-dont-know-stress-ofsted-chief

I wrote an article quite a while ago that I hope sums up the effects of stress on too many teachers and also tries to celebrate the legacy of those teachers who have suffered 'burn-out':
http://www.philjtaylor.com/Not%20so%20much%20as%20a%20fond%20farewell.htm

Since the nineties, the stresses on teachers have undeniably become even greater. And this has happened despite the introduction of lunchtime organisers to allow most teachers to have a proper lunch break. Interestingly, this innovation was prompted by teachers' industrial action in the 80's which Wilshaw derides in the same speech:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/05/10/teachers-dont-know-what-stress-is-says-ofsted-chief-sir-michael-wilshaw_n_1505881.html

Still there are signs that even Gove, who is trying to row back on Wilshaw's plan for no-notice Ofsted inspections, is beginning to wonder what the Hell they've done in appointing someone who so clearly fails to appreciate that the whole education system depends on the dedication of teachers.

Stalin would have been proud

Michael Gove's chilling words in an article about schools being forced to become academies:

'No school is being threatened with academy status. Schools are being promised the benefits that come from being an academy.'

The closest thing to Stalin in U.K. politics?

Read the article here: http://tinyurl.com/cv5qx5n

An early day motion on this isssue in January (arising from events in Haringey) attracted 47 M.P.'s signatures  -  all Labour apart from Mike Hancock (Lib Dem  -  just about) and Caroline Lucas (I've never heard her say anything I disagree with). Not exactly the kind of response one would hope for.

Academy myths and facts

Fiona Millar tweated the link to this 'excellent short pithy post':

http://ht.ly/ar77w

It's astonishing that we can be fed such patent untruths.

What's wrong with free schools?

A Labour MP sums it up very well.

But her title is very worrying  -  should Stephen Twigg (Shadow Secretary of State for Education) need to be told that free schools are an expensively mad idea?

It's actually getting quite tedious.....

.....and I promise my next post will be on a different topic and won't mention Humpty Wilshaw. But I couldn't help drawing attention to this article about his latest absurdity.

How not to run a successful organisation

"If anyone says to you that 'staff morale is at an all-time low', you know you are doing something right." 
(A quote from Sir Humpty Wilshaw, Ofsted boss, to the Guardian)


Now there are probably a large number of ways to run a school, or any organisation. I venture to suggest that no-one has ever run a successful organisation by reducing staff morale to an all-time low. In fact, anyone who wants to be a successful leader/manager will actually make raising staff morale a high priority. Now if anyone says to you that 'staff morale is at an all-time low' you know absolutely nothing except that this particular person (probably the staffroom depressive who would say it whatever was actually going on) holds this particular view. But if you learn that a significant number of staff hold this view then you actually know that you are doing something wrong  -  probably a lot of things wrong. 


Oddly enough, up until now at least, Ofsted have been very interested in staff morale and schools have ended up in special measures largely because of the issue of low morale. 


One wonders if Wilshaw has ever been on a leadership or management course and whether, if so, he expressed this stupid view there? Perhaps it's only since he's been a head that he's realised that his job is to lower morale to an all-time low?


In any event, the decision to appoint this clown to such a sensitive job highlights once again the absurd way in which such appointments are made. It's clear that the the kind of recruitment and selection policies that apply to most public bodies are totally absent from some of the most important public appointments, which is one of the reasons why we have had a succession of such dreadful 'leaders' at Ofsted. Sadly, for students, parents and teachers, the job usually seems to go to the person who most publicly represents him/herself as uncritically believing in everything that the party in power believes.


If it wasn't happening at the same time as the disastrous dismantling of our publicly financed locally accountable education system, the new Ofsted regime would, unless Wilshaw were to prematurely implode, be on course to end up as the biggest betrayal of young people since the beginning of state education.

He's at it again

Sir Michael 'Humpty' Wilshaw, attempting to top the claim by the worst ever chief inspector of schools  -  until now  -  that there were 15,000 incompetent teachers in English schools:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/9062107/5000-head-teachers-lack-leadership-says-Ofsted-chief.html

Certainly if there really were 5,000 heads who 'lack leadership', this would be a bigger cause for concern than the fact that there were, allegedly, 15,000 incompetent teachers.  However, it's the same old sleight of hand to earn a cheap headline.  In fact only 1% of all heads are, according to Ofsted, 'inadequate' and even if this is an accurate assessment, it is probably the case that heads generally are doing very well in comparison with other professions.  As I never tire of pointing out, not only do these statements attempt to totally turn on its head the dictionary definition of 'satisfactory': 'fulfilling expectations or needs; acceptable, though not outstanding or perfect'  (Oxford definition), but seems also to betray a complete ignorance of Ofsted's own 'satisfactory leadership' definition:


This is the grade descriptor for 'satisfactory leadership' that would have been used for schools inspected before 2012 (the schools Humpty is talking about):

The headteacher and most other key leaders, including the governing body, provide a concerted approach to school improvement. Planned actions by leaders and managers have improved the quality of teaching so that very little is inadequate. Most but not all staff and pupils are fully committed to the drive and ambition demonstrated by key leaders. Capacity to improve is demonstrated by a trend of sustained improvement in achievement, behaviour and safety although a few significant weaknesses remain. 

Is he deliberately attempting to mislead the public?  Or is he just completely out of his depth?

If you're interested, the new schedule (from Jan 2012) has a slightly longer and arguably more comprehensive grade descriptor :

The headteacher and most other key leaders, including the governing body, provide a concerted approach to school improvement. Planned actions by leaders and managers have improved the quality of teaching so that very little is inadequate. Most, but not all, staff and pupils are fully committed to the drive and ambition demonstrated by key leaders. Capacity to improve is demonstrated by a trend of sustained improvement in achievement, behaviour and safety, although a few significant weaknesses remain. Essential systems are embedded sufficiently to enable the school to continue improving and do not depend solely on only one or two senior leaders. The curriculum is generally matched to pupils’ needs, interests and aspirations and provides adequate preparation for the next stage of their lives, whatever their starting points. The school usually works well with parents and carers, although may be less successful in engaging those who might traditionally find working with the school difficult. The school’s arrangements for safeguarding pupils meet statutory requirements and give no cause for concern.


This will  in fact become pretty irrelevant as Humpty has said that the whole category will be scrapped   -  and since chief inspectors have quasi-dictatorial powers, this will happen.

Excellent letter in the Guardian

It's always good to read a letter (the first one on the linked page) by someone with a bit more knowledge about a particular school and type of school in the news.

England's wonderful secondary schools

According to the BBC only 5 secondary schools failed to get at least 20% of their students to achieve 5 or more GCSEs at Grade C or above.  This is THE headline that the papers should all be carrying.  It is an astonishing achievement.  The BBC table does not show the contextual value added information that shows how well schools are really doing.  It's quite possible that the 5 schools that failed to achieve 20% are actually doing well, considering the raw material with which they have to work.

I haven't yet noticed any politician of any party congratulating schools and teachers.  I suspect that they are all such cowards that they dare not acknowledge the truth for fear of being portrayed as complacent about 'standards'.

As for Nick Gibb and Humpty Wilshaw.......watch this space!

But satisfactory is good enough.....

.....that's what the word means, as I've pointed out previously. Now the new chief inspector has decided to abolish the word as it doesn't mean what he wants it to mean  -  what we might call the Humpty Dumpty response ("When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean － neither more nor less.").  In future I will try to remember to to refer to Her Majesty's Chief Inspector as Humpty.


If anyone doubts that 'satisfactory' is a positive judgement they should study the criteria (click on the Adobe document link and download it.  It's hard to find anywhere else) used to make this judgement in detail and then decide whether they would be happy to send their children to a school that is able to jump through all these hoops.


Once again, it's all down to the wretched myth that a significant number of schools are failing.  Every time the system proves unable to identify enough 'failures', the goalposts are moved.  Is this any way to run an education system?

All you really need to know about Nick Gibb

The schools minister is quoted in the 'Guardian' today as having dismissed social and emotional learning as 'ghastly' and likely to distract from 'the core subjects of academic education'.

No comment required.

Incompetent teachers

They always have a go at this one eventually, whether they are original Tories or the New Labour variety.  If you start from the premise that a significant number of schools are failing (and if you're either a regular reader of this blog or well-informed about education you'll know that this is a false premise) then someone must be to blame  -  the Local Authority, headteachers, governors and, easiest of all to identify, incompetent teachers.

Do incompetent teachers exist?  Of course.  Are there very many of them?  There's no reason to think so.  It's being said that only 17 teachers have been 'struck off' by the General Teaching Council in a decade and that this shows that incompetent teachers are not being 'weeded out'.  You might equally argue that it demonstrates how infinitesimally small the number of incompetent teachers is.  Probably the real answer is that more than 17 incompetent teachers have left the profession during the decade, but only 17 have been 'struck off'.

Frequently, teachers who are identified as not being up to the mark 'vote with their feet' as soon as the school lets them know that they need to improve.  Often they leave before it even gets to this stage because the kids, as we all remember from our own schooldays, make life intolerable for them.

Sometimes, though, teachers who were once good and are now struggling (for any number of reasons) can have their careers revived by a sympathetic approach  -  the tweaking of the timetable, a lessening of responsibilities, appropriate support  -  and thus their invaluable experience continues to benefit schools and kids.  People like Gove wouldn't know anything about this kind of thing because they've probably never employed anyone.

We are regularly being told that procedures for rooting out incompetent teachers are being tightened up but still, it appears, they need tightening up again a few years later.  In reality, this country fortunately has employment legislation that protects employees from arbitrary and 'fast track' dismissal so most of the talk about speeding things up is just that  -  talk.  Gove is no different in this respect from a host of Labour bullies.

These fools always start from the wrong place because they NEVER look at the evidence.