COALITION WATCH


Gove plans to scrap observation rules


by Chris Parr


An agreement that prohibits school leaders from carrying out more than three hours of classroom observations per year on an individual teacher is to be revoked by the secretary of state. Addressing delegates at the


A watchful eye: Education secretary Michael Gove has said that he wants to see more lesson observations in schools


National College for Leadership of Schools and Children’s Services on Thursday (June 17), education min- ister Michael Gove said that noth- ing should get in the way of making sure schools employ the “best cadre of professionals”, including the limitation on lesson observations. He continued: “Teaching is a


craft and it is best learnt as an apprentice observing a master


craftsman or woman. Watching oth- ers, and being rigorously observed yourself as you develop, is the best route to acquiring mastery in the classroom. This is why I intend to abolish those rules which limit the ability of school leaders to observe teachers at work.” The agreement that no individ-


ual teacher should be subjected to more than three hours of obser- vation came out of discussions between the social partnership, which at the time comprised three of the main teaching unions, the two main leadership unions, and the government among other partners. The three teaching unions –


the NASUWT, the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL), and Voice – claimed that some teachers were being subjected to excessive observation and, after discussions with the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) and repre- sentatives from the then Department


Free schools row continues as 700 groups register their interest


Teachers, parents and charities wishing to set up their own schools can now begin the application process after the government announced further details of its flagship free schools programme. Michael Gove, the education


secretary, has ordered a reform of planning and building laws, claim- ing they are too restrictive and stand in the way of groups wishing to establish new schools. The changes will make the


bureaucratic process less burden- some, and could see schools estab- lished in disused office blocks or shops. The scheme is similar to the Charter School programme in the USA, and the Swedish system. Mr Gove said: “We are taking


practical steps to ensure that any- one who wants to set up their own school will find it easier to do so.” According to the New Schools


Network (NSN), a charity that has now received government funding


to advise those wishing to set up schools, more than 700 groups have expressed an interest in setting up schools – more than half of which are teacher groups. At a press conference on Friday


(June 18), Mr Gove described the current process of setting up a school as “amazingly complicated”, highlighting the intricacies of the 389-page document that sets out the requirements any school building – either newly built or converted from an existing structure – had to meet. “It is this ridiculous, bureau-


cratic nonsense, which has impeded the idealism and the imagination of people who want to transform state education, that we are going to change,” he said. “If, when converting or design-


ing a new building, you have to wade through all of these docu- ments before the first brick is laid, then you are going to find yourself incurring massive costs that have


nothing to do with improving the education of children.” The government has reallocated


£50 million to fund the programme until March 2011. The money has been taken from the Harnessing Technology Grant, which was pre- viously managed by the scrapped ICT agency, Becta. It is also hoped that as new schools develop, further savings will be made. Mr Gove said: “As a result


of what has happened in Sweden and America, none-staff costs in schools have been driven down. A greater degree of imagination and innovation about how you use resources has reduced costs.” However, Ed Balls, Labour


shadow education secretary, said he was concerned about the impli- cations of the scheme for existing schools. He said: “I don’t think driving education through market mechanisms is fair or is likely to work at all. Where is the money


going to come from? My fear is that this will be paid for by a less good education and fewer teachers for all the other schools in the country.” Chris Keates, general secretary


of the NASUWT, described the programme as an “unnecessary and costly gamble in educating the country’s children”. She added: “The government


is simply not acting responsibly by not making clear where the money will come from to fund the free schools policy. Major education programmes have in the last few weeks been cut or frozen. The pub- lic would be right to be concerned that money saved from other edu- cation programmes will be used to fund the this policy.” Christine Blower, general sec-


retary of the National Union of Teachers, said the plans will “create chaos at local level”. For more information, visit www.education.gov.uk/freeschools


Find Your Talent programme axed


A pilot programme designed to help youngsters make the most of their talents has been scrapped by the coalition government. Find Your Talent, which was to


be trialled in 10 pathfinder areas across England until 2011, was set up by the previous government to encourage young people to get involved in cultural activities and seek hands-on work experience in the creative industries. The programme, which was run


jointly by the departments for edu- cation and for culture, media and sport, also aimed to help young people discover new cultural expe- riences, such as visiting the theatre or learning a musical instrument. Jeremy Hunt, the secretary of


state for culture, Olympics, media and sport, said the decision was the result of an “unprecedented finan- cial situation”. “As part of my department’s contribution, we have examined a


4


number of schemes to determine whether they remain a government priority, value for money, and afford- able in the current economic climate. This has involved some incredibly difficult decisions,” he said. Paul Collard, chief executive of


Creativity, Culture and Education, which was managing the pro- gramme, said he was “very disap- pointed” by the decision. He said: “Since its launch in


2008, Find Your Talent has helped young people to get work experi- ence in the fast-growing creative industries including radio and tel- evision and develop new media or craft skills. “Culture can transform commu-


nities; strengthen families; increase community cohesion and play a sig- nificant role in social and econom- ic regeneration. This programme would have yielded important learning about how such impacts can be delivered most effectively.”


for Education and Skills, the three- hour limit was agreed. However, speaking to SecEd


this week, Dr John Dunford, ASCL general secretary, said members of his union would be happy to see the rules changed. He continued: “I think that this


is the kind of thing on which school leaders would welcome greater flexibility. The three-hour limit was part of an agreement between the workforce unions, and the allega- tion from classroom unions was that some schools carry out an unreasonable amount of lesson observation. “This was to protect against that.


I wouldn’t advocate unlimited free- dom, but I think it is something that can and should be decided at school level.” However, Martin Freedman,


head of pay, conditions and pen- sions at the ATL, said experience proved that continually monitor-


ing performance did not improve standards. “We would not be happy for


there to be no limit on observa- tions. If performance management is working well, then school leaders should know how well staff are doing without excessive monitor- ing,” he said. Paula Roe, an English teacher


at Redhill School and Specialist Language College in Stourbridge, said it was “appalling” that the announcement had been made at the National College conference, adding that lesson observations were often used in “a punitive way, and fail to give constructive, devel- opmental comments to the teacher. “Mr Gove doesn’t want to listen


to or consult with teachers in the classroom who know that excessive observations do not make a good teacher. The agreed three-hours maximum is sufficient to do all that is required,” she added.


Vetting scheme is put on hold


Plans to vet up to nine million professionals who regularly work with children have been put on hold by the coalition government. The new safeguarding pro-


cedures were due to commence next month but home secretary Theresa May announced a review last week, with the intention of making the scheme less burden- some. The scheme was introduced in the wake of the Soham murders by school caretaker Ian Huntley in 2002. Mick Brookes, general secre-


tary of the National Association of Head Teachers, welcomed the review and urged Ms May to lis- ten to school leaders when draft- ing new plans. “We would draw the minis-


ter’s attention to the current dog’s breakfast, created by the previous administration, of CRB checking that is hugely bureaucratic and non-transferable between estab- lishments,” he said. “Moving to a single safeguarding check for multiple use cannot wait.” Dai Durbridge, a safeguard- ing expert at solicitors Browne


Jacobson, said that although the review is a major step, he was unsure whether it went far enough. “There is little doubt that the


registration requirements impact- ed upon too many people, but the management of the infor- mation held by the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) and its role in barring individuals also requires review,” he said. “A failure to automatically


tell employers when their staff are barred and an extremely low threshold for when employers are under a legal obligation to refer conduct to the ISA are of serious concern to employers.” Dr Bernard Trafford, head


at the Royal Grammar School in Newcastle, was inspected in February and declared fully com- pliant with the new vetting and barring guidance. He said: “It doesn’t mean it was worth doing. Over-prescriptive, excessively detailed, hugely demanding of time – all the requirements around the Centralised Register are about proving we’re following rules, not that we’re making children safe.”


SecEd • June 24 2010


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24