NEWS FOCUS SecEd: On Your Side


Do not be afraid of pupil voice


SUPPOSE YOU were a regular customer at a supermarket and any time you had a complaint, they said: “Don’t care – you’re only the customer, we know best, now get lost.” How would you feel? Cross, I expect. Incandescent, probably, if it happened often enough. And you would probably find a different supermarket.


Hilary


Moriarty Guest


Editorial


Because we live in a world where the customer is king. We expect to be consulted. We expect to have a voice. The trouble is that in this brave new world, schools have been remarkably slow to catch on. Ten years ago I certainly knew headteachers who


considered pupils lucky to be allowed through the doors. Any challenge to authority – a parent calling to say a child had found their homework very easy – was greeted with: “How dare they?” There was an overwhelming presumption that schools knew what education was about, and everyone beyond the gate was at best ignorant and at worst a flaming nuisance. So what about the consumer’s voice in schools? Most


schools have a school council, but very few seem to be about the real business of schools. Indeed, according to government research last year, 95 per cent of schools have pupil councils but only 12 per cent give pupils a say in teaching and learning. How many headteachers have seen a minute from the


school council reporting cases of poor teaching? And what would senior management do with such evidence? And what would teaching unions let them do? And when would we cry “harrassment” if pupil-rating became one of the parameters of appraisal? Sadly, although most teachers are experts, not all are


expert teachers, which makes it a pity that 40 per cent of teachers in a recent survey of 2,000 said they did not agree with pupils rating their teaching. What are we so afraid of? Being found out? Are we that


bad? And if we are, why are we still doing the job? How would you feel about a bad doctor continuing to practise medicine? But bad teachers can ruin lives as surely as a bad doctor


can cripple or end one. Right now, many commentators are exercised about our


apparent national disposition not to like mathematics and our conviction that we are no good at it. I think it probably came from secondary maths classes


like the ones I endured in which one teacher bounced chalk on our heads and another said with monotonous regularity of a sum on the board: “The girls won’t be able to do this, Peter Hughes have you got the answer?” I recently saw a lecturer on pastoral care invite her


audience to draw. She actually only wanted a sketch of a volcano – easy-peasy, neither Picasso nor Banksy – but she then asked, “how many of you were quite happy when I told you I wanted a drawing?” – a handful of hands. “That,” she declared, “is because when you were in school, some teacher told you what you were doing in art was no good.” A room full of agreement. And many lifetimes of being afraid even to doodle. So is it not high time we heard from the pupils? Really


heard? We fill in evaluation forms when we go on courses. We tell it how it is – sometimes courteously – “the second lecture was slightly long and seemed to get away from the point” – sometimes bluntly – “boring” – and go on our way without a second thought. Is it not just possible that our teaching would improve


if we paid heed to what our audience thought? If they do not tell us – and give us a chance to fix things – they will certainly tell others. Inspectors are beginning to recognise that when they enter the room, they change what happens in class. Far better to talk to the pupils, who are there all the time. If we do not listen to pupils, inspectors certainly will.SecEd


•Hilary Moriarty is National Director of the Boarding Schools’ Association, but writes here in a personal capacity. Pete Henshaw is publisher and editor of SecEd. Email editor@sec-ed.co.uk, visit www.sec-ed.co.uk and follow us at www.twitter.com/SecEd_Education.


www.sec-ed.com


Assessment call: Sir Tim Brighouse (left) is calling for an overhaul of our examinations system


Call for change


Sir Tim Brighouse discusses the urgent change he argues is needed in our examinations system. He proposes five areas for change, including a focus on chartered assessors


THE LAST election was like all its recent predecessors in that all parties could agree that standards in the schooling system were not high enough and that a vote for them would help put it right. Yet their solutions were


variations on a familiar set of themes – parental choice, diversity of school, better teachers, their own pet curriculum reform, and no let- up on tests exams and inspections. It is this last “received wisdom”


which may be part of the problem. Consider. Despite spending five


times more per pupil than any other country on external exams, tests and school inspections, we complain if we slip in international league tables or wring our collective hands in despair whether SAT, GCSE or A level results fall, stay the same or improve as signs of “dumbing down” or “falling standards”. We seek to use our antiquated


exam and testing system – still faithful and more suited to its 19th century design than to 21st century needs or assessment possibilities – to serve more purposes than it can manage. We pretend the same external


tests and exams can serve as reliable and authoritative measures


for summative judgements on pupil progress, informative background data for parental choice and reliable comparative data for Ofsted inspectors – not to mention as a handle for politicians to judge national standards. They cannot do all those things


reliably. Experts agree that there can be


as much as a 30 per cent error for the individual child, 10 per cent for the school, and up to five per cent as a reliable guide to national standards. Our present system is built on


the assumption that our teachers cannot be trusted in the very daily task which is at the heart of their professional skill. One more point demands notice


in these hard times. The secondary exam system alone provides annual profits from school budgets to a few exam boards resulting in profit for shareholders and in one case an annual subsidy of £30 million to one of our two richest universities. As our new education minister


Michael Gove, a lover of history and knowledge, might reflect “external exams and tests are neither cheap nor efficient”. In short they are not fit-for-


IN RESPONSE…


SecEd recently reported on the failure of the National Profesisonal Qualification for Headteachers (NPQH) to create more headteachers (Head qualifications under the spotlight, SecEd 252, June 10 2010). Estyn, the Welsh


inspectorate, found that 739 professionals were currently qualified, yet the vast majority were not pursuing a career in headship.


The NPQH was specifically


designed to create headteachers within three years of candidates acquiring the qualifications.


Sir, As the commissioners of the National Professional Qualification for Headship (NPQH) in England, we have first-hand experience of overcoming some of the issues detailed in your June 10 article on the Welsh NPQH. In 2006 the National College,


in consultation with the profession, started the process of redesigning the NPQH in England. Our experience was similar – too many participants were using it purely for CPD with no intention of applying for headship so too few graduates sought headship. By sharpening the entry


criteria, improving selection and assessment processes, and introducing personalised, work- based development opportunities a more tightly focused qualification


has been available since 2008. We are keen to offer support to the Welsh government and are happy to work with them to share our experience of implementing these improvements, and the impact they have had.


Steve Munby


Chief executive, National College for Leadership of Schools and Children’s Services


purpose and in the present times of austerity they need to be changed. There needs to be an urgent


debate about how the system might be reformed and, in the spirit of our times, money will need to be saved in the process. Here are five propositions for change. First, at age seven, 11 and 16


have tests and exams internally marked but externally set and moderated by one national “not-for- profit” exam agency – not unlike what happens now at the end of key stage 1. Second, in conjunction with the


Chartered Institute of Educational Assessors (CIEA), ensure each school has a chartered assessor: and for each examined subject area, a teacher with a current “licence to assess” established through regular stints as trained and practising external moderators in their subjects. Third at A level/Diploma stage


involve universities and the further education sector in the setting and validation of a similar process. Fourth at all stages, where


there is unacceptable discrepancy between internal and external assessment, use it as a trigger for an Ofsted inspection.


Finally to keep track of


international standards, the single national agency for tests and exams should maintain and refresh a bank of tests on the basic skills, science and ICT form which they would annually run a representative but anonymous 10 per cent sample on performance at seven, nine, 11 and 13. I could suggest more – not


least on how to use assessment to improve primary/secondary transition – but these should contribute to the debate.


SecEd


• Sir Tim Brighouse was a former teacher and deputy head, and most recently was the London schools commissioner until 2007.


Further Information:


The Chartered Institute of Educational Assessors (CIEA) is the leading membership body dedicated to providing support, training and professional development to all those involved in educational testing and assessment. For more information on the CIEA, visit www.ciea.org.uk and for more on its national conference, which takes place later this year, see www.ciea.org.uk/cea


6


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