NEWS FOCUS SecEd: On Your Side


The government is just not listening


If educatIon minister Michael Gove is truly serious about empowering teachers and trusting the profession then he may want to take heed of the findings of a quite damning study.


Pete


Henshaw Editor SecEd


Research from the Sutton trust has found that out


of 2,199 teachers from across primary and secondary schools, only eight per cent – that’s 176 of them – think the government’s school reforms will improve outcomes for less privileged children. the study, carried out by the national foundation for


educational Research, showed particular opposition to the free schools programme with just seven per cent believing the new types of school would help disadvantaged children, and only eight per cent believing they would drive up educational standards. the chairman of the Sutton trust, Sir Peter Lampl, has rightly called the findings “very serious”. for me, they illustrate one striking fact about the


department for education – that despite lots of rhetoric, it has failed to properly engage with, or listen to, our profession. this is evident across the board, as was illustrated at the annual teacher trade union conferences over easter (see pages 2 and 3). there is palpable anger over a number of issues. the likelihood of strikes over pensions, the anger at the


english Baccalaureate, the callous slashing of Building Schools for the future, the educational Maintenance allowance, School Sports Partnerships, and Becta (which actually saved schools money, but not the government interestingly) – all of these are illustrations of areas where the government simply has not listened to the advice of the profession. Sure, we have had some partial u-turns, but only in cases


where the popular press has brought emotive issues into the court of public opinion, such as with school sports. the government is still hiding behind the deficit as


it wields its axe. But the alternatives have been laid out and it is becoming increasingly clear we do not need to be cutting as severely as we are. It is clear that the four-year programme of cuts is simply to ensure that the conservatives are electable again come the next election. the Robin Hood tax is a prime example of a simple alternative being ignored. this simple tax on transactions between banks and financial institutions could raise £20 billion a year in the uK and has been backed by a number of countries and the european Parliament. But our government does not want to know. So there is quite rightly anger that as the government continues to cut funding pots to state schools and local authorities, it has overseen a Budget that will leave schools facing a real-terms decrease in their core funding. furthermore, I am seething as more and more evidence comes out proving that in education, and in other areas, it is the disadvantaged who will suffer most from the cuts. and this fury is compounded because at the same


time, the government is spending at least £50 million and probably much more on its free schools programme. and the Sutton trust research shows that it is doing this despite a profession voicing strong concerns. I have not taken a particular position on free schools, but


I do know that the evidence from america and Sweden, countries Mr Gove often references, is not conclusive. Indeed, there is evidence to show that in Sweden the schools have done nothing to close the attainment gap and have led to disadvantaged children being excluded. I am angry that proponents of free schools argue that


they will close disadvantage gaps when it is quite clear they will do nothing of the sort, pandering instead to the middle classes. I am angry that so much money is being spent on free schools when grants and funds that support disadvantaged students are being cut left, right and centre. I am angry that the government says it listens, when it quite clearly doesn’t.


• Pete Henshaw is publisher and editor of Seced. Email editor@sec-ed.co.uk or visit www.sec-ed.co.uk. Follow us on Twitter at www.twitter.com/SecEd_Education


www.sec-ed.com Teacher regulation


The scrapping of the General Teaching Council for England last year raised questions about just how the government will take over


the regulation of teachers. With more details emerging of its intentions, Gail Mortimer, chair of the GTCE, gives SecEd her view of the government's plans so far


enSuRInG tHat the teaching profession is regulated by a fair system in a manner that protects the public interest and safeguards the standing of the profession has been at the forefront of much of the General teaching council for england’s (Gtce) work over the last 11 years. now we approach a period


of substantial change, with the abolition of the Gtce to be completed by the end of March 2012. Meanwhile, as the education Bill passes through Parliament, details are emerging about the new arrangements that will replace the existing system. We have been working closely


with the department for education to ensure, as far as possible, that the new system continues to be fair and effective. It is true to say that some of our initial concerns have been allayed. for instance, it is becoming clearer how the secretary of state will exercise his accountability for teacher regulation. now we have seen the shape of


the new model and we welcome the fact that hearings will continue to take place in public and there will be lay and teacher input, with support from trained officials and legal experts. that the government is interested in understanding what has worked well for the Gtce over the years – and is taking note of our research and evidence – is reassuring. However, several important


questions remain to be answered. Within the new system, it is very clear that accountability is the responsibility of government, rather than the profession itself, albeit with some input from teachers at


the point of adjudication. Will this achieve a fair, effective system that satisfies the public interest? What risks being lost if the profession no longer shares responsibility for regulating its standards? We also wait to hear more about


the development of professional standards, including those issues currently covered by the Gtce’s code of conduct and Professional Practice. another pressing issue that


we believe would benefit from additional scrutiny is the proposal for a sole sanction: that of prohibition. this “blunt tool”, as one MP has described it, replaces the rather more sophisticated approach currently taken by the Gtce, which draws on a number of proportionate and remedial sanctions. these include a reprimand,


kept on the teaching Register for a fixed period of two years, then a conditional registration order, whereby a teacher stays on the Register but must adhere to certain conditions. the more serious sanctions are suspension, which prevents an individual from teaching for up to two years, and a prohibition order, barring a teacher indefinitely. While a single sanction may


have the merit of simplicity, it also carries with it risks. the current system offers constructive support – or limits on practice – for those teachers who may, in certain conditions, be able to return to the classroom one day, ensuring that investment in their training is not lost unnecessarily. But in the future, poor behaviour will either result in no action at


IN RESPONSE…


MPs have called for Ofsted to be split in two, with its responsibilities for schools being carried out separately to its role in children’s care. A report from the Education Select Committee also recommends that more school inspectors should be serving practitioners, stating that too few have “recent and relevant” experience of the types of setting they inspect. MPs also backed the establishment of a “chief education officer” within the Department for Education.


SecEd


The Role and Performance of Ofsted Report: “ofsted has grown too big to discharge its functions as efficiently as smaller, more focused and specialist organisations might. at the heart of our report, therefore, is the recommendation that ofsted should be divided into two new organisations – the Inspectorate for education and the Inspectorate for children’s care – which we consider will make a marked difference to the value of inspection.


We agree with the witnesses


who told us that there are many excellent inspectors. However, too few of these have recent and relevant experience of the types of settings they inspect, which diminishes the organisation’s credibility. our report recommends that more is done to ensure that inspectors can develop their skills and experience at the frontline, but also that more practitioners are seconded into ofsted.”


Chief inspector Christine Gilbert: “the question of ‘who inspects?’ is much less important than the quality of inspection and the impact it has on raising standards and improving people’s lives. any proposal for further reorganisation needs to be very carefully considered and is ultimately a matter for the government. there are issues about additional costs and a risk of distraction from the core business.”


Nansi Ellis, head of education policy, Association of Teachers and Lecturers: “teachers complain that inspectors


often lack expertise or recent experience in certain settings. the question now is whether the government will act upon the evidence in this report. Rather than fiddling with its framework, the government should initiate a full independent review of ofsted.”


Christine Blower, general secretary, National Union of Teachers: “the committee recognised that the quality of inspectors is not always what it should be. too often ofsted inspectors appear to have a woeful lack of knowledge about life in the modern classroom or indeed any classroom at all.”


Philip Parkin, general secretary, Voice: “ofsted has become too broad and unwieldy and has lost its focus. ofsted suffers from a tediously repetitive habit of pandering to the government and the media by being negative, instead of accentuating the many positives in education. this approach creates the impression of a culture of failure and gives a negative impression to parents.”


Russell Hobby, general secretary, National Association of Head Teachers: “We would encourage the government to build on the direction of travel set out in the report and end the reliance on crude attainment measures. Progress measures will show the difference a school makes and the quality of teaching, which is what schools should be accountable for.”


Brian Lightman, general secretary, Association of School and College Leaders: “It is high time that the profession had a chief education officer, similar to the chief medical officer in the department of Health. this person would be the senior professional voice in the policy-making process, using evidence from ofsted to advise the secretary of state on policy decisions. ofsted’s role should be to


sit between the government and individual institutions, reporting without fear or favour on the performance not only of schools and colleges but of government policy.”


profession-wide level or complete barring.


Moreover, under the current


proposals, there are no plans for national regulation of competence. Instead, teachers’ performance is to be managed solely at local level, with individual employers determining issues of competence. In practice, will this result in a


return to badly performing teachers being “recycled” from school-to- school? Meanwhile headteachers will not be helped by new directions that remove their unequivocal duty to refer cases, replacing it with a duty to “consider” referral. Why stop short? even the chair of the education


Select committee, Graham Stuart, has described this new instruction as “odd”. Without clarity, headteachers


could be left in an invidious position. they may even be subject to allegations of bias, as the scope for scrutiny in decision-making is diminished without a universal yardstick to inform judgements. couple this inconsistency with


a decrease in transparency, and the conclusion could be a process that may not be judged fair by


either teachers or members of the public. Many other professions, such as nursing, medicine and the law, have adopted a much more integrated approach to regulation, founded upon a holistic appraisal of an individual’s conduct and competence that incorporates all the relevant evidence. this “fitness to practise” model is widely accepted as best practice for regulation across a wide range of professions. Would this be an appropriate system for teacher regulation in england? and if we are not travelling in a similar direction, does this leave teachers out of step with their fellow professionals practising in different fields? clearly there is much to occupy


the minds of law-makers, as the Bill continues its journey to the statute books. Let us hope that there is still time to listen, room for reflection and the will to make changes that will ensure regulation works in the best interests of us all.


SecEd


• Gail Mortimer is chair of the General Teaching Council for England. She has more than 32 years’ experience of teaching in state secondary schools.


6


SecEd • May 5 2011


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