NEWS FOCUS SecEd: On Your Side


Please trust to the curriculum experts


If MIchael Gove has no desire to “pre-empt” the curriculum review, then I suggest he stops talking about the curriculum. The review of the national


Pete


Henshaw Editor SecEd


curriculum is ongoing as we all know but its findings seem depressingly ordained, especially when it comes to certain aspects. In announcing the review all those months ago, Mr


Gove declared that IcT should no longer be a core subject. Now, in a speech which was supposed to be about Teaching Schools, he has made it very clear what he expects the review to find when it comes to science. as we report on page 3 this week, Mr Gove while


speaking to the headteachers of the first 100 Teaching Schools at an event last week said: “Why should we have a science curriculum that’s split into areas like ‘The environment, earth and Universe’ and ‘Organisms, Behaviour and health’? Why not have biology, chemistry and physics? Of course, I don’t wish to pre-empt the national curriculum review...” It might seem odd that he tackled this subject at an event


about Teaching Schools. The link was actually Mr Gove’s point that the teacher training role of the Teaching Schools would be crucial. he talked of how the approach to science training might need to change “if our national curriculum review does conclude that science should be taught as three distinct subjects”. I am not saying that a change to science of this nature


would be a bad thing. But every member of the curriculum review panel has more expertise on these matters than Mr Gove. he should trust to this expertise and stop making these kind of statements which undermine the work of the review group and put undue pressure on them to report what he wants to hear, rather than what they, as experienced professionals, honestly think.


Don’t go compare!


The launch of the Department for education’s school comparison website has perplexed many, including me (see page 2). The idea is fine and headteachers are not afraid of having information about their schools available online. however, with around five million pieces of information ranging from the obvious to the bizarre, there is something of a danger that parents will be drowned in data. even some professionals have admitted to SecEd that


they have no idea how they should be interpreting some of the data that is available. On funding, for example, I compared my old school


with its neighbours and discovered that it spends more on general staff, but less on education support staff. It spends twice as much on energy as its rivals, but buys in no professional services. This information is all well and good, but it doesn’t help me to decide if this school is any better than its neighbours! On staffing, I learn that my old school has 17.4 teaching


assistants (interesting) compared to one local school that has none. My school has more part-time staff and less full- time staff as well.again, this information is not all that relevant. There is useful data, including staff-to-pupil ratios,


attainment and achievement, and such like, but because every school is so different with so many factors impacting on their results, it seems arbitrary to compare statistics in such a black and white format. fundamentally, when I choose a school for my children,


I will visit the schools in my area, talk to them about the important issues – curriculum, pastoral care, family engagement, ethos and vision, and of course achievement and attainment – and I will make my decision. any parent who chooses a school based on this website


could be doing a massive disservice to their children’s education.


SecEd


• Pete Henshaw is editor of Seced. You can contact him via editor@sec-ed.co.uk or www.sec-ed.co.uk. Follow us on Twitter at www.twitter.com/SecEd_Education


www.sec-ed.com McCormac unveiled


The publication of the long- awaited McCormac Review in Scotland has been met with fears that it will weaken the


Unions and parents have expressed reservations over a shake-up of the Scottish teaching profession that will mean “more flexible management” of the 35-hour working week and greater use of “volunteer experts” in the classroom. The Mccormac Review, pub-


position of teachers. Sam Phipps reports however, Ronnie Smith, gen-


eral secretary of the educational Institute of Scotland, said the report weakened teachers’ positions. “Under the guise of flexibility,


lished last week, recommends an end to the fixed times for prepa- ration, marking and teaching that were introduced 10 years ago after the Mccrone Report into pay and conditions. It calls for these to be replaced by monthly or annual lim- its on working time but with scope for variation. The chartered Teaching


Scheme, which raised pay for sen- ior teachers who wanted to remain in the classroom, should also be scrapped. “We are strongly of the view


that the strict division of hours into blocks of time for teaching, preparation, collegiate activities ... runs contrary to effective school improvement,” states the review, which was chaired by Professor Gerry Mccormac, principal of Stirling University. Recognising that Scottish teach-


ers routinely work much longer than the official 35 hours a week, and – at around 855 hours a year in the classroom – far more than their counterparts elsewhere in europe, Mccormac nevertheless calls for greater efficiency. The report states: “More


flexible management of that time would result in improved outcomes for learners and a better working life for teachers. We recommend a flexible professional approach clearly allied to positive outcomes for children.”


even greater burdens and controls are proposed for teachers, who will have to rely on the benevolence of a headteacher to spare them from excessive workload,” he said. ann Ballinger, general secretary


of the Scottish Secondary Teachers’ association, said: “The protected time currently built into the work- ing week is vital to the work/life balance of teachers and removing it threatens to push hard-working teachers over the edge.” Meanwhile, chris Keates, gen-


eral secretary of the NaSUWT, said the review would strip teachers of their professionalism and was simply “a cost-cutting exercise”. She added: “This is evident


from the fact that it acknowledges the professionalism of teachers and that education has improved under the current teachers’ agreement but then mounts spurious arguments for change, based on cherry picking data from international surveys.” But Michael cook, human


resources spokesman of council group cosla, said Mccormac could have gone further by demanding longer hours in the classroom. Overall, however, he believed it would result in “genuine progress”. The review also recommends


scrapping the lists of tasks from which teachers should be routinely exempt, such as filing and photo- copying, and it insists staff remain on school premises for the full day, regardless of whether they are teaching or not. eileen Prior, executive direc-


IN RESPONSE… Dear sir,


The response from the Department for education (Dfe) printed alongside my article on asbestos in schools is dangerously complacent (Asbestos in schools: Key questions for the DfE, SecEd 292, September 15, 2011). The Dfe fails to explain


why it won’t introduce a safe environmental level for schools, but instead considers it acceptable that staff and pupils are allowed into classrooms where they will inhale 6,000 asbestos fibres an hour. They avoid explaining why they advise local authorities and schools that asbestos exposure to children below theaction level will “usually have been insufficient to cause a significant long-term risk to health” when they are fully aware that such levels can kill adults let alone children. It is unacceptable “spin”


for the Dfe to say that “local authorities are in charge of communications with staff and parents” when they know that the health and Safety executive (hSe) has advised the same local authorities to keep quiet about dangerous exposures. The Dfe regards teachers’


deaths as acceptable because they are “no greater than the


population as a whole”. Because others are dying it doesn’t make teachers’ deaths acceptable. In a profession where there should be minimal or no asbestos exposure teachers’ deaths should not be average, they should be far below average. But as the incidence of


teachers’ mesotheliomas is considerably higher it shows that as a profession they have been exposed to significant levels of asbestos. The Dfe should instead examine the implications of the deaths, for if teachers are dying then so are pupils. The Dfe claims that its policy


of managing asbestos rather than removing it has worked, however that cannot be justified. It is based on a questionnaire for local authorities and dioceses that examined one particular problem in one type of school building. It ignored all the other asbestos problems. even the local authorities thought the questionnaire was flawed as it would give a more positive picture than actually exists. It also relied on admitting that they had not complied with hSe guidance to trigger an inspection. Of those who were inspected a quarter had enforcement action carried out for failing to manage their asbestos. That is a significant number.


even if schools had complied


with the guidance it does not mean that they are safely managing their asbestos, it just means that they are complying with flawed guidance. That is because the recommended actions hide the damaged asbestos with strips of bathroom sealant. This is a temporary expedient that puts a tick in a box. Britain has the highest


incidence of mesothelioma in the world, and the deaths continue to increase. We also have a greater asbestos problem in our schools than probably any other nation. forty five years ago, the Dfe was warned that children are particularly at risk but continued to build schools using large amounts of asbestos. These warnings are still being ignored and the Dfe still will not address the fundamental problems as other nations have. The incidence of mesothelioma


deaths in the USa has stabilised at a level significantly lower than in Britain. One reason is that 30 years ago it undertook an audit of friable asbestos, assessed the risks, and acknowledged that schools should be treated as a “special place” as they are full of children. consequently, they trained


people, adopted a policy of openness, passed laws and allocated a realistic level of funding that enabled schools


to manage their asbestos. We do the opposite. The Dfe treats schools as just any other workplace, and rather than applying more stringent laws, it arbitrarily declares schools as “low-risk environments”, relaxes regulations and applies workplace asbestos fibre control levels to children. Because Dfe policy is


“light-touch”, it doesn’t consider it their responsibility to know the extent of asbestos in the nation’s schools. This is financially irresponsible as asbestos remediation is a major expense in any refurbishment. Because the Dfe doesn’t know the extent of asbestos, the funds it has allocated are insufficient to bring schools up to an acceptable condition, let alone address the very serious problem of the asbestos they contain. The Dfe has attempted


to justify flawed policies with dubious statements and unjustified reassurances.a cash- strapped minister will willingly grasp these false reassurances and delay the day that they have to take the fundamental actions that really will make schools safe.


Michael Lees, member of the DfE Asbestos in Schools Steering Group


tor of the Scottish Parent Teacher council – who will be among those giving evidence on the report at holyrood later this month – gave a mixed response on first reading. Voluntary experts could add


value to the classroom if they had the right experience and/or aca- demic qualifications, she said. She continued: “It depends what


you define as an expert. a lot of parents have been very concerned about the use of barely qualified individuals to cover non-contact time. But with something like lan- guages, where assistants have been cut right back, it could be useful having native speakers coming in to help out.” She also supported Mccormac’s


recommendation that all staff with- in a school who contribute to the education of pupils should be enti- tled to assessment in the form of professional review and personal development. Parents would also welcome the


proposal to strengthen procedures for dealing with the “very small minority” of consistently poor teachers, Ms Prior said, because schools and local authorities were often reluctant to use mechanisms currently in place. Under the new system, teach-


ers will have to be re-accredited throughout their careers. The recommendations will now


go to a negotiating group com- prising the education unions, local authorities and the Scottish govern- ment. education secretary Michael Russell said: “This cannot move forward without discussion and consultation with teaching unions, cosla and other key players.” SecEd


• Sam Phipps is a freelance education journalist.


Further information


Download the full report at www.scotland.gov.uk/about/ reviewofteacheremployment


6


SecEd • September 22 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