Diary of an NQT My first Ofsted


AS I write this I am mid-Ofsted. I am sitting at home amid streams of colour-coded data, writing this column as a break from the incessant, endless planning. I am mentally, physically and emotionally exhausted. Before I continue, I should


supply some brief context of the day.


Work is tense, people are


stressed and the anxiety is palpa- ble. They lurk around the corridors silently like dementors, dragging a foreboding dark cloud of fear and worry along with them. The kids fall silent as they pass, like a hearse through a crowded high street. Everyone has one question on their


lips: “Have you been seen yet?” It is all anyone wants to know. It can be translated in two ways:


(1) Have you got any golden tips, no matter how seemingly insignificant, that can get me through this hell? (2) Does the fact you have been seen mean I won’t be, or am I up next? As I write this, I am yet to be seen.


I had one near miss when one skulked outside, only to move on for another kill. But in that split second I saw my career flash before my eyes. This is the education equivalent of a gladia-


tor’s coliseum or a footballer’s Wembley. This is essentially when we need to perform. Obviously this is my first Ofsted, but it won’t be my last so I better get used to the terror. Bizarrely there is nothing really to be that scared


about. You can’t get fired, you can’t get in trouble, and under the new framework you can’t find out what you got as a rating. Equally, it is only one person’s judgement. Within


my department we often disagree about the best way to teach. I think different styles and different approaches are healthy and productive. For example we discuss the benefits of group work vs independent inquiry. Or what is more con-


To the polls Once a teacher…


THE SCOTTISH local elections on 3rd May have aroused little interest. The parties insist that the issues are local but only two aspects of the electoral tussle have grabbed the pundits. Will Labour, after bitter in-fighting, finally lose control of Glasgow and will the overall results boost the pro-independence lobby in the forthcoming referendum. At least that was the case until


the Tories dropped their recent educational bombshell. Ruth Davidson, only an MSP for a year but already leading the squeezed third party of Scottish politics, wants a Scottish version of Michael Gove’s free schools and academies. Ms Davidson said: “Rather than


sticking rigidly to the one size fits all model, other parts of the UK have innovated in the delivery of education by tailoring schooling to the needs of the parents and local community. We want to bring forward proposals to free more schools from the direct control of councils. We want to see more choice and innovation in Scotland by looking at what is going on elsewhere in Britain in terms of technical and free schools.” That put the cat among the Scottish


pigeons. Even if the Tories won every council in Scotland, a statistical not to mention political impossibility, they would have no powers to create such free schools. That would require Parliamentary legislation. The main teachers’ union however, the


Educational Institute of Scotland, went on the offensive, accusing Ms Davidson of not understanding what Scottish education is really about and the bloggers picked up her presentational weakness: “Typical Tory, so quick to ape England with not a clue regarding her own country.” Ironically, free schools and academies are being


introduced in England by Mr Gove, an exiled Scot, but as JM Barrie had it: “There are few more impressive sights in the world than a Scotsman on the make.” Ms Davidson should know that to seek to impose


“English solutions”, especially when articulated by an exile on the make, on Scotland is certain to arouse heated opposition.


And quite right too. The purpose of this little move


is to undermine comprehensive education around which there remains a remarkable consensus in Scotland. Unlike England there are no selective schools in the local authority system and only four per cent (compared to seven per cent in England) of Scottish children attend schools in the private sector. The Tories hate that. None the less, those of us committed to that comprehensive system should beware. One phrase in Ms Davidson’s


statement will receive an echo, especially among teachers. When she advocates freeing schools from local council control, teachers and even parents in several local authorities


will not be unsympathetic. That is especially the case in the largest councils where a crude


managerialism characterises the professional leaders in education and a petty parochialism and total lack of strategic vision characterises the political leaders. Education is now led professionally by the accountants, the HR gurus and others who have never led a school or even a school department. The creation of mega-departments, uniting several distinct disciplines and services, has also undermined the principle that schools should be led collectively by professionals with both a knowledge and


a feel for the purposes of education. There is a far more radical option than


Ms Davidson’s. Take schools out of the control of local councils and put them in the hands of the Scottish Parliament. There


would be greater parity in provision across the different areas of Scotland. There would be only one layer of so-called quality assurance. Perhaps most importantly, there might be clearer strategic direction but less petty-minded day-to-day interference. I’d settle for that.


• Alex Wood has been a teacher for 38 years. Prior to his recent retirement he was headteacher of Wester Hailes Education Centre in Edinburgh. He is currently an associate with the Scottish Centre for Studies in School Administration at Edinburgh University. He returns in two weeks.


One year on from its introduction, the search is on for evidence that


the Pupil Premium is closing the gap between poor and rich pupils.Nick Bannister looks at how schools might go about doing this


premium around the country, there is a feeling that the funding – currently £600 for every pupil receiving free school meals (FSM) now or at any time in the past six years – has yet to make really big waves. “At the moment there is this feeling that the funding


I 8


has not been substantial,” says Professor Denis Mongon of the Institute of Education. “But as the money and the accountability rises then interest in this will rack up. It’s a cold subject at the moment – but it is going to become seriously hot.” There is a lot riding on the success of the


premium. Closing the gap has been an aim of different governments in recent years but the statistics remain stark. In 2010/11, for example, the proportion of FSM pupils achieving five good GCSEs was around 18 per cent lower than non-FSM pupils. It may well be too early to tell what affect the Pupil


Premium will have on these figures, but the government is keen to have some answers as soon as possible.


t has been a relatively quiet first year for the Pupil Premium – funding for disadvantaged pupils aimed at narrowing the attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and their better- off counterparts. Apart from a brief flurry of recent Parliamentary debate about distribution of the


Department for Education officials are understood to be tendering for an evaluation of the initiative, which is expected to start before the summer and report in spring 2013. As well as the search for impact, there is the issue


of accountability. In this year’s performance tables new measures will be included to capture the achievement of those deprived pupils covered by the Pupil Premium. Then, from September, the government will require schools to publish online details of how they have used the premium. The Department for Education says that this will ensure that parents and others are made fully aware of the attainment of pupils covered by the premium. Until the strands of national evidence come


together to form a detailed picture the indications of the early impact of the Pupil Premium has to come from individual schools. Bilton Academy in Rugby, Warwickshire, is one. The school, which converted to academy status in


December, may be in an affluent area, but it has the third most deprived students in the county – about 10 per cent of its 1,000 pupils have FSM. Headteacher Patsy Weighill says the premium


funding is being used to support activity in the school’s “access, achievement and engagement” plan, which aims to narrow the gap between FSM and vulnerable pupils and other students. Attainment in these groups has already been raised,


she says, although the Pupil Premium’s exact role in this still needs to be pinpointed. She said: “We’ve already seen the gap between FSM


and non-FSM pupils narrow to about 10 per below the national average.” Practical measures designed to increase attendance


– and funded with Pupil Premium money – have made a significant contribution to the figures, she believes. For example, the school has funded late buses


on two nights a week to encourage more FSM and vulnerable pupils to attend after-school activities. The late bus service will be extended to three nights when the school opens its 6th form in September. The school has also strengthened what it calls


“targeted enrichment”. This includes a breakfast club which offers the added attraction of a sports activity three days a week. The measures are part of a wider picture at Bilton. Ms Weighill recently restructured the leadership team


SecEd • May 3 2012


ducive to success – an excited, lively class or a silent studious one. So one stranger, who comes in for half an hour of my lesson can give a definitive judgement of my ability? I am a differ- ent teacher with different classes, dif- ferent year groups, at different times of the day and with different subjects on different days. The quality and style of these les-


sons is in constant state of flux, con- sistency is my aim, but flexibility is one of my strengths. Sometimes I even have lessons that are half-good and


then half-bad. What if they see the wrong half? This leads me on to my biggest problem with Ofsted. Apparently we are supposed to show progress, but I truly believe teaching to be a long- term project, I also find it patronis- ing that I have to prove progress with numbers or a forced plenary. I am making incremental changes and improvements to the students I teach over the course of a year, maybe even longer. Yes I can show moderate progress but it takes years to embed the enthusiasm and skills that make someone love history and want to learn. Sometimes it doesn’t even happen until after they have left school. Short of hypnosis, nothing can show such


instant progress. That said, I am not anti-inspection. I am


fully aware that schools need to be checked. Much like with the students and their exams, there needs to be a framework of assessment and quality control or education would be a tent without poles. It is the definition of a necessary evil. However, my problem with Ofsted is not Ofsted


itself, but the fact that they seem intent on quantifying the unquantifiable. So wish me luck – I am off to give Paul McKenna a call.


• Tomas Duckling is a history NQT at Queens’ School in Hertfordshire. He returns next week.


PUPIL PREMIUM Evaluating t


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