News Continued from page 1 Readers’ views


If you would like to comment on any article in Headteacher Update, get in touch by emailing the editor (see below).


Free e-bulletin


Register for free to get regular email updates from Headteacher Update (email the editor). For an archive of all our articles and back issues, visit www.headteacher-update.com


HU on Twitter


You can now fi nd Headteacher Update on


Twitter. Follow @headteachernews


Get in touch Editor: Pete Henshaw


pete.henshaw@markallengroup.com 020 7501 6771


Sales: Abdul Hayee


abdul.hayee@markallengroup.com 020 7501 6767


Circulation Director: Sally Boettcher sally.boettcher@markallengroup.com


Managing Director: Matt Govett Chief Executive Offi cer: Ben Allen Subscriptions:


subscriptions@markallengroup.com 01722 716997


MA Education Ltd is part of the Mark Allen Group


Co-operation and Development (OECD) found that there is no relationship between performance pay and test results. Instead it suggests that where countries invest more in their teachers, outcomes are better. A recent edition of the OECD’s PISA Update states: “The bottom line: performance-based pay is worth considering in some contexts, but making it work well and sustainably is a formidable challenge. Countries that have succeeded in making teaching an attractive profession have often done so not just through pay, but by raising the status of teaching, offering real career prospects, and giving teachers responsibility as professionals and leaders of reform.”


Trials


In spite of the reservations expressed in research, government policy seems to reflect the view that money can improve results. There are pilot schemes already in place which are providing fi nancial incentives. For example, the government has pledged to give local authorities £4,000 for every “troubled” family they are able to intervene successfully with. Mhairi Aylott, researcher for


www.markallengroup.com


Headteacher Update is published by MA Education Ltd St Jude’s Church, Dulwich Rd, London, SE24 0PB


www.markallengroup.com


MA Education Ltd also publishes SecEd, Primary Teacher Update, Early Years Educator, Practical Pre- School, and Fundraising for Schools.


HU Extra


Subscribe to HU Extra for access to premium tailored information, free supplements, resources and discount offers. Details on your address sheet


© MA Education Ltd, 2012. All rights reserved. No part of Headteacher Update may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without prior written permission of the Managing Director.


ISSN 1478-5307. Printed by Pensord Press Ltd, NP12 2YA


The paper used within this publication has been sourced from Chain-of-Custody certifi ed manufacturers, operating within international environmental standards, to ensure sustainable sourcing of the raw materials, sustainable production and to minimise our carbon footprint.


2


the Young Foundation, points out that although there is potential to save money in the long-term there are problems in this approach: “Defi ning what counts as success for the intervention is a challenging process. Complex families have often already participated in a range of interventions, making this link hard to calculate.” In a similar way, pupils achieve because of the combined efforts of more than one member of staff. Teaching is a co-operative activity and children may benefit from a number of different interventions and strategies, including the support given by parents at home. We might feel that rewarding the efforts of one individual while neglecting the cumulative support of colleagues could undermine one of the main strengths of our schools.


Further information n NFER Teacher Voice poll: www.


suttontrust.com/research/nfer- teachers-poll-2012/


n PISA Update: www.oecd.org/ pisa/pisaproducts/50328990. pdf


n The Education (School Teachers’ Appraisal) (England) Regulations 2012: www. education.gov.uk/schools/ leadership/deployingstaff/ a00201884/new-arrangements


Teachers reject new phonics test


The new phonics checks for five and six-year-olds have been rejected as confusing for pupils and a waste of time by year 1 teachers. A survey of professionals carried out jointly by three education unions heard that the phonics checks did not test children’s reading ability and cost money to implement.


Almost 1,700 year 1 teachers responded to the survey, with 86 per cent calling for the tests to be scrapped and 91 per cent saying that the tests did not tell them anything new about their pupils. The government has introduced the statutory year 1 phonics check in a bid to identify children who need extra help with their reading. However, the test is controversial because the government has directed schools to use synthetic phonics, which focus on sounds rather than children recognising whole words. As such, the test requires children to read both real and made-up words to their teachers.


More than 88 per cent of the teachers said they practised reading “nonsense” words such as “spron”, “geck”, “fape” and “thazz” with pupils before the tests.


One year 1 teacher told the study: “Many children made mistakes


trying to turn pseudo-words into real words – ‘strom’ became ‘storm’. The lack of context meant many children made mistakes they would not have made if the word was in a sentence – such as reading ‘shine’ as ‘shin’.”


The three unions – the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL),


National


Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) and National Union of Teachers (NUT) – say they are not against synthetic phonics but argue that the method is just one tool in a teacher’s arsenal. Another year 1 teacher added:


“Some able readers failed and some non-fl uent, less able readers passed! What does that prove? It proves synthetic phonics is only part of a variety of strategies used in learning to read. Teaching phonics alone will not make fl uent readers who enjoy the experience.”


NAHT general secretary Russell Hobby said: “Synthetic phonics is an essential contribution to helping most children learn to read, which is why most schools already make heavy use of it. “This test, however, is another


matter. It is inaccurate and unnecessary. It distorts the teaching and measurement of reading,” he added.


Online requirement


Schools are required to publish key pieces of information and data online from this month. Revised regulations came into force on September 1 that scrap the requirement for schools to publish its prospectus annually and instead set out new online requirements. Schools must now publish online: n Pupil Premium allocation, use and impact on attainment.


n Curriculum provision, content and approach by year and subject.


n Admission arrangements. n Its policy in relation to


behaviour, charging, and SEN and disability provision.


n Links to Ofsted reports and performance data.


n Its latest key stage 4 attainment and progress measures.


Also scrapped under the revised School Information Regulations is the requirement for schools to have a curriculum policy. For the Pupil Premium, schools must publish details of its allocation and plans to spend it. For previous years, schools should publish “a statement of how the money was spent and the impact that it had”. Visit http://bit.ly/Rcyo2t


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  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48