VIEWS & OPINION


Inspection, honesty and the end of teaching-to-the-test?


Comment by DR ANDREW CLAPHAM, Principal Lecturer in the Nottingham Institute of Education, at Nottingham Trent University


Last week, Amanda Spielman, Ofsted’s Chief Inspector, acknowledged what I suggest many of us in education already knew - inspections have resulted in too much focus on examinations. My first reaction to this story - well done Amanda Spielman! Under Sir Michael Wilshaw’s previous regime, acknowledgement of the


inspectorate’s role in the burgeoning teach to the test culture in schools was, at best, far-fetched. Wilshaw was wedded, hook-line-and-sinker, to the relationship between


examinations and testing, and school quality. As recently as 2016, Wilshaw demanded the reintroduction of formal testing for 14-year olds in England as a way of tacking the underperformance of the most able students. Scroll forward two years and Wilshaw’s successor has, bravely in my view,


highlighted that the inspectorate’s demands have resulted in teachers and schools focussing upon “test scores above all else”. Spielman goes on to suggest that Ofsted should be focusing more on how schools


contribute toward the “wealth of human knowledge”. The Chief Inspector laments that under the previous regime, schools attempted to


second-guess what they thought the inspectorate wanted to see as “outstanding” practice. This resulted in a narrowing of the curriculum and the increase of strategies aimed at developing students’ “test technique”. Similarly, Spielman highlighted how some secondary schools were truncating Key


Stage 3 so as to begin GCSE preparation earlier and earlier in pupils’ secondary careers. So, examinations are out then? Well, no. Spielman stresses that examination success will still be an indicator of school


performance. However, she appears to be highlighting a tail wagging the dog scenario. Rather than examinations being an outcome of a great curriculum and great


teaching, Wilshaw’s Ofsted led to examination success being the be-all-and-end-all of what teachers and schools did. The current Ofsted Chief, want schools to focus on curriculum and in doing so


educational success – not just examination success – will follow. Moreover, the national curriculum, whilst being a benchmark, should no longer


dictate how individual schools structure what they believe their curriculum should be. Does this sea-change signal the end of the Ofsted dictated curriculum then? I fear


not. Credit where credit is due. Amanda Spielman has made it clear through her


statement that she understands the implications of a neo-liberal, marketised - and what Jean Francois Lyotard calls “performative” - education system upon schools, teachers and most importantly learners. However, Spielman, highlights that attainment will remain a high-stakes indicator of


school quality and effectiveness. So, even the touchy-feely approach of the new Chief Inspector still comes back to


the old equation of examination success=school quality. What to do then? To truly eradicate and inspectorate driven curriculum would require a simple change


- eradicate the inspectorate itself. In my 17 years teaching in inner city schools in England, I saw first-hand how the


focus changed from pupil-centred learning to Ofsted-centred learning. As long as an inspectorate exists—with the power to take punitive measures against


“failing” schools—then schools will focus upon an Ofsted-centred curriculum. There is of course a need for regulation of a tiny majority of schools, which are not


just underperforming but are potentially doing harm to their students. However, this is a tiny minority. If Spielman is truly interested in the work our schools do, not just “passing on


human knowledge” but adding to it, then further reflection regarding the inspectorate’s purposes and processes is necessary. Time will tell if Amanda Spielman is the reflecting type.


October 2018


Low cost, no frills private schools – ludicrous and at what cost?


Comment by BEN EVANS, Headmaster at Edge Grove School


The news of a movement of low cost, no frills private schools in the UK (claiming to charge around £52 per week in fees), has received a big backlash and for good reason. Headlines have suggested that children are being used as guinea pigs in an educational experiment that trades on parent’s anxieties. In truth, such an announcement can only be met with scepticism and disbelief.


It’s a great sound bite though; who


wouldn’t be attracted to the idea of low cost independent education when some boarding schools now charge eye- watering fees of £40,000 per year? Likewise, who doesn’t jump onto Easy Jet for cheap, low frills short haul flights to Europe? They get you there safely and in the same time as other more costly airlines and at a fraction of the cost. Unfortunately, the same economics doesn’t translate into the


world of independent education. It is impossible, at £52 per week, to achieve even the same standard of education at a good maintained sector school, let alone one costing between £12-20,000 per year for day fees. The sums just don’t add up if you are employing qualified


teachers with a range of experience, the salaries themselves (including pension contributions) will vary from £25k to £40+k per annum and that is without premises costs and other essential operational resources etc. The backlash from both the maintained and independent


sectors is quite understandable. They can see only failure and the obvious disruption it will have for the pupils involved. Even given any number of miracles, the schools actually manage to stay afloat, the standard of teaching and learning offered and the whole school experience will be poor. Resources will be limited, under qualified teachers will be


employed and beyond the teaching of the core subjects, the curriculum will be narrower and uninteresting. On top of these failings, class sizes will be large (if sufficient children can be attracted to the school) and any individual attention will be lost, which is always one of the main attractions of an independent school. The main concern here is that the reality will be far removed


from the promises. Large classes in poor quality buildings with little outside space are likely. Basic classroom resources, little or no digital technology, sparse libraries, few specialist teaching staff, no extra-curricular activities and the list continues. What parent would really choose that education for their children and be happy to pay for it? One only needs to think of every good maintained and


independent school they know and then think about how those would operate with no money. It is unlikely that the schools will attract the numbers to make them viable even with the pared down resourcing, plus good teachers will then be hard to recruit. Failure is inevitable, parents and children will have been sold


‘the dream’ and they will end up disappointed and disillusioned. More importantly and probably most worrying, is the potential disruption to a child’s education because any time lost is valuable time wasted, which cannot be regained.


www.education-today.co.uk 21


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  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52