Categories: uncategorized
Date: 12 June 2009 07:14:22
It appears from this BBC article that Ofsted are changing their criteria and are going to include results more in making their judgements on whether a school is succeeding or not. This may, on the surface seem logical and sensible. However, in an environment where the Comprehensive system is deemed to have failed and where educational aparthied on the basis of class exists this is going to purpetuate the problems we have.
Let me explain. The good schools, the ones that achieve well and will have the results to get into the "Good" and "Outstanding" categories tend to be in leafy areas. The success of the schools sends up property prices and they become over subscribed. Where there are places available to those living outside the immeadiate catchment area they are taken up by those who can afford the travel costs to ship their children across town, or those who have some kind of proven talent which will ensure the schools continued success.
Those children who live in areas which aren't so wonderful and where things like free school meal entitlement, parental breakdown and special educational needs may be higher are often the people who are excluded from these high achieving schools. However, not all of them have been in bad schools. There are many schools in these areas where in the face of major socio-economic problems the teachers have been producing good or outstanding teaching and learning. A comparison of the value added statistics between these schools and the ones achieving higher exam results indicates that these schools are actually achieving far more with their pupils. Parents in these schools have been reassured that their children will be benefitting from good or outstanding education and are, on that basis, going to be achieving the best results they are capable.
One assumes from the article that the standard measures for attainment will be used, (particularly the 5 or more A*-C at GCSE including English and Maths). This means that it will become much harder for those schools with "less able" or "socially deprived" students, (depending if you go for biological or socio-economic explanations), to achieve the good or outstanding ratings. Similarly the evidence would suggest that the increased use of parental views is equally going to disadvantage these schools. It is the "professional" classes, who make up parents in the more leafy schools who are more likely to complete and return the forms which Ofsted send home.
The net result of this will be increased pressure upon and less recognition of good staff who are achieving excellent value added results and positively contributing to the areas the schools are located in. This is likely to lead to decreased motivation and good teachers choosing to leave the profession. All of which will drive the quality of education down.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be aiming for all our children to be achieving well. What I am saying is we need a fairer system. We need a system where good and outstanding teaching and learning can continue to be recognised. We need a system where the stories beyond the statistics on a spreadsheet can be recognised. We need a system where no town can be allowed to have middle class schools where parents choose to send their children being better resourced than the schools where those of lower social classes have to send their children. We need a system where the quality of education you get doesn't depend upon either your IQ or your postcode. We need a fair education system in this country.
Bearing in mind the baseline we are starting from what we need are initiatives which move away from judgements based on statistics and more upon the recognition of professionalism, not less. If statistics are used it should be value added rather than the A*-C standard which is seen as most important.
Anyway here endeth this mornings rant.