Writer, musician, educationist
Writer, musician, educationist
Bernard's pieces for the Tes
Dear Dominic Cummings: So, you want radical thinking?
Fix the accountability system, trust teachers to do their jobs, and fund schools properly. Dominic, are these suggestions weird enough for you, asks Bernard Trafford
Dear Dominic Cummings,
I would like to apply for one of those jobs you’re advertising for weirdos and misfits to help run the country.
I believe I’m well-suited to join your team because, from the government’s point of view, I am indeed weird.
My field is education. I could provide some radical thinking there: my vision diverges wildly from current government policy. For a start, I believe perverse incentives should be foreseen and avoided before policies are enacted.
So we need to fix an accountability system where the stakes are so high that, in order to avoid criticism, schools feel pressured to do things that aren’t necessarily best for children, in order to keep an inspectorate off their backs.
For example, just this week Ofsted advised primary schools not to teach phonics before Reception. It’s no advantage, said a spokesperson: learning phonics is simply a “short, sharp” process to help them along the road to reading.
It’s like Catch-22. In Joseph Heller’s famous novel, a Second World War US pilot cannot escape flying missions by pleading insanity, because getting out is the only sane response to the madness of war.
Similarly, knowing pupils will be tested on phonics at the end of Year 1, schools won’t do a “short, sharp” job on them: they’ll start them as soon as possible, so that the kids score highly in the later test.
The catch is that such schools are then criticised for drilling children when they should be learning through exploration and play.
The same paradox was highlighted at secondary level recently, when MAT bosses, led by Harris Federation’s Sir Dan Moynihan, lambasted Ofsted over its insistence on a broad curriculum in Year 9. Dan and his mates say that Ofsted can’t have it both ways: not in schools in deprived areas, at any rate.
Where kids have little significant cultural capital on which to build, the MAT bosses claim, they need an extra year (Year 9) in which to build the scaffolding for success at GCSE two years later.
These schools are getting their pupils impressive GCSE results by slimming down what’s learned in Year 9 – in effect running three-year GCSE programmes.
“No, no, no!” shrieks the inspectorate, as yet another head is lost as a result of precisely this judgement. “Year 9 must be broad!”
I’d like to share that view, but my experience was gained in relatively privileged settings, and I won’t tell those guys how to do their job in theirs.
Schools shouldn’t have to choose between upsetting Ofsted by narrowing the curriculum or pleasing it with great GCSE results.
Is that view weird? If so, here’s another thing I’m weird about.
It’s right that an education, health and care plan gives a child with special educational needs and disabilities the statutory right to receive appropriate additional help in school. But I’m puzzled by the fact that help is then so often unforthcoming.
Hampered by lack of funding, people, resources and time, schools lack the capacity and, too often even now, the capability to give those kids the support they need.
But then, I’m weird about funding. By 2022, we’re promised billions more flowing into schools from central government. But I just can’t see how merely regaining the funding levels of a decade ago is real progress.
Like the boy sticking his finger in the hole in the dam, this cash injection prevents the problem worsening, but doesn’t improve it.
Improving: that’s why I’d like to join your team. My 40 years’ experience in the field could be useful.
I believe in giving schools and school leaders the tools to do the job (ie adequate resources). And I believe in giving them the freedom to use these tools as they see best, in their unique setting, not harried by ministerial diktats and contradictory pressures from an oppressive accountability system.
It’s about trusting professionals, valuing them and giving them freedom.
You’ll agree that view’s weird. But I fear it’s not the sort of weird you want.
Somewhere you say (without irony?) that, if your misfits don’t fit in, they’ll be rapidly binned. So, on second thoughts, perhaps I’m better staying on the outside, with the other misfits. It’s friendlier out there.
Sorry to have taken up your time.
Making the elite unis offer places at random to suitably qualified candidates would help no one, says Bernard Trafford
This month saw those two elite universities, Oxford and Cambridge, issuing their offers for undergraduate places. The lucky candidates must now buckle down to achieve the stratospheric grades most will need to take up their places.
No easy ride, then. But at least they’re spared the dual pain of those who, turned down, subsequently gain the three A*s demanded of their successful rivals. “Why them,” they might ask, “and not me?”
Such questions lend strength to the recent proposal in a Higher Education Policy Institute report that elite universities should allocate places at random among suitably qualified candidates to help disadvantaged students.
Superficially, it may appear persuasive. Closer scrutiny reveals that it’s a barmy idea.
First, the practicalities. It’s implied that the elite universities offer places solely on the basis of qualifications. Yet currently most students apply while still at school. They’re not yet qualified at all (except at GCSE), let alone equally.
So a lottery system could only be implemented if candidates applied after the publication of A-level results. That approach – post-qualification application – would actually be a vast improvement for many reasons, but not for this one.
Next, a factual correction. For Oxford, Cambridge and other top destinations, A-level results or predictions are only the start.
These universities not only interview candidates who produce strong applications (based on GCSE results, personal statements, school references and predicted grades), but also make them sit specific tests, some to gauge their subject knowledge, others their aptitude for their chosen course.
As a result, applicants are not “equally qualified”, but graded and ranked in considerable detail. The interview is a powerful discriminator and is nowadays (if not in the past) systematically conducted to be as informative as possible.
But here’s where the lottery idea becomes a nonsense. Top selector universities are just that: selective. They employ a raft of measures to identify not the strongest A-level prospects, but the applicants who will go furthest in their degree studies: in other words, those with the greatest potential.
Moreover, with so much pressure on them to widen access to those from disadvantaged backgrounds, these universities already leave no stone unturned to find them. When they do, and reckon they’ve spotted the promise they’re looking for, they routinely lower the hurdle of the conditional offer as appropriate.
The universities aren’t daft: they acknowledge the political, social and moral imperative. But they’re frustrated by not getting enough bright applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds. They’re not claiming they don’t exist, but they’re not seeing them.
Heather Hancock, the new master of St John’s College, Cambridge – a top destination by any measure – blames schools, complaining that pupils are being put off from applying to Cambridge by their teachers, who tell them it's "not for the likes of you".
She’s wrong, harking back to a former dark age: one that may once have existed and in which she perhaps grew up. But present-day schools are all about aspiration and I refuse to believe that teachers are discouraging pupils from aiming high.
Nonetheless, there remain influences that act against children’s own ambitions and those of schools for them, mostly stemming from a continuing lack of hope within disadvantaged families and communities.
Schools probably cannot overcome these difficulties on their own. Universities can help. But the government is best placed to improve matters by looking at financial support for the most deprived.
However, just as it doesn’t help for the government to bang schools over the head with messages about expectations, so too would tying the hands of some of the best institutions in the world (Oxford is ranked top) do nothing but harm.
The academic path is not the only route to health, wealth, happiness and the nation’s intellectual richness and economic prosperity. But it is one of them, and it is important.
Preventing top universities from selecting the very strongest candidates – the intellectual elite, indeed – is not the right way to widen access.
Such a clumsy form of social engineering risks doing damage to higher education in this country and its academic standing in the world.
And playing lottery games with young people’s chances is unpardonable.
'Groundhog Day in education would be a disaster'
The government has to deliver change in education – state and private schools must work together, says Bernard Trafford
Given the freedom of action afforded him by so thumping a majority, Boris Johnson can now “get Brexit done”. Then, as he says repeatedly, he can tackle the nation’s other imperatives.
So, what of his alleged leaning towards liberal one-nation Toryism? He no longer needs the support (always equivocal) of the DUP. Nor is he necessarily obliged to appease the Right-wing ERG headbangers. Will he now go his own way?
Or will education just see more of the same? Hopefully not. As Geoff Barton, the general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, wrote to his members this week, more of the same will mean precisely that. And it’s not good enough.
In a Tes article, "What must the new education secretary’s priorities be?", Geoff outlines five key areas for change.
These are: more funding; teacher supply when pupil numbers in secondary education surge; a rethink of an accountability system that currently drives teachers out; tests and exams that consign a third of 16-year-olds to failure; qualifications, especially T levels.
Commentators – not least defeated Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn – were quick to challenge the prime minister to live up to – and deliver on – his election promises. In truth, when it came to education, there weren’t many. Beyond funding, that is.
I’ve lost track of how many billions of pounds schools were promised. Nonetheless, experts calculated that, by 2023, funding will only be at 2010 levels in real terms. Better than at present, then, but not enough. Not by a mile.
So far, there are few indicators of other change coming. Just as the Cabinet is almost identical to its pre-election manifestation, so too the ministerial team at the Department for Education is unchanged. Groundhog Day appears the likeliest outcome.
That would be disastrous, even with a bit of extra cash in the pot. Geoff Barton observes that we won’t become an educational world leader through “arcane performance measures”, structural reforms, “policy tourism” and jumping on political hobby horses, nor even by arbitrarily scrapping Ofsted or Sats.
He calls for a national strategy for education. Amen to that.
How to plan it, though? Geoff rightly calls for involvement from “government, education and industry”, but let’s make sure that all of education is around the table.
The NEU, currently fearing (with good reason) that it might wither on the vine, must stop trying to politicise education and teachers, and work instead to the professional benefit of both – by being part of the discussion.
Next (admitting my interest) I must mention the independent sector. Seen as the enemy by both Labour and strident voices within the NEU, it has also been largely ignored and excluded by the recent Tory and coalition governments, which appeared to pretend it wasn’t there.
It’s a curiously British trait to decry, ignore or even destroy something uniquely good.
British private schools are identified by the Programme for International Student Assessment (Pisa) as the best group of schools in the world. A global byword for quality, in this century they’ve spread the UK’s soft power around the world, bringing significant sums back into this country.
The election arguably demonstrated that “the people” (as we’re nowadays called) don’t want a government-led class war, which demonises sections of society.
Rather than seeking to tear down the independent sector (which is overwhelmingly not-for-profit, by the way), let’s seize an opportunity, welcome and bind it into genuine partnership with government, as part of a national strategy
Government can both bridge the divide and (partially) address the impending shortage of school places, by taking up the sector’s offer to buy places in independent schools.
The devil would surely be in the detail. But how much better to explore possibilities and challenge entrenched opinions than to exclude, deny and oppose.
Consideration of radical strategies should begin, with all parties bringing open minds to the table.
Doing this could engender startling and positive change. By contrast, failure to do so risks continued tinkering, by fits and starts, and little real progress: Geoff Barton’s “more of the same”, indeed.
That outcome would indeed be a Groundhog Day. And it would be one this nation could ill afford.
Why teachers must have the freedom to teach their way
It is incontrovertible that if you trust teachers and schools to behave creatively, the results will follow. So why does it feel like whistling in the wind?
It’s nice when you find people agree with you. Right now, of course, consensus is a rare beast, on political issues at any rate. But this piece has been written before the election outcome was known, and must therefore ignore the elephant in the room.
I’m referring to my oft-stated view that the major problem besetting schools and teachers – and therefore the education of the young – lies in society’s (or government’s) refusal to treat teachers as professionals and afford them the trust they deserve and need.
My criticisms of Ofsted (mainly of the perverse priorities and intense pressure that inspection generates) infuriate those in the inspectorate who notice, while comments on Twitter and the Tes webpages suggest that they strike a chord, if a quiet one, across the profession.
But now a big beast has joined the throng. None other than Pisa boss Andreas Schleicher was headlined last week as declaring that “Mistrust of teachers holds England back”.
To be honest, Schleicher didn’t say: “That Bernard Trafford’s had it right all along.” For a start, he’s never heard of me.
Nonetheless, he echoed many of my complaints when he blamed teachers’ heavy workload on that mistrust, observing that the workload problem was identified a decade ago and initially addressed by employing more teaching assistants. Though there are now more people working in the system, the workload issue is unresolved. That went well, then.
Schleicher explained: “Lack of trust creates bureaucracy...and the need to control. For public accountability, you have to give records for everything… [the] price is teacher workload.”
Enter my fellow Tes columnist Yvonne Williams, expressing concern this week about the proposal for no-notice Ofsted inspections: “[Teachers] will teach their classes with one eye on the students and the other on the phantom inspectors who could drop in at any time.
“Data-gathering, already excessive, will become routinely urgent, to ensure that it’s fully up to date when inspectors call. ‘Every lesson counts’ – and this will take an unbearable toll on overstretched teachers.”
Let’s be clear. The real problem is lack of trust in teachers: Ofsted is an effect, not the cause. Meanwhile, Estonia, celebrating its spectacular rise in the Pisa table (compared to the UK’s merely modest progress), has, in Schleicher’s words, “a very light culture of inspection”, as opposed to our “heavy bureaucratic, intrusive kind of inspection regime”.
Schleicher says schools should be saying to themselves: “Here are the challenges – we are going to solve them.” In his vision, schools are the cutting edge, and don’t wait for “any government or social service” to direct them. That sounds to me like an encouragement to ambitious schools to act independently and to develop creative approaches.
Creative approaches are what we all want, aren’t they? Well, yes: but not, apparently, at the price of allowing schools the freedom and teachers the trust necessary to achieve them.
The paralysing caution that gives rise to our heavy-handed accountability regime renders policymakers incapable of releasing the tight grip that constrains schools’ creativity. Ever seeking to perfect a production-line model, without variable outcomes, ministers’ timidity demands entirely predictable and rigorously measured results. Unsurprisingly, the DfE has declined to participate in Pisa’s new measure of creative thinking.
Those of us in the business know that the best, bravest teachers and schools succeed, despite all that pressure, in subverting the accountability straitjacket, in being creative in their teaching and in fostering creativity in their pupils. Who knows? They might lead us to score rather well in the Pisa creativity table – but they won’t get that chance.
Of course not. Perpetuating their antipathy to trusting teachers, policymakers fear that creative thinking will not emerge as a strength of our schools. Entirely risk-averse, they won’t chance it.
Schleicher is fantastically well-informed, as well as visionary: but when it comes to influencing UK education I fear that, along with the rest of us, he’s whistling in the wind.
The election campaign has given rise to extravagant promises, from all parties. It will only harm teachers, says Bernard Trafford
The 19th-century wit Sydney Smith, when asked what he thought heaven would be like, is said to have replied “trumpets and clotted cream”.
Given my fondness for both jazz and that West Country delicacy, I’d love to believe Smith. But I can’t.
If there is indeed a heaven, I don’t think it will be that simple. For a start, jazz heaven for me might be sheer hell for another. Or have I missed a theological-philosophical Sartrean contradiction, l’enfer, c’est les autres (hell is other people)?
This question is currently pertinent, because the election campaign is giving rise to extravagant promises from those who would win our votes. It seems that all our political parties, not just the largest two, are promising the earth: heaven on earth, indeed, with unicorns thrown in.
They promise spectacularly higher levels of funding for schools and the NHS – even if some cash, like the extra staffing, appears to include figures already in the pot.
After a decade of austerity, I’m puzzled how public-spending splurges on so colossal a scale can possibly be afforded. The Institute for Fiscal Studies shares my scepticism
Still, proper funding for schools is indeed essential – and is on the table from all the main contenders, if you can believe them. So what other policies might separate them for voters?
One issue might be Ofsted. Labour and the Lib Dems have promised to revise or abolish the inspectorate (hurrah!), and to lighten up on testing (hurrah again!). Most teachers, weary of labouring under those burdens, would welcome that, so the proposals might win those parties some teacher votes.
But don’t rejoice too soon. Even before the election was announced, Tes’ own Ed Dorrell pointed out that the proposal is a vote-loser “out there”. Fed (and, too often, swallowing) the line that inspection, tests and league-tables furnish useful information when choosing a school for their child (until they fail to win their first-choice school, at any rate), most parents apparently like them.
Parents might even like the notion, trotted out yet again in the Tory campaign, of no-notice inspections. Ed describes it as a “zombie policy”: it’s regularly proposed, then deemed unworkable (most recently by Ofsted boss Amanda Spielman herself) and ultimately rejected, but it never entirely dies.
Nonetheless, pushing it will help the Tories gild their pledge to increase funding with a claim to be driving up standards, while the opposition parties are going soft on standards.
Proponents of “dawn raids” claim that inspectors simply turning up one morning will remove the fear and expectation that surround an Ofsted visit. It won’t.
Schools can work out when they’re due an inspection. Currently, they’re given half a day to produce the reams of required information. That task’s hardly less impossible than no-notice, so schools anticipating Ofsted’s arrival already stockpile data, all created by teachers chasing paper instead of focusing on kids’ learning
Lurking behind the dawn-raid plan is the suggestion that, given notice, schools will somehow game the system. After all, it’s sometimes claimed, food-hygiene inspections occur without notice: the kitchen should be up to scratch every day without fail.
Fair enough. Rules and regulations for kitchen hygiene are numerous, but essentially procedural. By contrast, schools and schooling comprise thousands or millions of personal interactions in every school each week, and “outputs” are subjective, individual and variable. They cannot (or should not) be reduced to a tick-list.
Nonetheless, the Tories will try, once again, to do that very thing. Are they proposing this cynically? Possibly: they may pick up votes that way.
More likely, though, my friend and former colleague Sir Anthony Seldon, now vice-chancellor of Buckingham University, nailed the truth this week. In a dramatic plea to turn education on its head (including a rather impressive headstand), he declared that “education ministers are fundamentally stupid”. Conservative Party HQ is currently proving Sir Anthony right.
Whether it’s cynicism or blind stupidity in command, this kind of get-tough rhetoric will deliver not educational trumpets and cream – or even unicorns – but merely further harm to teachers and schools.
Sarah has been teaching for 10 years and has had enough
Too many classroom teachers experience the sharp end of the accountability regime - something has to change
Recently, I was talking to someone about achieving a balance between accountability and responsibility in the school system: I frequently extrapolate those terms to mean micromanaging versus trusting teachers. The conversation reminded me of talking, years ago, to some visiting teachers from Chile, who told me that Spanish has no direct translation for accountability, only responsibilidad. If only that were true of my mother tongue, I thought at the time, and still do.
This train of thought called to mind, in turn, a conversation the other week with Sarah, a young maths teacher whom I first met 10 years ago when she was just starting out on her career. At this last encounter over a restaurant meal, she confessed, somewhat ruefully, that she felt somewhat wicked and daring going out on a weeknight: it’s something she does only rarely, making an exception in honour of my visit. Ten years on, teaching in one of those tough settings nowadays described as a “left-behind/ deprived coastal area” she hasn’t time for evenings out.
The situation will be familiar to countless teachers. A committed teacher, modelling and demanding high standards, Sarah has all the preparation and marking to do, always strongly motivated to present exciting challenges to her pupils: to those keen to learn, those rewarding ones who hang on her every word (they exist in every school), but also those resistant to the allure even of her excellent classroom style.
Those demands are made of teachers in every setting. But there are many too many aspects of the current school system that make it harder than it should be for her to do her job.
For example, Sarah teaches a Year 10 bottom set. For many of these 14-year-olds, the most basic mathematical concepts remain impenetrable, despite her best efforts. Nonetheless, there’s the matter of their exercise books. Book scrutiny will affect Sarah’s performance management: if it’s deemed inadequate, she won’t be able to move up to the next point on the pay scale.
Having been denied a pay rise by a book scrutiny a couple of years ago, Sarah has learned that it’s necessary to fill the pages of even the most challenged pupils with lots of material. Now she uses templates, ready-made materials which can be stuck into their books to reassure the scrutineer that her pupils are busy, even though such information on its own furnishes no indication of their level of understanding.
Cynical, perhaps: but what’s Sarah to do? An absurd accountability mechanism requires her to achieve the impossible: meanwhile, failure to work that miracle will hurt her salary.
It gets harder. Recently an extra pupil has been added to that set, admittedly with a teaching assistant to help. Checking with the academy’s Sendco, Sarah found that this Year 10 child has the mathematical age/ability profile of a six-year-old.
She does her best with this new arrival, as she does with all her pupils, and understandably relies on the TA to do nearly all the individual work one-to-one, since the child cannot begin to tackle the work of the rest of the group. But now she’s told that this pupil’s progress will form part of her performance management. That’s hardly fair, she suggested: after all, the TA does most of the work.
“Yes,” came the reply, “But someone must be held responsible for every pupil, whatever their learning difficulty. It’s a question of accountability.”
There it is again, the wilful confusion between responsibility and accountability. As her school’s leadership team bows to an obsessive government accountability system, Sarah is not responsible (ie, taking a professional and painstaking lead in the child’s development) but accountable, judged on arbitrary measures of their progress.
Senior staff, she reports, open most meetings with “Of course, it’s not all about Ofsted…” As a linguist might say, the “but” is not spoken, but is understood.
Small wonder that Sarah’s workload is increased by having daily to settle in an endless stream of supply teachers, since staff absence is high: another responsibility, then.
After 10 years, she’s had enough and is looking to leave teaching. Hands up who’s surprised.
I don’t begrudge any head a six-figure salary
It’s the school leaders on the front line who should command the big bucks – not the Mat CEOs in their comfy offices
You’ve got to hand it to Sir Dan Moynihan. The chief executive of the Harris Federation is not afraid of defending his gargantuan remuneration package nor of suggesting that some academy heads are being paid too much.
It suggests a fair degree of self-confidence but, then, he has a lot to be confident about. By any measure, Sir Dan runs a good multi-academy trust, with a remarkable record of turning around failing schools. Moreover, he points out, last year he made savings of £5 million at Harris. A MAT of the size of Harris, with its 48 academies, is near-enough a corporation: judge Sir Dan as a businessman, and maybe his half a million-plus whack doesn’t look unreasonable.
But then he spoilt it by suggesting that heads earning anywhere near the oft-quoted prime minister’s salary (£167,000) for running only a small trust, or a single school, are being overpaid. Quite apart from the obvious comment about people in glass houses, I think he’s got it completely wrong.
It’s not the people in a central office who should command huge salaries for making corporate decisions about savings on photocopying or catering contracts, or even masterminding strategic interventions in struggling schools: those who deserve the big reward are those at the sharp end, what we used to call the chalk-face.
Just for once, I’m not talking about teachers in general, but specifically heads, since they were in Sir Dan’s firing line. The MAT chief executive may decide where savings (that’s the posh word for cuts) must be made every time government funding is further squeezed, and may even come into the school to make the announcement. But then it’s back to HQ, away from the immediacy and impact of real school life.
It’s the leader on the ground who has to deal with the fall-out, the tears, the hurt, the recriminations, and the sheer wear and tear on all the staff who have to work even harder to fill the gaps created.
It’s the head, not the MAT boss, whose heart sinks when a teacher gets it horribly wrong and repair work or disciplinary processes must follow. And who has to deal with the difficult or embittered colleagues who might make hay with staffroom gossip during such episodes.
It’s the head who knows when a necessary sanction against a pupil will bring a combative parent into school with all metaphorical guns blazing. That most redoubtable of heads, Katharine Birbalsingh of Michaela School, complained in The Daily Telegraph last week that the default reaction of too many parents nowadays is to leap to their child’s defence, suggesting that the teacher has picked on them, or is racist. Even after 28 years of headship, I still found myself surprised on occasions by the readiness of some parents to assume that any blame must attach to the school, not to the immaturity of a child who needed to learn how to behave. I was never threatened by a parent (except with legal proceedings): but plenty of heads have been.
And then there are the children. To be sure, in-school heads have the privilege of witnessing and marking achievements (a joy remote CEOs may miss from their former life). But they must also help youngsters to deal with disappointment, failure, loss and bereavement. And with the tragic bombshell, a student or staff death: while the school finds itself on an emotional roller-coaster, the head is required to stand firm as a rock, providing support for everyone while, frequently, receiving little in their turn.
That’s the hard bit, which deserves what you might call danger money, payment for the relentless and lonely demands of the job. Dealing with all the challenges that colleagues, parents and children bring to the head’s desk every day is, I’d suggest, rather tougher work than implementing corporate strategies, achieving miraculous money-savings and presenting shiny spreadsheets to the board.
Well paid for it in my day (though not in excess of the PM) I wouldn’t grudge six figures to any school head. Nor should the country’s highest-paid education professional. To do so is insensitive on his part – and frankly insulting.
We must resist the urge to assess pupils' character
Character is caught, not taught – and different pupils pick it up in different times and in different ways, says Bernard Trafford
People expect everything from schools. Politicians and social engineers want basic levels of literacy and numeracy, plus narrowed attainment gaps and ever-improving results. Oh, and they want every form of social ill, threat or temptation tackled in school, too.
Ambitious students often feel pressured to do (and, again, get top grades in) whatever subjects that latest research says will attract a better salary, or maybe win them a place at the better class of university – one that will, er, earn them a better salary. Not what turns them on intellectually, then, but what’s “useful” and (did I say this before?) earns them more long term
Employers regularly call for well-qualified, literate, numerate, self-reliant, autonomous yet compliant wunderkinder, who can slot into a job after minimal induction or training, and get straight down to being productive. That’s not what they say, but it’s frequently what they mean. Then they moan that schools don’t prepare kids for the world of work.
Schools themselves want to give children an all-round education. That’s not just skills in traditional core subjects, plus appropriate levels of intellectual and exam achievement in chosen areas.
Schools also see as their mission the development of those less-measurable but vital additional qualities that all the pressure-groups above (except perhaps the kids themselves) also demand from time to time: empathy, compassion, generosity, altruism, teamwork, cooperation, ability to listen, self-confidence, initiative, resilience, flexibility, adaptability.
I could keep adding to that already long list – as could you – until we create a fascinatingly complex compendium of interrelated themes, all of which we consider vital to pupils’ personal growth.
Alternatively, we could stop trying to include every individual aspect comprehensively, and just roll them all up in a single collective word. “Character” is now the buzzword. Former education secretary Damian Hinds and his successor Gavin Williamson have a departmental advisory group to work on it. But the task is full of pitfalls.
For a start, can you actually define character in education? It’s all of it, really, the whole end-product of schooling. But government is unlikely to base any framework or programme it devises on anything so vague or subjective, when all its success criteria are based on measurable outcomes.
Ofsted’s new handbook summarises character rather neatly as: “A set of personal traits, dispositions and virtues that informs their motivation and guides their conduct so that they reflect wisely, learn eagerly, behave with integrity and cooperate consistently well with others.”
Fine. But, within our high-stakes accountability system, how will schools ensure their development of character is judged good? I foresee the emergence of a character equivalent of the mercifully now-abandoned “Ofsted lesson plan”, deplored by the inspectorate but almost inevitable given the pressure it engenders.
Moreover, can you actually teach character? In a recent Tes piece, Julia Harrington and Jonnie Noakes observed that some (me included) argue you can’t: it’s something that’s “caught”.
That doesn’t mean such vital learning happens by accident. On the contrary, a school can achieve it by consistently promoting and modelling a coherent set of values and by ensuring that, both within and beyond the formal core curriculum, it offers a calculated and plentiful range of opportunities for creative, expressive, voluntary, altruistic, sporting, outdoor, team-based challenges. Challenges, not mere experiences, is the realm where character is most easily and reliably learned.
Trouble is, it’s messy. You can’t run a test at the end to see if the desired lessons have been learned: pupils will “catch” character learning in different ways and situations, at different times, when they’re ready.
Still, the signs are positive. The necessary conversations, research and sharing of ideas across the profession are already well underway.
But let’s not allow rigid government guidelines or clumsy accountability structures to straitjacket – and thus strangle in infancy – this most desirable, and important, of developments.
Teachers will always work overtime. Now pay them more
Caring teachers will always work beyond their contracted hours, says Bernard Trafford. In return, the government must stop controlling and exploiting them.
Guy Doza wrote eloquently last week about teachers working overtime. It’s nothing to be proud of, he tells teachers, and it leads to a “culture of unmanageable expectations”.
But he’s critical of those who succumb to the pressure or willingly give up time to market their school through open evenings, or catch up on work at weekends, because of the impact it has on the people around them.
Such pieces inevitably stimulate some soul-searching. Did I ask too much of my colleagues in 28 years of headship? I ran highly pupil-centred schools, with busy extracurricular programmes and very dedicated teachers (I can sense Mr Doza grinding his teeth), who worked hard. I don’t think I demanded too much of them – though, for an objective view, you’d have to ask them.
Did I say objective? That’s tricky. Mr Doza deplores teachers doing anything outside contracted hours. But what constitutes a reasonable, even a contractual, teacher workload?
When I was a young teacher (I started in 1978), teacher workload was an ill-defined thing, though teacher unions repeatedly initiated work-to-rule campaigns for better pay. (We really were badly paid back then.)
In the late 1980s, Kenneth (now Lord) Baker decided to end the argument, asserting that teachers must work 1,265 hours in a year. This created immense ill-feeling. I knew fantastic teachers, who had long exceeded that figure, who responded by ceasing to run school sports teams, choirs or play productions. “If that’s what he thinks of us,” one told me, “he can stuff it.”
It was the first miserable – but significant – step in the Thatcher and Major governments’ process of removing professional trust from public services and introducing micromanagement, enforced by an oppressive accountability regime.
Thirty years on and, regardless of who’s in power, it seems impossible to row back from it. Actually, I’m amazed that any goodwill remains in the profession. Astonishingly, it does, even if it attracts Mr Doza’s ire.
He insists a coffee-shop barista wouldn’t say, “I don’t mind staying late to share the drink that I love.” But what about a crisis? Wouldn’t a committed employee stay on when the espresso machine blows up five minutes before the end of their shift? Maybe the employer would find some overtime pay, maybe not. But isn’t staying to help the natural, human thing to do, expressing both loyalty to customers and pride in the job?
That’s a trivial example. Commentators on the Tes webpage cited health workers who go the extra mile to save lives. The remarkable numbers of off-duty doctors and nurses who reported unbidden to London hospitals after the Westminster and London Bridge terrorist attacks didn’t ask about overtime before getting down to work.
Similarly, I suspect safety and repair workers up and down the country turn out to keep road and rail networks open when emergencies strike. And they keep at it till it’s done because, well, it matters.
As a head, I tried to protect my staff from outside pressures. I sought change and improvement, naturally, but on a basis of reasonableness, openness, flexibility and humanity. (Nor did I expect teachers to read or send evening or weekend emails.) True, the greater freedoms and resources of the independent sector made this easier. But don’t underestimate how demanding private-school parents can be.
I cling stubbornly to a vision of teaching as a caring and people-focused profession: one which accepts that those whom it serves are unpredictable and demanding and will, at times, desperately need it go the extra mile.
But, if such generous professionalism is desirable, as I passionately believe it is, government must in return treat teachers as professionals: pay them better; stop micromanaging, controlling, exploiting, bullying and overworking them; give them time and trust; genuinely value them.
Until it does that, ministers’ claims to be “tackling workload” will remain mere empty rhetoric.
Without LAs, how can we open schools where most needed?
Free schools should open where the need is greatest, says Bernard Trafford. But remote multi-academy trusts won’t do this
In The Times’ Thunderer column on 17 October, former minister of state for education David Laws wrote about a detailed analysis of official data for free schools by the Education Policy Institute, which he chairs. The headline, “New free schools cannot neglect left-behind areas”, summarises his and the EPI’s concern.
Secondary free schools achieve the best learning progress of any school type, he says, but free primaries don’t. Free primaries tend to be located where the need for additional school places is greatest, but not secondaries.
Mr Laws’ worry is focused less on the siting of free schools than on the nature of the children who attend them. To be sure, the poorest children are as likely as any others to attend free schools.
But he fears they tend to come from poor but aspiring, high-achieving ethnic and immigrant groups, who do very well in school. Those from “challenged white” and “hampered” communities (his quotes) are seriously underrepresented.
Model and challenge
His conclusion? Secondary free schools do well because they’re mostly in areas where all the schools do well: there aren’t enough free schools in “left behind” white working-class areas. His demand of government is to tackle the latter problem.
I don’t have access to official data, but I know one primary free school very well, because I helped to found it. It offers both a model and a challenge for the future development of the free-schools programme.
West Newcastle Academy (WNA), founded seven years ago in Benwell, one of the poorest wards in Newcastle upon Tyne, is a thriving one-form-entry free primary, now housed in a fine new building high above the Tyne river. An innovative curriculum, outstanding outreach and pastoral care and a child-centred, positive can-do attitude have rendered this recent arrival a prized choice of school for parents, which could provide a model for others.
Even when shipbuilding, engineering, coal and steel were booming on the Tyne, West Newcastle was always the poor end of the Toon. Nowadays, Benwell provides homes for refugees and for a significant immigrant community, but remains significantly both “left-behind” and “challenged white”, in EPI’s terms.
Supporting disengaged children
Nowadays I live five hours’ drive from WNA, but still visit when I can. Last week I watched children leaving at the end of the day, and would say at a glance that they reflected the school’s setting.
Moreover, from my experience of working with the headteacher, I know that WNA’s admissions policy answers David Laws’ concern. The policy prioritises need and proximity; the school is popular in its community and is full every year. Together, these two points ensure that it really does reach out to the educationally – not merely economically – disadvantaged.
So how did this particular free school come into being? The inspiration came from a charity, Kids and Us, long-established and deeply embedded in Benwell, with the aim of supporting disengaged children and their families. Kids and Us saw the free-schools programme as an opportunity to create a school that would connect and support these families.
WNA is thus both the charity’s creation and its legacy. It shrewdly recruited local expertise: then running a large independent school in the city, I was brought on board, along with two other experienced heads, and the project became a reality.
It’s hard to see how a group of parents, working on their own in a disadvantaged community, could achieve that aim. It’s almost as hard to picture a remote MAT having the reach and local knowledge to do so.
Where they are most needed
Local authorities might usefully replicate the local focus that Kids and Us provided in the creation of WNA. Sadly, they are no longer permitted to create new schools, and must instead ask MATs and federations to do it for them.
David Laws rightly urges the government to site future free schools in areas where they are most needed, not only “where education reformers decide to pitch their tent”.
But, by squeezing local authorities out of its educational vision, government is excluding the one structure best placed to deliver on his challenge.
Telling pupils they can fly will lead to crash landings
Urged to set their sights high, pupils feel the need to achieve excellent grades. No wonder they feel stressed, says Bernard Trafford
More than 80 per cent of teachers reckon that focus on exams has become so “disproportionate” that exams are now valued more than wellbeing. Meanwhile, 80 per cent of pupils claim that exam pressure is adversely impacting on their mental health.
Two major findings from research by the Health Foundation link concentration on academic outcomes to inadequate mental health support for pupils in schools.
The Health Foundation, The Children and Young People’s Mental Health Coalition and the Centre for Mental Health are calling for a review of the impact of the UK’s exam systems on young people’s wellbeing and mental health. They also want the inspectorates, Ofsted included, to look beyond attainment and assess schools on their efforts to promote a “whole-school approach”.
It would be easy to blame it all on government pressure and lack of funding. They are certainly a significant part of the problem. I’ve discussed on innumerable occasions how schools feeling the squeeze of government and inspectoral pressure to get top results will inevitably transmit anxiety to pupils.
And there’s no money for mental-health support. Thus the accountability and funding regimes need a review as much as the exam structure does
Nonetheless, children are pretty resilient: note how readily most adapt to the whims and vagaries of individual teachers (to the despair of schools that demand teacher conformity).
Yet four out of five pupils say they’re stressed. The sheer size of that proportion suggests that the effect is not felt by any single social, ethnic or ability group. It must be, one concludes, right across the board.
So, rather than lambast government yet again, on this occasion I’ll explore another – less structural, more cerebral and emotional – reason why exams are doing harm to young people’s wellbeing.
Here’s my question, then: a theory untested and maybe a little weird. Could a major culprit be a tendency to promote excessive aspiration?
For decades we (and I include myself) have rightly been battling to raise pupils’ aspiration. “Just good enough” is no longer good enough: students must “be the best they can be”. Aspirational epigrams adorn school walls, urging kids to remember that, if they believe in themselves, they can fly – almost literally, although such overweening self-confidence ended badly for Icarus, I recall.
I’m not having a go: inculcating aspiration and ambition is an essential part of education. Gone (and not before time) are the days when children were expected to know their place: one allotted to them by birth and a rigid social hierarchy. Nonetheless, I sometimes fear that assuring kids they can “be anything or anyone they want” is a step too far.
Thirty years ago, we worried that teenagers were abandoning Stem subjects in order to follow “easier” courses en route to highly paid jobs in finance and a yuppy lifestyle. Nowadays we’ve become so messianic about Stem (coining the term rather successfully in that quest, not least when you see how girls are finally turning to physics) that languages and the arts are now in near-meltdown.
I don’t believe anyone’s actually saying: “If you’re ambitious, you mustdo maths and other (allegedly) hard subjects,” yet that’s the message aspirational young people seem to receive. The creation of subject hierarchies by silly ideas, like the Russell Group universities’ list of “facilitating subjects” and Michael Gove’s painfully arbitrary and utilitarian EBacc, haven’t helped.
But the rush away from “creative” (forgive the over-simple label) subjects to Stem, and the continuing failure of vocational pathways to win widespread esteem, appear to be fuelled by something unspoken and indefinable, yet omnipresent in education’s bloodstream.
Constantly urged to set their sights high, ambitious students need excellent GCSEs so that they can go on to tackle those tough A levels and be in contention for university offers, which will in turn demand stratospheric grades. Result: a perfect storm of pressure – even before taking into account the ways in which the government leans on schools.
Now four-fifths of teachers and pupils alike believe that an overemphasis on exams is putting wellbeing at risk. If that isn’t a wake-up call and a demand for serious review and change, I don’t know what is.
Why education is in a (very English) spot of bother
Understatement is typically British. But describing school funding as 'a bit tight'? It's not on, says Bernard Trafford
Understatement is an endearingly British trait. Battle of Britain heroes, for example, would routinely talk self-deprecatingly about participating in “a bit of a scrap” or being in “a tight spot”, when in fact they’d been fighting for their lives and country against enormous odds.
The tradition of describing life-and-death moments in the manner of episodes from Winnie the Pooh continues to this day. When a colleague is late for a meeting, murmuring, “Sorry, bit of a difficult morning,” we know that description could signify anything from the car refusing to start to a major gas explosion demolishing their house at the same time as a web-scammer empties out their bank account.
Colourful colloquialism is arguably more attractive than the routinely robotic utterances from government spokespeople, such as those at the Department for Education, who repeat with monotonous regularity the mantra that government is pouring record funding into schools.
You’ll see where I’m going. There’s charming understatement – and there’s plain crass insensitivity.
This is an inappropriate time for Gavin Williamson, questioned about the schools funding crisis, to emulate a latter-day Biggles, downplaying the moment when the balloon went up.
But he did. The education secretary told the BBC that, having a wife and brother who are teachers, he does “occasionally get it in the ear… that things have been a bit tight in schools and they’ve needed a little bit of extra money”.
A bit tight? Even Dad’s Army’s Sergeant Wilson, played by the gloriously laconic John Le Mesurier, would have balked at describing a £14 billion shortfall as needing “a little bit of extra money”.
Sadly, Mr Williamson is not alone in displaying out-of-touch political blindness. As Amy Gibbons reminded us in Tes, last year former Chancellor Philip Hammond found schools an additional £400 million for “the little extras they need”.
So what are those “little extras”, and why does it feel “a bit tight” in schools? I’ll highlight some recent examples. Just this week The Timesreported that councils were “siphoning off” (I quote the term pejoratively while acknowledging that it’s done in desperation) £400 million of precious money from schools in order to fund special-needs support.
Some 354,000 children have bespoke education and health care plans (EHCPs), the successor to statements of special educational needs. These require schools and local authorities to provide individually tailored support: for example, 15 hours per week of one-to-one, in-class support from a teaching assistant. All in the system would agree that such targeted aid is essential, if the child is to be able to gain access to the curriculum and thrive in mainstream school.
Schools don’t always cover themselves in glory in this area. SEN training for teachers remains insufficient, to be sure. But, above all, there isn’t the money in the system. There’s growing evidence that even those legally required hours of support frequently aren’t provided.
Attempting miracles with inadequate resources, headteachers are understandably resentful. The description by one of EHCPs as a “golden ticket” made me uncomfortable. Yet it was logical in context, since the concentration on ECHP funding (insufficient in itself) has left schools shorter than ever of cash, making impossible a range of earlier interventions that might render an EHCP unnecessary in the long term.
In desperation, and sometimes because (unworthily) schools lean on the parents of children likely to pull down their vital exam or progress scores, increasing numbers are opting to home-educate. This is not done out of a philosophical search for an alternative, but out of sheer weariness at battling a mean and inflexible system.
Meanwhile, we learn that 70 per cent of teachers are working way beyond their contracted hours. No wonder unsustainable numbers are still leaving the profession: too much is being asked of teachers and TAs alike.
These are just recent snapshots of what’s regularly termed a serious situation, even a crisis. But the one thing it shouldn’t be called, in gung-ho understatement worthy of the myopic Captain Mainwaring, is “a bit tight”.
All I can say to the education secretary, in similar style, is, “Bad show! Bad egg!” Or, in old school-report terminology, “Must do better."
Why am I so negative about Ofsted? I can do no other
Unlike Labour, Bernard Trafford does not want to see Ofsted abolished. But he feels compelled to criticise the effect it has on schools and teachers
When, on 31 October 1517, Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door of Wittenberg Castle church, he set himself on a collision course with the might of the Roman Catholic church. Tradition, now disputed by scholars, has it that he declared: “Here I stand. I can do no other.” The rest is history – and the Reformation.
Luther was brave: he was taking on a potent and ruthless opponent, a fact undiminished by the old schoolboy howler that mistakes the word “theses”
Why so negative?
Tes deputy editor Ed Dorrell shrewdly points out that the proposal could render education an election battleground (arguably no bad thing). But it will cost Labour votes, since parents like inspection reports when choosing schools for their children.
I don’t blame parents for valuing Ofsted. Nor do I take issue with the decision to end the exemption of schools previously rated "outstanding" from further inspection. So why, as I was asked rather sharply the other day, is everything I write about Ofsted so negative?
It’s true that I tend not to shower the inspectorate with praise: I’m swifter to criticise its effects on schools and teachers.
In my defence, I don’t do hatchet jobs on its people or their professional work. Ofsted’s senior executives without exception impress me, and the inspectors I’ve met (particularly HMI) have invariably been outstanding educationalists, generally with distinguished experience in school leadership.
I’ve given Amanda Spielman, Her Majesty’s chief inspector, credit for: speaking out about physical education being squeezed out of the curriculum; for confirming to a House of Commons select committee that, although she had no firm proof (yet), funding cuts were likely to wreak demonstrable damage over time; for expecting inspectors presented with reams of data to question whether their creation was a worthwhile use of teacher time; and for urging schools not to respond to Ofsted’s new focus on curriculum by producing endless paper policies, concentrating instead on useful discussion with inspectors about what their curriculum offers pupils.
Neither have I denied the importance of having an inspectorate that can enter unlicensed schools, and prosecute if necessary. Similarly, I welcome the prohibition on admitting pupils recently issued to several dodgy private schools, none of them members of the recognised associations that would provide a level of monitoring.
We need mechanisms both to investigate causes for concern and to tell government candidly how its education policies are working out.
Alas, it’s not the information gleaned that’s the problem, however professionally it’s collected. The problem is the way it’s then used to create arbitrary measures. Ofsted inspections form part of an accountability regime so burdensome and so high-stakes that its very existence – let alone the impending arrival of a team of inspectors – cranks up the stress. It’s an inevitable consequence.
Inevitable, too, is the intensification of pressure that stems from policymakers’ insistence that the infinitely complex mechanisms and interactions of a school should be reduced to a single adjectival grade. Meanwhile, the encouragement of competition, notwithstanding contradictory pleas for collaboration, renders even the fine difference between "good" and "outstanding" judgements crucial for schools: witness the banners hung on school gates.
As additional targets and benchmarks are constantly imposed by government, every new tweak of the inspection frameworksimultaneously increases workload, as schools identify new hoops through which they feel they must jump.
Over my long career, I learned what motivates teachers and gets the best out of them, for the benefit of their pupils – and what doesn’t.
So I’m not lining up to endorse the Labour or Lib Dem plans to axe Ofsted, because more is required. The entire accountability system, of which Ofsted is but a part, is at fault. Root and branch revision is needed to remove intolerable pressure and return joy and satisfaction to the job – to the vocation – of teaching.
So, sorry Ofsted, but I have to keep writing in this vein. Like Martin Luther (if less grandly, and with infinitely less personal risk), I can do no other.
How pupil banter becomes the toxic maleness of politics
Tackling classroom banter will not only stop bullying – it will also prevent the racist and sexist trolling of public figures, says Bernard Trafford
Three cheers for Duncan Byrne, head of the independent Loughborough Grammar School, who declared last week that he was banning classroom banter in his all-boys’ school.
He claims that this isn’t mere do-gooding in the age of snowflakes, but part of a coherent strategy to counter what Mr Byrne terms “toxic masculinity”. His Great Men programme aims to encourage boys to open up more readily, to express their feelings, to know and accept that it’s OK to cry.
Some might argue that there’s little that’s novel here. In education, as in most things, there’s arguably nothing new under the sun.
But this initiative, whether innovative or not, is nonetheless important and deserving of wider discussion. For toxic masculinity remains a scourge in our schools and in our society, and so-called banter – which may start harmlessly enough, but too easily becomes cranked up into something destructive – provides a conduit by which it spreads.
Looking back to my early years as a teacher, 40 years ago, I still shudder when I recall allowing banter to run on. Young, probably wanting to be popular but, above all, ignorant (or at least naive) about how mild leg-pulling concealed or developed into bullying, I know there were too many occasions when I failed to step in and put a stop to it.
Schools and teachers are very much wiser and better-prepared nowadays. Far more aware, and hopefully trained to spot it, they will tend to take action, and perhaps even initiate discussion about why such behaviour is wrong.
On the other hand, teachers are busy. They have lessons to teach and, besides, if verbal bullying has reduced in the classroom, its digital equivalent has multiplied exponentially through social media.
Eager to be in the online chat group or active on the latest trending platform, children reveal too much of themselves (both physically and emotionally, alas) and are hurt and bewildered when those revelations are turned back on them with intent to hurt. We adults struggle to keep up: witness the latest bizarre craze of “sadfishing”, where kids (perhaps self-indulgently) share online descriptions of how low they’re feeling today. Why do they do it? People of my generation are generally baffled by what appears a wilful courting of harm.
The sour maleness of present-day politics
This is not a problem confined to boys, of course. If I appear to have strayed from my opening topic, I’d merely comment that such bullying, undermining of physical and emotional confidence – those extensions of banter at its most vicious – is fed by toxic masculinity, which is in turn fuelled by the dreadful examples set by those who should know better.
The sour maleness of present-day politics becomes ever-more toxic as the Brexit row continues. I simply cannot comprehend the prime minister scribbling “girly swot” about David Cameron in a meeting note and apparently mouthing “big girl’s blouse” as a term of abuse directed at the leader of the opposition in the Commons. Worse still, the hyperbolic language of those ardent Brexiters who liken the wrangling over Brexit to a war (“which we won last time”) is, while indubitably absurd, simultaneously macho and dangerous.
Meanwhile female public figures, from the Duchess of Sussex through MPs and MEPs to anti-Brexit campaigner Gina Miller, routinely suffer sexist, racist, threatening and vile trolling online and, frequently, verbal abuse and threat in the street. Commentators reckon nearly all of it comes from men.
So, yes, there’s a job to be done. Boys and men who get better at talking about and analysing their own feelings will inevitably see their levels of – and capacity for – empathy increase similarly. Programmes like Loughborough Grammar School’s Great Men won’t solve all the problems besetting us with regard to toxic masculinity, but they’ll certainly help.
There’s plenty of knowledge and experience to be shared, so let’s support such initiatives by getting the discussion going, and broadcasting it by means of the very digital technology that is causing us so many headaches.
How a constant sense of threat feeds teacher workload
The problem of teacher workload is less about hours worked, and more about excessive accountability and surveillance, says Bernard Trafford
I don’t often get cross these days: after all, I’ve been retired for over a year. Nonetheless, on Wednesday I was stirred to ire by the findings of the 15-year research project by University College London (UCL), which revealed that one in four teachers works more than 60 hours a week.
Astonishingly, this is the first study to have tracked workload over such a long period of time. Full marks to UCL for doing it, and to the Nuffield Foundation for funding it.
But no more than two cheers, please, because it (a) should have been done long before, and (b) demonstrates something the entire profession has long known, but policymakers have wilfully overlooked for 25 years, by the Department for Education’s own admission.
Lead author Professor John Jerrim was quoted as saying: “Bolder plans are needed by the government to show they are serious about reducing working hours for teachers.”
The DfE says it “will continue our work with the sector to drive down on these burdensome tasks outside the classroom so that teachers are free to do what they do best – teach”.
Sadly, as NEU joint general secretary Mary Bousted describes, most “burdensome tasks” are generated by the government’s excessive accountability regime. Every new Ofsted angle on inspection spawns a fresh round of policy-writing and recording mechanisms. Teachers labour to create for their schools the evidence that assures the inspectorate they’re doing what’s required
I know: school leaders should be more robust. But we all know the consequences to schools and heads of a poor Ofsted inspection, so forgive their human frailty. Blame the government-driven system, not the links in the middle, which sometimes crack under pressure.
As for “what teachers do best” – teaching – what does that really mean
To policymakers, it means merely “delivering” learning in the classroom; to pupils and parents, it means much more.
In order to change children’s lives, providing the springboard from which they may leap into challenge, personal growth and fulfilment, teachers must indeed be freed from “burdensome” tasks. But the problem won’t be solved by locking them in the classroom for a number of hours set by contract or diktat.
Great teaching and consequent workload are about more than hours. While many great teachers establish a fantastic rapport with their pupils within the teaching timetable, more do it beyond the 21 hours’ weekly contact time cited by Mary Bousted. They do it through extra one-to-one help at lunchtime or after school. They work wonders with and for children through sport, music, drama or outdoor education.
Teams, concerts, plays, musicals or expeditions are created, by definition, almost entirely outside the timetable. They’re the parts of their education that former pupils generally recall most fondly: the challenges, experiences and soft skills gained prepare them for adult life rather more than most classroom learning can.
Field trips add vital additional learning, and aren’t confined to sciencesor geography. At a touring production of Macbeth in Oxford this week, two-thirds of the audience comprised school parties. I suspect those generous teachers supervising would be heartbroken if such trips (a traditional strength of UK schooling) were deemed to breach a set-hours limit.
Writing as a former teacher and head who worked, I’d say with hindsight, excessive hours for 40 years, I’ll nonetheless risk censure by suggesting that the problem of teacher workload lies less in hours (within reason) than in its nature and intensity, above all in excessive accountability and consequent record-keeping, the constant sense of threat and surveillance, inadequate resourcing and support, over-large classes, unremitting pressure to perform, and lack of appreciation.
These truths are inconvenient for policymakers – which is why nothing has been done about them despite promises from successive secretaries of state.
What they should do is stop controlling, measuring and threatening teachers. Trust, value, support and appreciate them, pay them better (and less grudgingly), and many of the things currently driving teachers out of the profession would start to disappear.
The case for keeping GCSEs is dubious at best
Tougher GCSEs have been devised when there’s no need for a national qualification at that age, says Bernard Trafford
The new, “tougher” GCSE is already proving insufficiently challenging for the very brightest.
Barnaby Lenon, chair of the Independent Schools Council, reports that leading selective independent schools are finding that students gain far more top grades than expected: he cited one where 57 per cent of grades awarded were 9. He’s not advocating it, but reckons there may soon be calls for an additional grade 10.
It’s no surprise. The same happened previously at A level and with the old GCSE, as a result of either rising achievement or grade inflation, according to your point of view. In both cases, A* was added above A, not to mention the A-double-star (A^, “A hat”) in further maths GCSE.
GCSE is the successor of O level, CSE and, far back in time, the School Leaving Certificate. Nowadays education (not necessarily in school) theoretically continues for all young people beyond 16. So it could be argued that exams at that age provide little useful information, except for the government to compare one school with another.
Moreover, as currently constituted, they tell the “forgotten” third of 16-year-olds – those gaining less than a grade 4 in maths and English – that what they’ve worked for is worthless.
We’re assured that GCSE helps universities to discriminate at the top end. Indeed, it may allow selector universities to identify potential in candidates from less-favourable backgrounds as they (rightly) seek to ensure that disadvantage doesn’t prevent talented students from winning places.
I’ve never been convinced by universities’ claims that any single qualification is essential to their selection processes. When Curriculum 2000 ushered in the AS level as the halfway point to A level, universities declared that they would be of no use whatsoever for selection.
By contrast, when AS levels were phased out recently, universities lamented the loss of a vital indicator.
I guess they’ve now returned to looking at GCSEs, so ambitious students will continue to aim for maximum top grades at GCSE. And when someone decides that the brightest are gaining “too many” 9s, the demand will come for a 10 (or 11, or even 12), cranking up the pressure on them a full two years before they’ll progress to university.
Selector universities do need some measure of prior attainment, but only while they perpetuate our barmy system of candidates’ applying before A level and holding conditional offers – except when some institutions drive a coach and horses through their own system by making unconditional offers.
That problem could be solved at a stroke by a system of post-qualification application – in other words, letting candidates apply for university after they’ve got their A-level results, as students do successfully in the rest of the world.
Policymakers and admissions tutors will throw up their hands in horror: how can they possibly get it all done between exams in June and university term starting in October? They can’t, of course, which is why they need to find the collective courage and vision to stretch that period by rethinking the entire academic year. That calls for big change, not mere tinkering.
But, until that happens – and I’m not holding my breath – the race for top GCSE grades will continue.
The problem lies in the GCSE itself. A new, tougher exam has been devised for 16-year-olds when there’s no longer any clear reason for a national qualification at that age. It’s the wrong age and the wrong purpose for that exam, and the wrong exam for that unclear purpose.
So, before we consider revising or adding to the grades awarded at GCSE, we should revisit the whole rationale for the exam’s existence at that age. It’s dubious at best.
Designing and introducing the new GCSE before even asking whether the qualification is still needed has been a matter of putting the cart before the horse. Let’s not now further tinker with the horse’s harness, nor buff up the brasses, when we don’t even know where it’s going.
Ofsted now does more harm than good
Many social campaigners see Ofsted as the government's enforcer - but this benefits no one, says Bernard Trafford
A new school year and, as night follows day, fresh announcements from Ofsted.
First came the news that schools previously rated "outstanding" will lose their exemption from further inspection.
Responses were generally positive. There’s the obvious equity view: “What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.” Why should some schools, however good they were on a particular day, be treated differently from the rest? Meanwhile, Paul Whiteman, general secretary of the NAHT headteachers’ union, observed that newly appointed heads find their attempts to achieve change blocked by the argument that “we’re already outstanding”.
Ofsted: Conflict and misery
Next, the inspectorate dropped all reference to homework from its new school inspection framework, on the grounds that: “It is up to schools to decide whether or not they set it for their pupils… Inspectors will assess the wide range of work provided to pupils to ensure it supports and reinforces what is taught in the classroom and the wider curriculum.”
Here responses were more varied. From the parental lobby that finds homework a source of conflict and misery at home (one led by such influential figures as Kirstie Allsopp and Romesh Ranganathan), there was joy – though I’d guess that ditching homework entirely is not what Ofsted has in mind.
By contrast, from other, predictable, quarters emerged only fury. Chris McGovern, chair of the Campaign for Real Education (CARE) and a former Ofsted inspector to boot, told The Sunday Times: “This is a retrograde step… Many teachers will take the easy way out and not set homework from now on… This has been done to appease teachers who are complaining about their workload…”
To picture my perfect Ofsted inspector would be a bit like Lewis Carroll’s White Queen imagining five impossible things before breakfast. But I can’t imagine Mr McGovern having much in common with my ideal.
Nonetheless, I’m grateful for his intemperate tirade, which, while betraying a deep distrust of teachers, also illustrates clearly what too many people – including most of the media, policymakers and thinktankers – regard as the inspectorate’s purpose: to ensure that schools do what the government (along with the media, policymakers and thinktanks) wants them to do. Because, if left to themselves, they cannot be trusted to. In other words, to enforce policy.
CARE believes it. Well-intentioned social campaigners believe it. Every call for schools to address the latest pressing social issue – knife crime, obesity, fitness, sleep, healthy eating, screen time, internet safety, tolerance, intolerance, diversity, extremism – brings a concomitant demand that Ofsted check that schools are doing it. Otherwise, it’s argued, they won’t. Trust has long been in short supply.
To be fair to Ofsted’s boss, Amanda Spielman, she and her senior staff are as powerless against those demands as the schools they inspect, though they suffer less than those on the receiving end. Whenever an element is added to the inspection framework, schools feeling themselves under the cosh (a lot of them) write policies to address it, despite Ms Spielman’s pleas not to. And, if an element is removed or downgraded…well, witness those reactions to that decision not to mention homework.
So what of this week’s suggestion that Ofsted inspect schools’ financial management? Perhaps Ms Spielman’s next annual report could tell the government how schools are doing the impossible with inadequate budgets?
But she can only do so when the damage is so catastrophic as to be clearly demonstrable. Last year, she was (genuinely) unable to demonstrate scientifically to the Commons Education Select Committee that swingeing cuts were affecting levels of achievement, though she said it was likely. Effects become measurable only slowly, so in the meantime government can ignore them. And did, in this case.
As for the latest proposal that Ofsted should report on schools’ transmission of “cultural capital”, I guess we’ll rapidly see a nation’s entire artistic, literary, spiritual and social heritage reduced to policies two sides of A4 in length.
Ofsted holds schools accountable. Schools, in their turn, are able to hold neither inspectorate nor government to account for failing to support them adequately. Simultaneously a blunt instrument and a double-edged sword, Ofsted now does more harm than good.
We must find a better way of assuring schools’ accountability – and inspection needs to go.