When does “accountability” get in the way?
We need a top down “growth mind-set”.
At one of the Grammar Schools that I attended, we had to learn by heart the creed and the act of contrition, the key words of which I still remember;
We have left undone those things which we ought to have done;
And we have done those things which we ought not to have done;
And there is no health in us.
This was an interesting concept for an 11 year old, reinforcing our place in the world; relatively low, as far as some teachers were concerned.
Teaching staff are accountable in many different ways, to their class(es), to their line manager, to the headteacher, the Governors, the parents, LA, Trust or Academy, Ofsted, Government. It can feel like accountability overload and I am wondering if there is a danger that it is the accountability, in itself, that might be causing significant issues for schools who find themselves in more challenging situations.
Holding to account is a top down model, a case of being done unto, with the implication of deficits to be addressed. This can put the person lower down the scale at a significant disadvantage.
We need a top down “growth mind-set”.
At one of the Grammar Schools that I attended, we had to learn by heart the creed and the act of contrition, the key words of which I still remember;
We have left undone those things which we ought to have done;
And we have done those things which we ought not to have done;
And there is no health in us.
This was an interesting concept for an 11 year old, reinforcing our place in the world; relatively low, as far as some teachers were concerned.
Teaching staff are accountable in many different ways, to their class(es), to their line manager, to the headteacher, the Governors, the parents, LA, Trust or Academy, Ofsted, Government. It can feel like accountability overload and I am wondering if there is a danger that it is the accountability, in itself, that might be causing significant issues for schools who find themselves in more challenging situations.
Holding to account is a top down model, a case of being done unto, with the implication of deficits to be addressed. This can put the person lower down the scale at a significant disadvantage.
I had the great fortune to sit in on a conversation between Dame Alison Peacock and Sir David Carter recently, in Bristol, during the filming of a school improvement film by School Improve. Both occupy important places in the education pantheon, so their views are significant. They are listened to regularly by policy-makers. In due course, the film will be available for in-school CPD.
There was some inevitably common ground, not least in the purposes of education, with children central to both sets of thinking. However there was also a discernible difference in approach between the two, which I will seek to summarise.
Dame Alison, at Wroxham School, inherited a school that needed substantial structural and communal change in order to improve. It was a case of professional, parental and child capital all needing an upgrade, to start to believe in the corporate aspiration and to see the direction of travel. It was the visionary approach that was needed, to show everyone that change was possible, as well as essential. Time and effort was put into developing all of the different aspects of the school, celebrating the step changes that became visible. Celebration added positivity to the journey, so people kept up the momentum. As a result, the school came out of special measures and is now enjoying success.
Sir David’s role is more overview and strategic; he is responsible for the Academy schools in the South West of England. He gave a very clear outline of the different levels of responsibility and accountability that underpinned decision making within the “authority” of the School Regional Commissioner. Some flexibilities were described, for schools operating at a discernibly high level. Intervention was a key feature of the accountability system.
So, the person charged with improving a school took a bottom-up approach, whereas the bureaucrat articulated accountability levels to make schools improve. This is mirrored through the system, with pure data often driving decisions, where the reality “on the ground” is in need of a more nuanced approach.
There was some inevitably common ground, not least in the purposes of education, with children central to both sets of thinking. However there was also a discernible difference in approach between the two, which I will seek to summarise.
Dame Alison, at Wroxham School, inherited a school that needed substantial structural and communal change in order to improve. It was a case of professional, parental and child capital all needing an upgrade, to start to believe in the corporate aspiration and to see the direction of travel. It was the visionary approach that was needed, to show everyone that change was possible, as well as essential. Time and effort was put into developing all of the different aspects of the school, celebrating the step changes that became visible. Celebration added positivity to the journey, so people kept up the momentum. As a result, the school came out of special measures and is now enjoying success.
Sir David’s role is more overview and strategic; he is responsible for the Academy schools in the South West of England. He gave a very clear outline of the different levels of responsibility and accountability that underpinned decision making within the “authority” of the School Regional Commissioner. Some flexibilities were described, for schools operating at a discernibly high level. Intervention was a key feature of the accountability system.
So, the person charged with improving a school took a bottom-up approach, whereas the bureaucrat articulated accountability levels to make schools improve. This is mirrored through the system, with pure data often driving decisions, where the reality “on the ground” is in need of a more nuanced approach.
This last point developed broader reflections in my own mind, as the education system is fraught with seeking those things that will have the biggest impact on learning.
Bright ideas are sought from across the world, by politicians, desperate to demonstrate that they are improving the system.
Plug-ins in computer, website terms, don’t always work, as an aspect of one plug-in might create an incompatibility with another, resulting in the system crashing.
Similarly, in medicine, overprescription of drugs to a patient can cause one drug to work against another, again causing system breakdown.
In both cases, system breakdown can be fatal, usually caused by human error.
Bright ideas, unless their purpose, development and potential utility are well understood, fall down in education. A simple case in point would be the worksheet, “borrowed” from a colleague, downloaded from the internet, or created by a central authority. All goes well, until a number of learners encounter a problem. At this point, the teacher understanding can be compromised, reducing their ability to move the learning on. Thinking for yourself, to provide maximum benefit to learners, is a fundamental teacher need and should never be compromised. Teacher need to know their children well and also to know their stuff, so that they can fine-tune to the needs of the learners in front of them, not a generic group visualised by another author.
Initiatives cause distraction. It is hard to be working within a system, knowing that what you are currently doing is being superseded, so that you are planning at one level, while developing the replacement. Initiative overload can also occur if managers are not good at filtering out those bright ideas that will not add value to the school.
Thinking about this a little further, accountability can, if mishandled, become disabling, of individuals, schools and ultimately the system.
This links with thinking for yourself and having a clear rationale for the decisions that are being taken at different points in time. Having a plan of action and following through, with evaluation points built in, are the bread and butter of project management. Organising for teaching and organising the structures of the system, are all part of project management. If an end point can be visualised, the plan can become a clear journey map, or narrative, that can be shared with others.
Communication, across every aspect of the system is the basis on which everything succeeds or fails. A lack of good communication can allow parts of the system to become detached, so that the mechanism, over time, becomes less effective.
If I was to propose one area from this discussion that needs to be a part of the whole educational establishment, it would be to encourage discussion, rather than the top-down, edict-led, initiative rich and headline grabbing pronouncements. That way might allow all to move together.
It would also potentially improve the lot of classroom teachers, whose role is to effect the change in learners.
Management can hold teachers to account if they have provided the cultural and physical environment where the teacher is likely to succeed. If day to day working decisions are compromised, the teacher will defer to authority and become less effective.
Teachers in the classroom should be autonomous thinkers; then they can be held accountable. That way too, we’ll be growing the leaders of the future, capable of thinking for themselves.
Bright ideas are sought from across the world, by politicians, desperate to demonstrate that they are improving the system.
Plug-ins in computer, website terms, don’t always work, as an aspect of one plug-in might create an incompatibility with another, resulting in the system crashing.
Similarly, in medicine, overprescription of drugs to a patient can cause one drug to work against another, again causing system breakdown.
In both cases, system breakdown can be fatal, usually caused by human error.
Bright ideas, unless their purpose, development and potential utility are well understood, fall down in education. A simple case in point would be the worksheet, “borrowed” from a colleague, downloaded from the internet, or created by a central authority. All goes well, until a number of learners encounter a problem. At this point, the teacher understanding can be compromised, reducing their ability to move the learning on. Thinking for yourself, to provide maximum benefit to learners, is a fundamental teacher need and should never be compromised. Teacher need to know their children well and also to know their stuff, so that they can fine-tune to the needs of the learners in front of them, not a generic group visualised by another author.
Initiatives cause distraction. It is hard to be working within a system, knowing that what you are currently doing is being superseded, so that you are planning at one level, while developing the replacement. Initiative overload can also occur if managers are not good at filtering out those bright ideas that will not add value to the school.
Thinking about this a little further, accountability can, if mishandled, become disabling, of individuals, schools and ultimately the system.
This links with thinking for yourself and having a clear rationale for the decisions that are being taken at different points in time. Having a plan of action and following through, with evaluation points built in, are the bread and butter of project management. Organising for teaching and organising the structures of the system, are all part of project management. If an end point can be visualised, the plan can become a clear journey map, or narrative, that can be shared with others.
Communication, across every aspect of the system is the basis on which everything succeeds or fails. A lack of good communication can allow parts of the system to become detached, so that the mechanism, over time, becomes less effective.
If I was to propose one area from this discussion that needs to be a part of the whole educational establishment, it would be to encourage discussion, rather than the top-down, edict-led, initiative rich and headline grabbing pronouncements. That way might allow all to move together.
It would also potentially improve the lot of classroom teachers, whose role is to effect the change in learners.
Management can hold teachers to account if they have provided the cultural and physical environment where the teacher is likely to succeed. If day to day working decisions are compromised, the teacher will defer to authority and become less effective.
Teachers in the classroom should be autonomous thinkers; then they can be held accountable. That way too, we’ll be growing the leaders of the future, capable of thinking for themselves.
Improvement through inspection? Better value from expensive audits?
As we all are in a situation of looking for ways of saving money and at the same time seeking ways to improve the school system, should any aspect of the system be “ring-fenced” and become untouchable?
Having entered Teacher Training College almost 40years ago, taught and been a head teacher within a 32 year career in schools, it is almost flippant to say that I have heard it all before. However, that is true, but it is also true that the impact of successive change has been at best tinkering, more often revolution, as one system replaced another. All political parties wish to “improve” education and each claims to have the magic solution, which is inevitably delivered in sound-bites .
Evolutionary development has never been the hallmark of any systematic change.
Each school is in a unique situation, based on location, staffing and resources. The former, ranging from leafy suburbs to inner-city can be a determinant of motivation and aspiration, both important to success. The resources, from building to moveable items, can encourage or discourage potential teachers and motivate students. The best teachers inspire students, encourage them to aspire and show them ways to achieve, with support, space and time to think given by management.
The systems within which teachers work are often the limiting factors, if they are required to work to the book and therefore in a dogmatic, stereotypical, prescribed manner. Teaching should be efficient and effective, but learning can be messier.
Ofsted is one such system. There are aspects of Ofsted which I would applaud and seek to keep and tweak. There are limitations to the system, which can have a detrimental impact on school development. It is always encouraging to be told that your school is good, even better maybe to be outstanding. At the other end of the scale, a school struggling with potentially a range of issues, will not be helped to be told that what they are doing is not good enough, by a team which then leaves the recovery to others.
It is a very expensive audit tool and as such should add value to school development, if the country is to make full use of visiting expertise.
Interventions by Local Authorities, or Academy chains can then exacerbate the situation, as multiple agendas are pursued, within very tight timescales. On a school level, a tighter, supported audit leads to a known agenda, by school, LA (Academy) and Ofsted.
If a school Self Evaluation process was geared towards providing a clear audit trail, a clear descriptor supported by evidence, validation would either follow, or there would be areas for discussion, refinement and for subsequent action planning.
If I was in charge of education today, I’d want Ofsted to do two things, separating the inspection of teaching standards from the running of the school.
For the first, as an enhancement, I would create a validation system, based on the teaching standards, and expect every teacher to undergo an internal assessment every four years, earlier if asked for, a form of quality control, supporting their continuing professional development needs, as well as offering help and advice to head teachers. The evidence would enable teachers to make valid, evidenced, claims for promotion and ensure national consistency, as well as provide the basis for personal professional development actions. Every head teacher, and other senior staff as appropriate, in England would be formally trained in lesson observation to the standards. This judgement would be validated through joint observations during inspection visits.
The second; I’d want every school to be visited every two years, by an experienced assessor, to explore the effectiveness of the school, looking at the local context, local issues and the internal organisation, working to validate school self-evaluation, with one of two outcomes, acceptance of judgements (possibly with advice notes) or a decision that an extended inspection was necessary, within a specific timescale.
Why two years? Simply because schools can experience very rapid change, through staffing, and this can have an immediate impact, especially if change is at a senior level. I would expect every school inspected to have a detailed action plan for the subsequent two year period, which would form part of the validation exercise. What has been the two year development, how is it to be sustained and developed?
Would this system be cheaper? To some extent, it would depend on the decision on the first proposal (external or internal) and the contact time needed for the second.
However, it would allow latitude for evolutionary development, especially if the system was allowed to run for a number of years.
Basic mandate for education
Schools:-
As we all are in a situation of looking for ways of saving money and at the same time seeking ways to improve the school system, should any aspect of the system be “ring-fenced” and become untouchable?
Having entered Teacher Training College almost 40years ago, taught and been a head teacher within a 32 year career in schools, it is almost flippant to say that I have heard it all before. However, that is true, but it is also true that the impact of successive change has been at best tinkering, more often revolution, as one system replaced another. All political parties wish to “improve” education and each claims to have the magic solution, which is inevitably delivered in sound-bites .
Evolutionary development has never been the hallmark of any systematic change.
Each school is in a unique situation, based on location, staffing and resources. The former, ranging from leafy suburbs to inner-city can be a determinant of motivation and aspiration, both important to success. The resources, from building to moveable items, can encourage or discourage potential teachers and motivate students. The best teachers inspire students, encourage them to aspire and show them ways to achieve, with support, space and time to think given by management.
The systems within which teachers work are often the limiting factors, if they are required to work to the book and therefore in a dogmatic, stereotypical, prescribed manner. Teaching should be efficient and effective, but learning can be messier.
Ofsted is one such system. There are aspects of Ofsted which I would applaud and seek to keep and tweak. There are limitations to the system, which can have a detrimental impact on school development. It is always encouraging to be told that your school is good, even better maybe to be outstanding. At the other end of the scale, a school struggling with potentially a range of issues, will not be helped to be told that what they are doing is not good enough, by a team which then leaves the recovery to others.
It is a very expensive audit tool and as such should add value to school development, if the country is to make full use of visiting expertise.
Interventions by Local Authorities, or Academy chains can then exacerbate the situation, as multiple agendas are pursued, within very tight timescales. On a school level, a tighter, supported audit leads to a known agenda, by school, LA (Academy) and Ofsted.
If a school Self Evaluation process was geared towards providing a clear audit trail, a clear descriptor supported by evidence, validation would either follow, or there would be areas for discussion, refinement and for subsequent action planning.
If I was in charge of education today, I’d want Ofsted to do two things, separating the inspection of teaching standards from the running of the school.
For the first, as an enhancement, I would create a validation system, based on the teaching standards, and expect every teacher to undergo an internal assessment every four years, earlier if asked for, a form of quality control, supporting their continuing professional development needs, as well as offering help and advice to head teachers. The evidence would enable teachers to make valid, evidenced, claims for promotion and ensure national consistency, as well as provide the basis for personal professional development actions. Every head teacher, and other senior staff as appropriate, in England would be formally trained in lesson observation to the standards. This judgement would be validated through joint observations during inspection visits.
The second; I’d want every school to be visited every two years, by an experienced assessor, to explore the effectiveness of the school, looking at the local context, local issues and the internal organisation, working to validate school self-evaluation, with one of two outcomes, acceptance of judgements (possibly with advice notes) or a decision that an extended inspection was necessary, within a specific timescale.
Why two years? Simply because schools can experience very rapid change, through staffing, and this can have an immediate impact, especially if change is at a senior level. I would expect every school inspected to have a detailed action plan for the subsequent two year period, which would form part of the validation exercise. What has been the two year development, how is it to be sustained and developed?
Would this system be cheaper? To some extent, it would depend on the decision on the first proposal (external or internal) and the contact time needed for the second.
However, it would allow latitude for evolutionary development, especially if the system was allowed to run for a number of years.
Basic mandate for education
Schools:-
- Will ensure that they understand, and cater for, the needs of each individual child.
- Will have clear plans to ensure that each child makes at least expected progress while at the school.
- Will plan maths and English with regard to the national expectation.
- Will devise a curriculum that makes use of local resources, which inspires and engages children in learning widely, covering all the curriculum subjects.
- Will demonstrate that learning takes place in many different settings, through extended experiences, off-site or at home.
- Will ensure that all communication is of the highest quality, within the school and to outside stakeholders.
- Will monitor the performance of all staff to ensure the highest quality of provision. Staff will participate fully in the school development agenda, taking responsibility for their own Continuing Professional Development.
- Will ensure that they regularly quality-assure the running of the school, with external validation as appropriate.
- Will ensure that systems are in place that ensure progression throughout a child’s education, especially at transition and transfer points.
- Will ensure that all children leave formal education with qualifications that equip them for further academic study or to enter the world of work.
- Will support Initial Teacher Training through whatever means best suits the school stage of development.
- Visit school to quality assure the organisation, based on the school responsibilities outlined above.
- Focus on the senior management roles of quality assurance, to validate internal judgements, including sample joint observations and joint work sampling.
- Explore fully any inconsistencies evidenced, particularly on exit data.
- Support school development after inspection, with clear action plans, developed in discussion with the school.
- Support post-inspection issues for schools in Special Measures, coordinating any actions needed to improve management and leadership.
- Use its resources to explore and disseminate the best practice available throughout the world, to extend the information base for schools to develop their curricula and classroom approaches.
- Devise, and keep under regular review, frameworks for mathematics and English that ensures every child leaves school with competency in these subjects appropriate to the needs of life, further study and the workplace.
- All other subjects will be subject to monitoring through national progress descriptors until a child starts a formal examination route, when that grading will take effect. Equivalence between stage descriptors and examination grades will be established, over time, to ensure all study routes are equally valued.
- Academic and vocational routes will be equally valued, from year 10, as students prepare for the next phase of study.
- A national aspiration would be for 85% of children at age 7, 11 and 14 to reach an age appropriate level. Children not achieving this will be entitled to appropriate support.
- Quality-assure Ofsted inspection through sampling by Her Majesties Inspectors.
- Use its resources to explore and disseminate the best practice available throughout the world, to extend the information base for schools to develop their curricula and classroom approaches.
RSS Feed
