What’s wrong with MIS systems?

Reading the MIS forum contributions on Edugeek, it’s interesting the number of people who are apparently happy to come up with 'workarounds' to get round the failings of their MIS.

Someone, an IT technician in a school usually, will post a query on the forum asking for help with a particular issue he’s having with the school’s MIS. The replies usually run along the lines of “No, you can’t do that on SIMS (CMIS, e1, Integris, whatever) but you can ...” there follows some description of a workaround usually ending with “Dunno why, but it seemed to work for us”. I suppose this is okay if you were paying 150 quid a year, you might expect to have to do that. But MIS systems are very expensive; I could buy a decent car for what some high schools are paying annually for their MIS. Would I be happy to pay £20k for a car, only to find that it did not, for example, do left turns and I had to ‘workaround’ that by doing three right turns? I think not. So why do schools apparently seem happy to do that with their MIS solutions? One reason is the perfectly human and understandable desire to stick with what you know and are comfortable with, foibles and all. The other reason is ... well, what is the alternative? This is a good question; all the MIS systems available from the major suppliers are all (more or less) equally expensive and each has its own particular drawbacks. So, the argument goes, you might as well stick with what you know, workarounds and all. I’m sure that these MIS systems like SIMS and CMIS were good bits of software when they were first introduced. However years of bolting bits on, adding extra functions, being worked on by a succession of different software developers have taken their toll and the software becomes less and less reliable over time. These sea changes happen slowly, not in quantum leaps, so that the shortcomings creep up slowly on data managers in schools. After a while you just get so used to a way of working that you don’t question it.

There has been a rather unfortunate tendency from MIS suppliers in recent years to try and provide a ‘complete solution’ for schools. MIS systems come complete with attendance modules, parent portals, achievement trackers, finance packages and more, usually all at extra cost. Alongside this there is the suspicion that some MIS providers contrive to make it difficult, by means of stiff licence fees and conditions, for smaller independent companies to compete in this ‘add-on’ market. Frequent changes and updates to the MIS software also serve to make things difficult for the small provider; though to be fair, the situation is complicated by the continuous stream of demands coming out of the DfE. Constantly having to update MIS systems to accommodate these statutory requirements has been cited as being one of the reasons for them being so expensive. Schools vary so much in size and character that it is unlikely that the solutions bundled with the MIS system will be flexible enough to provide exactly what each school wants and needs. This is why we need to small, independent suppliers who can fill these niches with bespoke products. Unfortunately, the tendency for MIS providers to want to dominate the whole supply chain is stifling this market.

Increasingly, schools are beginning to question this status quo and are looking to alternative solutions. This has been accelerated by the growing concern about possible financial cutbacks. There are some other commercially available MIS systems around, but they tend to be so poorly featured that they are not really suited to use in a big secondary school. Many fill a niche market, providing for small independent and private schools. There are some open source (OS) solutions available; but data managers in schools tend to be wary of these, citing lack of support, documentation, inter-connectivity and training as being some of the reasons for not using them. There is also the old adage ‘nobody ever got sacked for buying IBM’. Bring that into this context and it becomes nobody ever got sacked for buying SIMS. It’s a safe choice, Capita is not likely to go bust anytime soon and there is a big support base available, both formal and informal. So there is a gap in the market for a fully featured, reliable, simple, low cost, inter-connective MIS system for schools. Any takers?

When is a punishment not a punishment? Are some schools confusing behaviour modification with punishment?

Many schools use the system of ‘on report’ for managing individual pupil’s behaviour. This can take several forms, but the most usual is a card or sheet with the day’s lessons in a grid and a space for the teacher to make a comment or mark a grade and sign. Often there will be some sort of target set for the day or week. Most schools will have several types of report, usually at increasing levels of staff seniority: Form Tutor Report, Head of Year Report, SLT or Head Teacher Report, for example. On report can be a very useful tool in modifying pupil behaviour, but I wonder to what extent some staff in schools just miss the point?

A pupil may be put on report following a repeated pattern of transgressions, but on occasion I have seen pupils placed on report following a single, one-off incident. For me this raises the question of what the teacher instigating the report is trying to achieve by this action. In the latter case, and even in the former, it sometimes appears that the report is being used as a form of punishment. Indeed, I’ve even had heads of year say as much; as if the bearing the responsibility and inconvenience of carrying the card round from lesson to lesson was, in itself, a punishment. For me this completely misses the point of being on report. The purpose of being on report should be therapeutic, not punitive. On and off over the period of a year or so I asked pupils in my classes and who were on report two questions: i) ‘ what do think is the purpose of you being on report’ and ii) ‘what happens if you don’t meet your target for the day’. The answer to question one was invariably ‘because I’ve been naughty’. Every single one viewed it as a punishment; not one child replied with any suggestion that there might be some sort supportive or therapeutic purpose to being on report. The response to the second question, what happens if you don’t meet today’s target, the answer was often “nuffink, sir” i.e. there was no sanction for failing to meet the set target for the day. Occasionally a pupil reported a significant consequence for failing to meet a target, e.g. a detention, but the most often reported consequence was simply a warning to ‘do better tomorrow’; in other words, no real consequence at all. There is no point in setting targets at all unless there is either a reward for meeting the target and/or a sanction for not meeting them. On report targets should be:
• based on previous behaviour. E.g. a pupil with a history of being late to lesson may have a target ‘Arrived to lesson on time’.
• Challenging but not unachievable. Setting targets which are too easily met or too difficult to achieve will not help modify the pupil behaviour.
There should also be a clear exit strategy and a final goal in mind when the pupil is put on report. These outcomes, and the purpose of the report (i.e. behaviour modification), should be clearly explained to the pupil at the outset. The report should be for a set period, e.g. a week, and the pupil should know what he needs to do to get off report at the end of the period and what will happen if the targets are not met. Open-ended reporting periods, vague or non-specific targets and lack of incentive for success will generally make placing the pupil on report a waste of time.

Consider this analogy: through my own silly behaviour, I fall over and break my leg. At the hospital the doctor chides me for my stupidity, plasters my leg and sends me off with a crutch. Now I could be resentful that the doctor has punished me by making me carry a damned, awkward crutch around all day, or I could view it for what it is; a support for me to lean on until my leg gets better. How do your pupils view being on report, as a punishment or as an aid to help them improve their behaviour? Understanding the pupil perception of being on report can dramatically affect its efficacy.

Detention without notice - a good idea?

I was watching David Cameron doing a public Q+A session a week or so ago. In response to a question from a teacher he began to explain what the coalition was going to do to help teachers improve pupil behaviour in schools. One of the ideas he pushed quite strongly was to give teachers the legal right to detail pupils without notice. Good soundbite: let's get tough on the little blighters, show 'em who's boss, eh?

But how many schools would actually make use of the legal right to detain without notice? There are good reasons why schools give parents 24 hours notice; and those reasons don't go away if you remove the requirement for notice. Detaining children after school without notice would do nothing other than damage the relationship between schools and parents. Many pupils have familial responsibilities outside school time, from collecting younger siblings to doing shopping on the way home. They may also have appointments with a dentist or doctor. How thrilled would you be if your family visit to see Gran in hospital was kiboshed by little Johnny being an hour late home from school, no note no explanation?

It's simply not worth it for schools to implement a no-notice after school detention; it would undo much of the work schools do to build a positive, supportive relationships with parents. So thanks, Dave, but you've offered us a bit of a chocolate teapot there, mate.

Server upgrades

Over the last few months we have been monitoring a steady increase in traffic to IRIS which was starting to result in periods of degraded service. In response to this we upgraded the primary server. The upgrades have been successful and all users should be enjoying a much faster IRIS experience.

For added peace of mind we have also implemented CDP (continuous data protection). This is an improvement over the live backup of just the database that we use to have. If for any reason our primary server fails we can restore from CDP very quickly.

When did pupils become 'learners'?

Who decided that pupils in school should now be called 'learners' and, more to the point, why?

There is obviously something about the term 'pupil' that a lot of educationalists don't like. Some years ago my school started referring to them as 'students'. No reason was given, it was just an announcement form the head that henceforth that term would be used. Now, I was was fairly ok going along with that, us being an 11 - 18 school. The term 'student' does embody quite similar connotations to those of 'pupil', except that 'student' has a more 'adult' feel about it, as in university student for example.
For me the term 'pupil' describes a young person who is being taught some knowledge or skill by one (the teacher) who knows more or is more skilled. It also implies the learning of not just a single skill or piece of knowledge, but somehow more than that; perhaps a philosophy or certain life skill, for example.

In English we tend to reserve the term 'learner' to someone, of any age, who is learning a specific skill or piece of knowledge, as in 'learner driver' for example. The term also usually indicates that the person is still in the process of learning. Now, you can learn something without being taught it by someone else. The boy in my Y10 bottom set science class quickly learned that it is not a good plan to cut through the power pack cable with metal scissors while it is still plugged in and turned on at the socket. I didn't need to teach him that, he learned it all by his little self. We are called teachers because we, um, teach. So, the pupils should be called pupils, not learners. Now, get back to teaching your pupils (Teachees? Educatees?...)

This is what's wrong with school MIS systems these days

Why is there so little choice of good cheap target tracking, attendance and behaviour programs for schools? (Well, apart from IRIS anyway). The answer lies in the way that the dominant schools MIS providers lock up school's data. Here's an example:
Last week I went up to Tyne + Wear to demo our product to a school up there. When I got there it turned out to be a brand spanking new build. I did my demo to the behaviour leaders in the school. They liked it; thought IRIS was the best they'd seen and said they would like to move on to a trial. No problem, except that in order to get the shiny new building they had to sell their soul to the devil, in the form of that great Universal Step Backwards ... a managed service! They used to have an MIS provided by the dominant supplier, not perfect they would agree, but they were reasonably happy with it. Now, they have to use a different one provided by the company awarded the managed service contract; like it or not, it's all part of the 'service'.
So, the next thing is the school arranged for a nice man from the company to phone me up to discuss data transfer from the MIS to IRIS. What do we need? Oh, yes that's fine we can do that; yes, no problem we can do that too. Just when I thought things were going just a bit too well, came the 'but'. Well, you can guess what it was. In order to release the school's own data from the MIS system (that they are paying for, mind) we have to pay said company £2500 per year plus another £129 (where do they get the 9?!) per school per year!
Here we are, just trying make an honest crust and yet again being shafted by the big guy. It's the school's own data, for heaven's sake! They own it; it's their's! They want to share it with us but are effectively being prevented from doing so by the people holding their data on their proprietary system . If this happened on the high seas, it would be called piracy. The school is paying god knows how much per year to the company for the 'service' that they provide; part of that service should be facilitating data sharing with whoever the school wishes, NOT preventing them from doing so putting physical and financial barriers in the way.
In this way small companies are squeezed out of the market place and competition is reduced. The natural concomitant of this is that quality of product decreases while price increases. Until we remove the dominance of a few major players in the school MIS market this situation will continue; schools will continue to be provided with poor, overpriced software. Big companies are milking the school ICT market for millions of pounds per year. Becta estimated in 2005 that schools in the UK spend over £80 million on MIS services alone. That's £80 million taken away from schools and pupils and put into the pockets of shareholders and CEOs of the big companies who care less about education than they do their bottom line.
It is our intention to do our bit to open up the market by provided connectivity to IRIS FREE to whoever wants it (unless, of course it's one the big guys!)
;-)

Call me pedantic, but ...

Y'know those Google ads that pop up next to your mail? I saw one yesterday advertising a bit of equipment operated by a 'foot pedal'. Is it the teacher in me or what? But that really grated ... foot pedal, is there any other sort of pedal?
If it wasn't foot operated, it wouldn't be a pedal, would it? And if it's a pedal then the word 'foot' is tautological and is superfluous. Why do people feel the need to qualify the word pedal, but not handle? If you said to someone 'Oh, turn this hand handle' they'd look at you as if you were a bit simple - but for some reason the term foot pedal is quite common. I'm waiting to see a cunning bit of machinery operated via a hand pedal...
And, while I'm at it, whatever happened to 'fewer'? Fewer seems to have been universally replaced by 'less'. Statements like, 'There are less people here than usual' are quite commonplace; I've heard BBC reporters saying it. Do they not know any better? Well, of course they do - they know they should say 'fewer people' rather than 'less people'. So why do they do it; laziness, after all 'less' has one FEWER syllables? Or is it dumbing down in a patronising way to the illiterate masses? Apparently the Beeb has made a corporate decision to dispense with the plural 'referenda' and use 'referendums' instead. Is this another example of dumbing down for the masses? Or am I just being a reactionary old fart? (No, don't bother replying). After all, we all seem to be quite happy to say 'data is' when we mean 'data are'. The singular 'datum' has fallen into disuse and 'data' has gone the way of 'sheep' i.e it is used both for the singular and plural.
Oh, and don't get me started on the Grocer's apostrophe!

Is low-level misbehaviour in class getting worse?

Somebody asked me the other day if I thought behaviour in schools is worse now than it used to be. My immediate response was to say yes, it is. But then I began to think about my own time at school....
It got me thinking back to my own time at secondary school, in the 60s. It brought all sorts of vivid memories flooding back like seeing my music teacher staggering out of his classroom with a busted nose having been thumped by Big Billy Barnes. Mr Entwhistle the English teacher snoozing with his chin on his chest while we read Jack London's "Call of the wild" in silence - or at least that's what we were supposed to be doing, in reality we were carefully inserting needle sharp pen nibs into the end of the waxed paper straws we used to have for the school milk then, very surreptitiously and with a deft upward flick of the wrist, flinging them up to stick in the wooden ceiling.
In those days we were given wooden nib holders to write with and each class had an ink monitor who would go round and top up the inkwells on the desks. We also had milk delivered to the classroom every day. Hence, each classroom had ample supplies of ink, brass pen nibs and waxed paper straws - all you need, in fact to have some good schoolboy wheezes. For those room where the ceiling was impervious to the straw and nib dart, or just for variety, we had plan B. The milk bottles had aluminium foil tops. This could be readily shaped into a little cup shape with a short stem. The stem was inserted snugly into the straw and the cup end filled with a wad of well chewed, soggy paper ripped from the back page of your exercise book. This was then flicked up to the ceiling where the mixture of spit and paper allowed it to stick. Each classroom was thus adorned with a variety of straw stalactites, creating a vaguely troglodytic ambience. Occasionally these would fall from the ceiling during lessons as the paper pulp dried out and shrank.
The milk bottle tops could be employed in a variety of other wheezes too. If carefully removed, the crimped edge could be smoothed out to form a small round, flat-bottomed dish. This, it turned out, made a super frisbee (before frisbees were known over here, note!) which could be whizzed across the classroom by holding the rim between the crossed index and second finger then flicking the wrist whilst simultaneously imparting a spin with the fingers. (you will note that quite a lot of wrist flicking went on in this all boys school, some of which I will not go into here!).
The utilitarian bottle top could also be smoothed flat then carefully domed in the palm of the hand. This dome then fitted snugly into the circle formed by the fingers and thumb of the left hand. The right hand was then cupped and smacked firmly into the bottom of the left hand. If performed correctly, this manoeuvre would cause the bottle top to fly off with a loud POP - most effectively employed in Mt Entwhistle's silent reading lessons!
Apart from milk bottle tops and straw darts, the other thing to fly around the classroom was chewed blotting paper (remember that?) launched from a wooden rule. It wouldn't have been so bad having that land on your book had it not been dipped in the inkwell first.
So what was my conclusion? Is behaviour worse now than it ever was? Hmm, probably not, in terms of the amount of low-level misbehaviour. What is different is kids in schools today just splat handfuls of wet toilet paper onto the bog walls and tell you to fuck off; so crude, no creativity, no wit, no finesse at all.

Pot calling kettle black?

A former primary head was judging schools’ performance despite GTC’s ‘guilty’ verdict. Well, Ofsted and the GTC in the same story; can I resist the temptation to have a go at both of them at once? (er, no.)

Those who can, do.
Those who can't, teach.
Those who can't teach, teach teachers to teach.
Those that can't even do that and who have a variety of psychological problems, including superiority complex, delusions of grandeur (and competence) become ..... ta dah..... Ofsted inspectors!

Alternatively, if they're the sort of curtain twitching busybody who stands on a chair in order to see into the neighbours bathroom (and then complains to the police that they've been flashed), or would secretly quite like to wear a uniform (one with large, glittery badges and a large cap preferably); if they're the sort of person who really, really, really needs to feel quite important, well, they sit on the GTC, don't they? I would like to know what qualifies the pompous, self-important bods on the GTC to sit in judgement on their fellow teachers? Anyway, where do they find the time? They should be at home drinking cocoa and marking books! Am I the only one who's depressed at the willingness of some of our alleged colleagues to jump at the chance to parade all their 'holier than thou-ness' in public? Give me Quisling anyday! They used to say that a schoolmaster was a man in front of boys and a boy in front of men. If that's so then GTC Disciplinary Panel members are .... erm ... teachers in front of ..um.. Ofsted inspectors and tossers in front of teachers. There, said it (and I don't care).

New complaints service for parents...and pupils - just what we need!

"Pupils who are upset by something their headteacher does will be able to complain to a new service in England". Another stick to beat teachers with? Read the full BBC news item here.

Pupils and parents who feel that they have suffered an 'injustice' will be able to complain via a new service set up under the Apprenticeship, Skills, Children and Learning Act. So what constitutes an injustice, exactly? A spokesperson for the Department for Cushions and Soft Furnishings said that an 'injustice' may include hurt feelings, distress, worry or inconvenience". So the first thing I do is check the date, nope, it's not April 1st, so presumably this is for real then? Hurt feelings? Inconvenience? If I got a complaint every time I inconvenienced a pupil or hurt their feelings...
The only note of sanity in the whole article came from Mick Brooks who noted that "Parents can already complain to Ofsted, the governing body and the secretary of state and some parents frankly make a hobby of it." Well, tell me about it; there was the parent who complained that I'd "beaten her son with a stick" (I tapped him on the shoulder with a 30cm rule), the one who screamed at me over the phone that I was 'worse than Hitler' and that my school was "worse than prison" (I asked why her daughter hadn't attended school detention). Then there was the parent who complained that I had 'made her feel like a bad parent' (I told her that her son was not making much effort in class). Sometimes some people have a completely irrational response to perfectly ordinary or reasonable situations. I suspect the woman who harangued me about detention being worse than prison had herself had a bad experience at school. The mum who felt that I had impugned her parenting skills was, I suspect, feeling a bit sensitive about here son's lack of effort and may well have been partly blaming herself, I don't know.
And it's not just me. Poor old Mrs Admin got a call from a parent recently complaining that her daughter had come home "upset and distressed" about something that happened in the lesson. It turned out that the distressing incident was that the girl had been asked to hand out some scissors at the start of the lesson.
Also noted in the article is the fact that MPs are considering 'guaranteeing' good behaviour and strong discipline in schools. Really? Will I be able to claim my money back from the Department of Comedians and Silly Fools if my school can't honour the guarantee?

'Tis the season to ..overindulge!

Oh dear, done it again, blown the diet! To start at the beginning; I've been on a diet for a while - well, I say 'a diet', I'm actually on two. You don't get enough to eat on one, do you?
And anyway, I figured that if you lose weight on one diet, you'd lose even more on two. One diet is an Atkins type thing where you can eat as much protein as you like. The other is a vegetarian diet where you eat loads of carrots and stuff. So, I've been sticking to my combined diets eating only meat, eggs, cheese and fish with lots of veg. It's been a struggle to stick to it, but it's been worth it; I lost two ounces last month.
Then along comes Christmas. Time to dust off The Blessed Delia's Christmas cookbook once again and get the mince pie production line rolling! First, make a list of all the Christmas necessities: sultanas, chocolate, raisins, chocolate, brandy, chocolate, currants and all the rest of the essentials, like chocolate. Now, strictly speaking, chocolate is not part of either diet; being neither protein nor veg. So I shouldn't be eating it. Then I thought 'soddit, it's Christmas' So I've put the diets on hold for a week or two. Best plan, eh?
Anyway, not in Mrs Admin's best books at the minute. She said she'd join me in doing the dieting thing. I told her no, no my love. You don't need to diet; you really suit chubby. Now she's taken the hump for some reason; I don't know, you can't even pay a woman a compliment these days! I tried to make it up by getting her a really nice Christmas present, but that just seemed to make her worse. Anyway, I give up; that's the last new ironing board she gets from me at Christmas!
Bah humbug!

Why can't kids be allowed to fail anymore?

Are we really doing our children a favour by not subjecting them to negative criticism nor allowing them to experience failure at school? Or are we just producing a generation of people who do not have the resilience to deal with knock-backs out there in the real world?

This old hobby horse of mine was resurrected when I read a thread on the TES website about the apocryphal story about banning of red pens for marking children's work. Red, you see, is AGGRESSIVE!! The argument is that a child can be demoralised by seeing their work covered in red ink, underlining every spelling mistake, grammatical error, miscalculation and so on. Well, I'd be pretty demoralised at that, whatever the bloody colour of ink! And anyway, any teacher who's got the time to underline every mistake in each piece of work for every child needs to a) get a life and b) get a life. There needs to be a balance when marking children's work; to tick everything and say "super, fab, great Pansy, keep it up!" to any old bit of tat handed in is both patronising and unhelpful. On the other hand nit-picking every littul speleing mistacke is demoralising and can put kids off a subject.

There is, however, a difference between being constantly criticised and being allowed to experience failure within a supportive and constructive environment. Poor Mrs Admin had all sorts of shenanigans with a particular A-level pupil when she was given an estimated D grade. The girl went to pieces and was quite unable to deal with it. The parent's complained "Well, she's always been told she's doing really well and anyway, she responds better to praise." Er, don't we all? And don't blame the poor A-level teacher, blame the school who nursed her through GCSEs, spoon-fed all the coursework, gave her uncritical feedback and generally set her up for failure at A-level by not instilling a proper work ethic nor helping her develop a sense of self-appraisal of her work.

Typical of this patronising attitude to pupils is the A* nonsense. I've even heard it suggested that now some universities are asking for A**, in order to separate out the brightest students. So, here's my suggestion for a revised grading system for GCSE:

A****
A***
A**
A*
A
Everyone's a winner! Everyone gets an A. Let's all go to uni!

Subject of selection raises its head again

Professor Alan Smithers of Buckingham University this week called for schools to select its brightest pupils at age 14 to receive a more challenging curriculum.
The reform is needed, apparently, in order to increase the number of pupils choosing science, especially physics, at A-level. The question is, why are we in this country so hung up about the subject of selection by ability when it comes to our children? Other countries seem to manage this ok without all the agonising that we go through. We select on the basis of other skills quite happily; PE teachers select pupils to play on school teams on the basis of skill, drama teachers cast parts for school productions based on acting, singing or dancing ability and so on. Why, when it comes to academic ability, are we suddenly so completely averse to any sort of selection?
It strikes me that we are working to a whole middle class PC agenda when it comes to education, in which fairness and equality equate to the SAME for everyone.
Let's look at that point, that equality means the same treatment for all. No matter what your ability, disability, aptitude or skill level you will all go to the same school and be taught the same things in the same lesson by the same teachers. Imagine if the NHS worked on that principle; no matter what your illness or injury, we all received the same treatment: "Ah, yes, Mr Smithers; lets see 'compound fracture of the left femur', well here's you prescription for Statins and a month's supply of viagra. What's that? Well, I'm sorry, it's what everyone else gets; we can't be seen to be treating you differently from everyone else; that wouldn't be fair now, would it? Look on the bright side, at least you'll have lower cholesterol and be able to keep your pecker up!".

There is also the notion that what is desired by the middle classes must also be what the working classes necessarily aspire to. This is reflected neatly in the Labour party's ambition to have 50% of all young people go to university. First of all, where has the figure of 50% come from? Why not 45% or 60%? Implicit in this are the assumptions that a) at least half of all young people actually want to go to university and that b) going to uni is somehow a 'better' option than not. This policy has been dreamt up by people who are, by definition, upper and middle class. They assume in their arrogance that because that is what they aspire to for their own children, it must also be same for everyone else. Well, guess what? Not everyone wants to go to uni! Some people actually CHOOSE not to. Not because they are poor, or thick, or lazy or anything; they'd just rather do something else. The problem then, of course, is the attitude that whatever else you choose is somehow second best. There is a general feeling in this country that academic success is somehow superior to other form of success (except celebrity, of course! Shallow as we are). I have seen inordinate pressure put on good A-level students by the school to apply for Oxbridge. WHY? Because it will look good in next year's prospectus? Poor lad wants to go to Leeds because that's where they do the course he want's to do, and anyway his aunty Pam lives there and she can his washing and cooking for him.

In this country we do tend to judge people by what they do, rather than by how well they do whatever it is they have chosen to do. Let's take the pressure off kids to go to uni. I'd rather have a first class joiner (plumber, carpenter, electrician, car mechanic, shop manager) than yet another third class graduate in football studies.

What is the purpose behind an Ofsted inspection?

What is the purpose of an Ofsted inspection ; to help a school improve or catch them out?
This question arises out of a couple of things that have come my way recently: one was Mansell's article in TES about Ofsted being more interested in its image than anything else (Really? Well knock me down with a feather!). The other was a recent LA inspection by Ofsted trained inspectors at Mrs Admin's school. The LA was to provide a 'pre-Ofsted' inspection for the school under Ofsted conditions and using Ofsted registered inspectors; the idea being to help staff prepare for the next real inspection, which is due any time in the near future. Ok, well, good intention - and anyway, you can never have too many inspections, can you?
Well, the chap inspecting Mrs Admin's department made his intentions clear as soon as he walked in: "Now, no need to worry. I'm not here to catch you out, I'm here to help you improve and look at all the good things you're doing in this department". And he was, indeed, as good as his word. Some excellent lessons were observed and very positive feedback given. Points for improvement were delivered in positive and encouraging language, all the time referring back to what was good in the department. Result? One motivated and happy set of teachers, pleased that their efforts had been appreciated. That department is now up for the challenge.
Sadly, the story was not repeated in other departments seen by different inspectors. The general feeling was that the inspectors were looking to catch the teachers out. Feedback tended to concentrate on the negative. Result? A demoralised and unhappy set of teachers with an increased cynicism regarding both the value and purpose of inspection.
It's my feeling, and indeed experience in the classroom, that too many Ofsted inspectors fall into the latter category and that often a decision is made even before the on-site inspection, based on the exam results (no, don't get me started!).
I was at Mrs Admin's school last weekend for the Christmas fair. It was packed. Huge parental support, lots of kids there helping out and, best of all, Christmas music provided by the junior band - then the senior band - then the school orchestra - then the swing band! And where was Ofsted when all that was going on, eh? There's more to a school than exam results and four-part lessons.

Adrian Elliott - debunking myths

In the series of TES articles 'De-bunking education myths' Adrian Elliott claims that behaviour now is no worse than it ever has been; really? Well, that all depends on what you mean by bad behaviour.

When I was at school, many years ago now, yes there was some very bad behaviour. I remember the music teacher staggering out of his room with blood pouring from his nose having been thumped by a local tough. Teacher being thumped was not a particularly remarkable event. And, yes, we did get up to some pretty awful stuff that I, as a teacher, don't see these days... BUT! - and as buts go, this is big! (no, really, it's big!) - we could all sit quietly and work when required to do so. We could, and would, be quiet when told to be so. These days, I personally don't see the more extreme extreme behaviour like the teacher thumping of my youth. However, this has been replaced by the drip, drip, drip of constant, low-level off-task behaviour; constant chatting, turning round, can't stay in seat, inability to concentrate for more than three or four minutes at time. Dealing with this 5 periods per day, 5 days a week is draining. As soon as you stop speaking, they start chatting. They deem it unreasonable and against their human rights to be required to sit still for 10 minutes. Just the simple, everyday lack of cooperation, having to constantly repeat requests, having kids argue and answer back, even to the most simple and reasonable of requests, is exasperating.

It is this constant low-level misbehaviour that gradually wears you down, wastes time in lessons and which lower the quality of the teaching and learning experience.

So, Mr Elliott, in one way I would agree with you; certain aspects of pupil behaviour are no worse than they have been in the past and indeed have probably improved; certainly violence against teachers has reduced since the abolition of the cane. But what has got worse, much worse, is the constant arguing, chatting, answering back, failure to follow instructions and general lack of respect and lack of discipline of today's pupils. Add to this the pressure of written lesson plans, Ofsted, etc etc etc and it all adds up to an intolerable level of stress for classroom teachers.

Are schools now going to stop recording incidence of poor behaviour?

The outline guidance for inspectors regarding the assessment of pupil behaviour states that "Inspectors should take account of documentary evidence about pupils’ behaviour, including records of: racist and bullying incidents; the use of any ‘on-call’ system; the use of ‘remove’ or ‘seclusion’ rooms; and the types of incidents which occur at break, lunchtime and social times"
It also says "Where records or observations indicate that behaviour disrupts learning or threatens well-being more than very occasionally, it is likely that behaviour will be judged inadequate overall". Correct me if I'm wrong, but there seems to be much scope here for schools shooting themselves in the foot; inspectors will want to see records of poor behaviour. If the records show that the misbehaviour occurs "more than very occasionally" (whatever THAT means!) then you're graded 4 (inadequate). So, a school which rigorously pursues good behaviour and diligently records all incidences of misbehaviour is clearly lighting the petard fuse well before it's time to run. On the other hand, St Mayhem's High School down the road cunningly only records a fraction of the misbehaviour and thereby gets a glowing report. Here's a cautionary tale in a similar vein:
Remember when we had half an inch of snow last winter and the country ground to a halt? One school near me lost no time in closing down to give the head a few days extra holiday. Another school struggled valiantly on with teachers arriving by dog sled and skis to keep the school open - for the 15 kids who actually turned up. As the school was open, all the absences were counted against the school stats, putting them near he bottom of the LA league table for attendance. But Closedown High School however, being closed, did not have any absences counted. The head told me, as he scanned the skies for signs of snow, that in future he will close at the first available opportunity, which I thought was being rather optimistic, it being the middle of June.
So the message is clear; play the game by your own rules. Given that 27.6% of all statistics are made up on the spot anyway, why should any school return the correct numbers, and get thrashed for it, when they can simply ...er ... cheat? Answers on a postcard ...

Is it now impossible for a school to get an 'outstanding' rating for behaviour?

If you've not yet had a peek at the new Ofsted inspection schedule, then you may still be blissfully unaware of the guidance given to inspectors for assessing behaviour in schools.

As of last September pupil behaviour will, for the first time, be assessed formally. This extract from the evaluation schedule provides outline guidance and grade descriptors for the judgements that inspectors will report on when inspecting schools under section 5 of the Education Act 2005 from September 2009:

"Outstanding(1) - Pupils’ consistently thoughtful behaviour is an outstanding factor in their successful learning and creates an extremely positive school ethos. Pupils are highly considerate and very supportive of each other in lessons. Behaviour for all groups around the school is exemplary and pupils encourage others to conduct themselves well. There is no evidence of disruptive behaviour."

Scuse me? "There is no evidence of disruptive behaviour". Let's just unpick that a bit. Does 'no evidence' mean literally that; none, nix, zero, nothing - not even a little teeny, weeny bit? Or are we in Queen of Hearts territory where "When I use a word it means whatever I want it to mean!"? And what constitutes 'disruptive behaviour'? What guidance (if any) is given to inspectors in order to ensure at least the semblance of consistency in this area? Say, for example, school A is inspected by Mr Floggem Hardy, goose-stepping down the corridor shouting "Mein Gott..." (ooops, no, sorry, stop there. Bit of cheap unfounded national stereotyping with xenophobic overtones there. I'll start that again..) "My god, did you see that? That child just dropped a sweet wrapper! What terrible behaviour!".
School B, on the other hand, is inspected by child of the 60's Amanda Do-goody; "Oh, how nice that pupils here are able to critique the quality of the lesson and teaching style in in such an open and uninhibited way.." as yet another teacher is told his lesson is shit.
Now consider this bit:"Behaviour for all groups around the school is exemplary and pupils encourage others to conduct themselves well". ALL groups? Exemplary? Well, I certainly hope that doesn't include the staff!
Ah, hang on.."Pupils are highly considerate and very supportive of each other in lessons." I think I may be ok here. Danielle spent most of my lesson supporting Francheska who would otherwise have slid off her seat, having been at the vodka and Lucozade all break.

Anybody out there working in a school rated 1 for behaviour? Let me know.