Those who think teaching is easy should put their money where their mouth is

[noblegiraffe]

Teacher training applications which rose during the pandemic have now fallen to 15% below pre-pandemic levels when we already had a critical teacher shortage. The government's decision to slash bursaries is now looking completely idiotic.

www.tes.com/news/teacher-training-applications-drop-pre-covid-levels

The only thing that the government has put an appreciable amount of funding into recently related to schools is £24 million to ensure that they will all be Ofsteded within the next 5 years. With inspectors expected to massively reduce the number of outstanding schools, this is a punishing schedule rather than a supportive one.

This is causing Heads to quit, on top of how terribly they were treated during the pandemic (this continued with an email late Friday telling them that they once again have to take on the job of the NHS and set up covid testing centres for January, with orders needing to be in by Tuesday).

We already have a critical shortage of headteachers.

www.theguardian.com/education/2021/nov/27/ofsted-inspections-headteachers-quit

I've noticed lots of posts on here from people who think that teaching is easy, that school funding is fine and there are no issues in schools, that you can leave at 3 and get lots of holidays.

So isn't it about time they put their money where their mouth is and trained as teachers? We are in dire need of them, and it's such a doss it should be a pleasure for them. A bit of a holiday even. And as it would be a public service, it would be guilt-free.

getintoteaching.education.gov.uk/

But the teacher’s data is more likely to be accurate, because you actually know the abilities of the kids you teach, and what they’re capable of.

God no. This is why when we were doing TAG marking we had to make sure that the exam papers didn't have the kid's name on, and that where possible they weren't marked by the class teacher.

@noblegiraffe

That is exactly why I like the statements, because teacher judgement is a consideration

And that’s why it’s nonsense.

Your target tracker is exactly the microanalysis that you say is of very little value. Your targets came from looking at their work, not the spreadsheet.

Well yes tbf. I would like eyfs and ks1 to be completely teacher assessed and forget data. But to do that you need to ensure high quality teachers, and we don't have that everywhere. Most of my debates with SLT are centered around assessment and data and what a load of bollocks it is for ks1 and the general response is "yes, but you're an experienced teacher. Not everyone is."

Ks2 does need to be more formal with end of ks assessments, but I don't need hundred of different spreadsheets to tell me they're behind. A simple class list rag rated for each core subject is sufficient. The necessary interventions/catch ups are in my planning. I don't need extra spreadsheets for that.

And of course targets should come from looking at their their work! Targets coming from artificial data is absurd! (And formal assessments are artificial data. Children underperform in tests all the time. Cloze questions can easily gain an extra few marks by guess work. And no matter how hard you try to invigilate, you can never be 100% sure no cheating has gone on.)

@MrsHamlet

But the teacher’s data is more likely to be accurate, because you actually know the abilities of the kids you teach, and what they’re capable of. I mark exams. Knowing the ability of the kids is totally irrelevant. I mark what is in front of me. When I was asked to standardise my colleagues during the TAG process, the least accurate staff were the ones saying "ah but she's tried hard". That's not in the mark scheme.

But we’re talking about the natural bias that comes from following a marking scheme. So their ability is relevant when we’re talking about the accuracy of that data.

@noblegiraffe

But the teacher’s data is more likely to be accurate, because you actually know the abilities of the kids you teach, and what they’re capable of.

God no. This is why when we were doing TAG marking we had to make sure that the exam papers didn't have the kid's name on, and that where possible they weren't marked by the class teacher.

So what would you like to see instead, if not anonymous marking, or class teacher marking, what’s the better way?

@CallmeHendricks

But hey, Noble, in the wise words of a poster somewhere or other this morning, that's the job and if we don't like it we should quit!

LOVED your horse analogy.

If every teacher who had been told on MN to quit their job (particularly during covid) then we really would be in the shit.

Posters telling teachers to quit if they're not happy with working conditions should consider that perhaps given that we've got a critical shortage of teachers, improving working conditions might be a better solution to teacher unhappiness.

But we’re talking about the natural bias that comes from following a marking scheme.

No, we're talking about two different markers being able to apply a marking scheme accurately with no bias and the kid coming out with a different grade from each marker.

A teacher who says 'oh I can accurately grade my kid as below, meeting or exceeding expectations' needs to consider whether, if on a job share, whether their partner teacher, if asked to fill in the same spreadsheet on the same kids, would fill it out with exactly the same grades.

If not, then the data isn't accurate.

But we’re talking about the natural bias that comes from following a marking scheme. So their ability is relevant when we’re talking about the accuracy of that data.
I'm perhaps being dense here. Where's the natural bias in following a marking scheme? I can't be biased because I have no clue who they are

@noblegiraffe

But we’re talking about the natural bias that comes from following a marking scheme.

No, we're talking about two different markers being able to apply a marking scheme accurately with no bias and the kid coming out with a different grade from each marker.

A teacher who says 'oh I can accurately grade my kid as below, meeting or exceeding expectations' needs to consider whether, if on a job share, whether their partner teacher, if asked to fill in the same spreadsheet on the same kids, would fill it out with exactly the same grades.

If not, then the data isn't accurate.

But how can we make it more accurate?

@MrsHamlet

But we’re talking about the natural bias that comes from following a marking scheme. So their ability is relevant when we’re talking about the accuracy of that data. I'm perhaps being dense here. Where's the natural bias in following a marking scheme? I can't be biased because I have no clue who they are

Because you’ll interpret the marking scheme differently to someone else

But how can we make it more accurate?

We can't. And therefore we shouldn't be wasting our time filling out endless spreadsheets with thresholds for intervention based on a load of bobbins.

@noblegiraffe

But how can we make it more accurate?

We can't. And therefore we shouldn't be wasting our time filling out endless spreadsheets with thresholds for intervention based on a load of bobbins.

So absolutely no assessment?

Well that's a bit of a leap from 'wasting our time filling out endless spreadsheets' isn't it?

@noblegiraffe

Well that's a bit of a leap from 'wasting our time filling out endless spreadsheets' isn't it?

Gaaah, what then?! I’ve asked four times! What would you prefer to see?

Not wasting our time filling out endless spreadsheets?

@noblegiraffe

Not wasting our time filling out endless spreadsheets?

So assess the kids but don’t record the results?

Can someone explain the 'teacher holidays are unpaid and not a perk' thing? I don't understand the difference to other jobs? Either way you get a salary and a set number of days on/off. But I'm missing something

So assess the kids but don’t record the results?

Yes to recording results of major assessments, no to microanalysis. And no to comparing those individual results to computer generated targets.

@noblegiraffe

So assess the kids but don’t record the results?

Yes to recording results of major assessments, no to microanalysis. And no to comparing those individual results to computer generated targets.

But then I guess the problem would lie in setting targets if there was no data to compare it to.

@noblegiraffe

So assess the kids but don’t record the results?

Yes to recording results of major assessments, no to microanalysis. And no to comparing those individual results to computer generated targets.

This. Me knowing that Bob got 4 on Q3 is useful because I know why he only got 4 and I can work with him. The data man having that info at the touch of a button is not useful in any way, shape or form.

But then I guess the problem would lie in setting targets if there was no data to compare it to.

Which targets and comparison data are you talking about?

Bob's target is a 6.
He got 4/12 on Q3. His target is to make sure that he makes the methods clearer and that he develops his answer. He ran out of time. The spreadsheet doesn't help me to know that.

@noblegiraffe

But then I guess the problem would lie in setting targets if there was no data to compare it to.

Which targets and comparison data are you talking about?

So how would you decide which kids needed support in which areas and why? If there’s no data comparison until exam results?

The horse analogy is brilliant.

Computer generated targets aren't meant to be applied to individuals though. It is a massive misuse of them.

Micro-data collection is ignoring the horse situation.