Gove and all these Ofsted troubles.

[HappydaysArehere]

What is going on? What a mess! Free schools - Gove's ideas on education. Now all these charges of extreme radicalism. Any thoughts?

And, on the basis of the theory that good schools should be given lots of autonomy, Ofsted can leave it years and years before it inspects them again. But now we discover, surprise, surprise, shock, horror, that a good school can go downhill incredibly rapidly. I know from experience this doesn't only happen when a good headteacher leaves - it can also happen when a headteacher went into a school intent on making rapid "improvements" that pleased Ofsted no end, and then got stuck there longer than anticipated, so that they got caught in their self-created fall-out, with staff leaving them left, right and centre because they were an unbearable bully who had lost the plot and who had thought they would be able to pass the issues caused by their bullying behaviour and control freakery onto the next unsuspecting HT...

There seems to be some backtracking on the idea of allowing Academies and Free Schools freedom to set their own curriculum - if it's not "British" enough... So - what autonomy is good autonomy and what autonomy is bad autonomy???? Did these international studies actually go into that? Did they, for example, conclude that it was OK for Michael Gove to set a ludicrously prescriptive national curriculum and change the exam system without consulting the "experts" he thinks ought to have more autonomy, properly? Or was that his cunning ploy to force all schools to academise, but still not actually get to be hugely autonomous, because they all have to teach in a way that enables children to pass his new exams and pass constantly goalpost-changing (and inconsistent) Ofsted inspections etc?

And why were LAs as a concept the problem in all this, rather than it being a case of some LAs not doing their job properly? It seems to me that the big problem in this country was not LA interference, but interference from central government. Yet this government is interfering more than ever from the centre and it doesn't seem to be resulting in anything much more than irritation and chaos.

If a LA can't even cope with its failing schools, what makes you think it's got time to interfere with it's good and outstanding schools

The simple fact that they do. Schools in those authorities don't get tonnes of autonomy regardless of how they are performing. And any LA controlled school has significant limits to its autonomy.

The evidence from around the world, in any event, shows what the person using it wants it to show

The evidence seems pretty solid. But, as AmberTheCat says, it also shows a need for sound accountability. The two are not in conflict. Ofsted inspections make the school accountable. One can argue about how well they achieve that but they certainly don't take away autonomy. They can't tell the school what to do.

Your interpretation of autonomy seems to be that schools are free to do exactly as they like in all areas with no accountability. That isn't what it means.

And why were LAs as a concept the problem in all this, rather than it being a case of some LAs not doing their job properly? It seems to me that the big problem in this country was not LA interference, but interference from central government.

You are entitled to your views but they are in conflict with the evidence. Around the world it has been found that giving LAs (or their equivalents) control of schools produces poorer results.

What evidence? Which countries? And you still haven't explained what control LAs are exerting over schools, you're just claiming it's a "simple fact" yet it isn't a "simple fact" in the LA where my children go to school, which exerts very little influence over anything and tended to turn a blind eye to most things, so that's at least one LA where it is not a "simple fact."

My point is not that schools are free to do exactly as they like in all areas with no accountability and I'm not sure where you got that idea from, anyway. My point is, I don't think the government has any clear idea what it's doing, when to leave schools to it and when to interfere, but it appears to want to remove LAs from the picture and then do any interference itself, from the centre. In what way is that an improvement?

By the way, did the international research come from countries which are as racially and culturally diverse and divided as the UK; and did it show that a school system is better at providing enough school places for 100% pre-18 education when schools are their own admissions authorities and there is no requirement for any kind of central planning and co-ordination on the provision of school places?

Since provision of school places is linked to birth rates, immigration, emigration, house building and the changing geography of employment, new schools cannot spring up overnight and existing schools cannot grow past the space they were once allocated, is this not one area where a bit more external intelligence and data collecting would actually be useful to schools?

On my phone so can't link to specific research at the moment, but Michael Barber, McKinsey and Tim Oates have all published highly regarded work in this area, showing the benefits of a sound autonomy/accountability model, across different types of school system and different countries.

None of them argue that schools should be their own admissions authorities, rabbitstew, which I agree would be a recipe for disaster. But surely we can have a system where admissions are handled centrally, but responsibility for pedagogy etc. is devolved to individual schools?

I agree with you that the national exam system limits the amount of autonomy that schools can have, particularly at certain stages. I disagree that the new NC is hugely prescriptive, though. I think that in many subjects there's a huge amount of opportunity for heads and teachers to develop their own school curriculum within the parameters of the NC. And the 4000 schools that have become academies don't have to follow it anyway!

AmberTheCat - but that's what confuses me about the National Curriculum. Why impose it on any school, if you don't want to impose it on academies? What exactly is its point if it applies to a diminishing number of schools? And why insist, eg, for the history curriculum that it be taught in a particular order, covering particular subjects?

And why were LAs generally poor at planning for school places? Was that a result of being starved of funds by national government, so only being capable of short-term planning and money-saving, and not being given relevant information on national statistics relating to immigration, etc (because the government itself seems a bit shaky on the figures)?

AmberTheCat - since academies ARE their own admissions authorities, do you mean that this IS a recipe for disaster, rather than that it would be?

An example of local authorities interfering in schools was the way a number of them in the past refused to allow individual schools to introduce phonics programmes, despite the evidence of their effectiveness.

Like it or not, there have been a lot of "educationalists" (not teachers) out there over the last 40 years in positions of power, who have been doing their best to enforce ideological views based on unsound psychology about teaching methods, discipline methods, etc.

And why were LAs generally poor at planning for school places

It was certainly not about being starved of funds or lack of statistics. Some LAs were good at planning, others were not. There was no correlation between funding and planning capability. Some LAs were busy closing schools and selling off premises even though they knew that ONS projections suggested they would need those schools.

So LAs, just like Ofsted, the DfE and schools, were populated by human beings who make mistakes and misjudgements. Rather than criticise the individual human beings, it has been chosen to blame the structures supporting them and new structures are being set up, many of which are serviced by exactly the same people (given that they have experience in the area) and some of which are serviced by "educationalists" who are not teachers and who are now in positions of power enforcing ideological views based on unsound psychology about teaching methods, discipline methods, the profit motive, etc... In what way is this an improvement?

kesstrel - some schools refused to introduce phonics programmes, even though they were full of teachers. It wasn't always LAs that stopped this happening.

Amusingly, it's "educationalists" in central government who eventually insisted on all schools having phonics programmes, not LAs, or headteachers. Most headteachers had the autonomy to introduce phonics programmes into their schools long before they were forced to.

So LAs, just like Ofsted, the DfE and schools, were populated by human beings who make mistakes and misjudgements

I would say that closing and selling a school when projections show you will have a shortage of places in 2 years even if that school remains open goes beyond mistakes and misjudgements.

In what way is this an improvement?

The improvement is that head teachers now have greater autonomy over what is taught, how it is taught, when it is taught and how their staff are rewarded. As long as there are proper mechanisms for holding them to account for failure the evidence available strongly suggests that this increased autonomy will result in improved outcomes for pupils.

It will not, of course, be uniform. Some schools will still fail. No-one has yet come up with a system that prevents failure. But one improvement we are definitely seeing is that where a free school or academy fails it gets huge amounts of attention. The issues are generally addressed decisively and quickly. Compare with maintained schools. Every day two maintained schools go into special measures. Over 150 maintained schools have been in special measures for over a year. And some LAs continue to cover up or excuse failure in maintained schools.

And when all schools are academies, will they still get all this attention, or will there be too many of them to cope with?

Rabbit, to say it was educationalists (by which I mean educational academics and bureaucrats) is I think incorrect. It was largely driven by politicians concerned about schools' reading failure, and heavily resisted both within the DfE and by LAs. This is something I've been following in detail for 15 years. The teachers and headteachers who resisted the evidence also were (and are) partly influenced by what they had been taught in teacher training institutions, nearly all of which have been resolutely backing Whole Language and multicueing strategies for many years (largely for ideological reasons).

You're right, rabbitstew - I started waffling about the ideal situation in my previous post, rather than talking about what's actually happening at the moment. My view (which I think is backed up by international evidence), is that admissions should be handled centrally, and kept simple. The more complex the system becomes, the more it advantages the children of parents who are able and willing to engage with it. What actually happens in schools in terms of pedagogy, curriculum, behaviour policies, etc. etc., can, I think, be keep looser, with heads and teachers given the freedom to use their own professional judgement, within a robust accountability framework. So I agree with Gove's moves to give schools more autonomy in those areas, but not with academies being responsible for their own admissions.

The situation around the national curriculum is interesting, isn't it? The govt line is that it forms a reference point for schools that don't have to follow it, and I think most academies do use it as a starting point, and deviate from it where they think their approach is better. And some subjects are definitely better than others - I agree that history is a bit of a dog's dinner.

I think this discussion regarding implementation of phonics approach to early reading skills highlights the problem for parents and their children.

Our school didn't really use phonics for DD1 in YR/Y1. When DD2 started primary they suddenly introduced a phonics system (Jolly Phonics) with all the bells and whistles - songs/ worksheets and introduced a movement system for 'key words' (so sort of learned actions for various words).

Indeed because of parental complaints (mine included I fear) many new initiatives have been rolled out for DD2 and younger pupils. [By the way 3 governors have children in DD2's year - and it is always this year that got the new gimmicky educational thing first]

I suppose my question comes from despair and anger about the fact that DD1's cohort have never had any concerted attempt to catch them back up to where they should be. They've had teachers out for months, they're clearly working 1 year or more behind where they should be (many in Y6 have witnessed Y4 doing work they've only recently covered). At no point did OFSTED/ LEA/ HT/ Teacher say - hey this class is really struggling and needs more support.

I'm certain that the narrative for this Y6 cohort at St. Mediocre will be 'gosh, it was just one of those years'. But this was an avoidable poor result. In fact I'd described it as a train crash in slow motion.

PSBD, there was always a mentality (and I suspect still is in many schools) of "they will learn when they are ready" as regards reading and writing. Teachers were encouraged not to sorry about children falling behind, and to simply pass them on to the next year.

You will hear people claiming that all schools implemented phonics in 2007, but as your example illustrates, this was far from true. And if you look at reports, it's clear that many schools are not implementing phonics properly even now.

PastSellByDate
Why didn't you remove your child? You've kept her in an institution that you're disgusted with for SEVEN years? How utterly bizarre. I don't think I would be able to forgive myself.

bamboostalks - presumably you live in an area where you have a choice, then?

kesstrel - so in other words, it wasn't LAs that stopped phonics being used, it was LAs, teacher training institutions, some teachers, some headteachers, civil servants within the DfE, a few nutty poets... and it was only the good old politicians with no background in education who saw the truth? That's all right then - I'll just trust Michael Gove on everything, then, because he reassuringly has no background in education.

Did politicians invent phonics?

Everyone in the UK has a choice. It may not be convenient to your lifestyle but you have a choice. Move, drive, learn to drive, whatever but do not keep your child in a place that you despise for 7 years and expect not to be called on it.

I live in a grammar schools town. Gss don't see themselves as local schools for local children. Other than that we have a private school which often children who failed 11+ go from state primary schools. Apart from the grammar and private schools. All we got left are the schools no one wish the dc/s to attend. Our area has been like that for well over 20 years despite changes of government. So whoever is in charge of ed doesn't seem to make much or any difference to us. It has been and likely will be just bad.