Ofsted - Part of the problem?

I am sure many (if not most) in the teaching profession would say "yes, of course" to the question above. But while the public mood is to place yet more accountability on those in the public sector (which includes teachers) it is not likely to be an easy task persuading people that actually, the very body which holds the teaching profession most accountable - is part of the problem.

According to the BBC this view is supported by the NASUWT in response to Ofsted's report on standards of English teaching in Primary and Secondary school.

While Ofsted is reported as saying:

"progress has been made in the past five years and standards have risen - but
not fast enough." (BBC)

The response from the NASUWT was according to the BBC "extremely sceptical" about the value of such reports from Ofsted. Its general secretary, Chris Keates, said:

"Ofsted's definition of what is 'good' changes on an annual basis, making
it impossible to compare results over any period of time.

"This report says results are not improving fast enough. What does that actually mean? No matter how much or how quickly results improve, Ofsted will continue to move the goalposts. It's a race teachers can never win.

"One of the biggest single factors which undermine the efforts of teachers to raise standards is the amount of time they have to spend meeting the real or perceived needs of Ofsted rather than being able to prioritise the needs of pupils. Ofsted is part of the problem, not the solution."
(BBC)

If you have been in the teaching profession long enough to feel the impact of an Ofsted report you will probably understand where Chris Keates is coming from. If you have never worked as a teacher you may never understand what it is to have government demand performance targets of teachers, when much of that is in fact out of the teacher's direct control (things such as upbringing, parental support, funding, whether the student even has breakfast...).

For the non-teachers I put it this way. Which do you think more likely to increase your child's performance at school, and what would you prefer your child's teacher did?

• Focus on and worry about Ofsted, and the admin Ofsted values?
• Or focus on and worry about your child, and how their education is getting on?

Common sense makes the answer pretty clear. But while we have a government and educational system that values top-down management from afar, over local teachers responding to local needs in creative ways (commonly called empowerment), then what Ofsted is looking for will always take priority over your child's needs.

With that in mind you'd better hope Ofsted knows what your child needs more than your child's teacher does. And you'd better hope that if teachers focus on what Ofsted calls "good practice" and fill in all the paperwork to prove that "good practice " takes place, that somehow, miraculously this will have the desired effect on your child's education.

It is simply a matter of trust - Ofsted don't trust the teachers to do it, they only believe the paper that says it was done, they call that evidence.

Personally, I would prefer to spend more time planning and actually giving quality lessons, than taking time away from that to create paper trails that make it look like I did. But for Ofsted, the audit trail is more real. To be fair, they probably want both the good teaching and the paper trail. But there is only so much time in a week, so while the paper trail is more important, guess where the teacher's attention will be?

Teaching Art or Multimedia (Unit by Unit or Everything Linked?)

When I first started teaching multimedia after working for several years in industry, I was pushed in the direction of teaching each unit of the course separately from the other. The college approach seemed to be one of individual teachers taking responsibility for individuals units (or subjects) and each being taught independent of the others during different sessions across the week.

At the time (several years ago now) I was so new to teaching that I didn't argue. After all, I am the newbie, what do I know? However as my teacher training progressed (now complete I am glad to say) I came to see how this approach was not really the ideal for our students. I did not feel the approach would adequately make the students into what I call whole creatives. Instead of seeing the course as 18 units, I began to see teaching and learning in multimedia as being essentially split into just 2 main areas:

• Design Processes/Design Thinking
• Tools and Tool Techniques

These areas appear in each unit in different degrees. Some are very strongly focused on design thinking, while others on tools. While the titles of these two areas could probably do with some refinement, the idea is that while different types of knowledge or skills can be taught independently initially, ultimately learners need to be able to use these together to be a whole creative individual. We call this bringing of knowledge or skills of different kinds together synthesis.

I have developed a model to explain this below:

Synthesis of skills over time allows greater learner maturity, freedom and creativity

For instance a learner can be taught how to use Photoshop during one session or unit, and methods for generating ideas in another session or unit. But this only goes so far, they must then be able to use those two skill areas together to meet creative objectives.

I did not feel that teaching units independently of each other was going to achieve this.

In changing the unit by unit approach however, it needs to be understood that you still can't pour everything together into a big pot straight away either. The problem there is that the concept of using skill areas together is too large and complex to be a good starting point and learners will simply drown. Initially then learners must be taught some different skill areas independently but then (as soon as possible and as they become ready) they should be guided so that their understanding in these different areas becomes linked together

This is essential for several reasons.

Learners who remain strong in design processes are usually good at understanding design problems, and generating and refining ideas - but unless they learn about production tools (e.g. Photoshop or Studio Max) they will not fully understand how the technology impacts on the suitability or production of their ideas.

Learners who are strong on tools and techniques for using tools are able to use technology efficiently - but unless they learn to apply the design process they will be under-developed creatively and relegate themselves to the role of technician, essentially reproducing the ideas of others. They may be efficient, but not as effective as they could be.

The aim then is for learners to be able to use tools and techniques in conjunction with design process and design thinking, thus making them whole creative individuals.

So I don't worry about one unit per lecturer any more, or one unit per session. Instead we teach by project, we link units to projects and work on them in every session, and every tutor brings their expertise to each project.

This is actually one of the benefits of the BTEC National Diploma system. While the whole qualification is made up of 18 units (each one being a different subject), we are free (and encouraged to by Edexcel, if not your particular college) to link these units together wherever possible.

I like to teach new tools or skills separately and give short projects or homework to ensure these new skills are understood. Then I like to feed these new skills into larger projects where they must be used in conjunction with the design thinking and design process skills, or other tools skills the learner has.

In this way learners get to learn processes, and tools, and bring them together. It is not always easy, but learners do have the opportunity to become better creatives who can see how everything they learn fits together, and can make intelligent decisions based on a real understanding of the whole picture.

F.E. Management Under Scrutiny

While lecturers up and down the country have this notion of F.E. being a business drumed into them by managers in order to instill concern over meeting targets, do F.E. managers understand that F.E. is a business to a degree appropriate for their role?

Why do I ask? One side effect of the new teacher training courses (DTLLS and GDTLLS) especially in year 2, is that lecturers are encouraged to explore, examine and criticise the business functions of their institution. As such, management suddenly come under scrutiny from their subordinates to a degree previously un-encountered. Gone are the days of generic moaning about policy and management demands - this has now been replaced by serious study, research and analysis - level 5 and Level 6 analysis at that. All in all, the new graduates, when they moan, will be doing it with new authority. Managers and policies are being appraised by their subordinates as never before.

What then are these lecturers finding in their research? What recommendations are coming out of their analysis?

At this point I can only comment on my own findings (though feel free to leave comments). Early findings indicate the following:

• Short Term and Medium Term business goals are in conflict.
• Lack of synergy between important areas of business function.
• Marketing can and should be more closely aligned to business objectives.
• Pressure to pass sub-standard student work to meet targets diminishes staff morale and respect for management.

Are the managers aware of these issues and taking appropriate action? Do they listen to fresh ideas from the ground floor?

I suggest that the degree to which these two questions can be answered in the affirmative is a primary indicator of the degree to which managers understand that F.E. is a business, and treat it as such.

One very heartening thing I can say in favour of our new management... we have been invited to give feedback, we have been asked to tell them the things they may not want to hear. This is very refreshing. However, I wonder how many will dare to do it? It very much depends on whether the aim of management is to root out and squash the criticisms, or whether they are truly open to new ideas, and willing to hear them out non-judgementally.