‽istis ponders judgement (and Ofsted) (weekending April15th
2023)
This week and this Easter (for those who observe certain received
Christian teachings, traditions and timings) ‽istis has
wondered about judgement, particularly one-word judgements.
Quite often these perhaps seem to be ‘simple’ contrasts –
either/or in perhaps a zero-sum gain calculation:
·
‘winner’ or ‘loser’ (with the elation, rewards and
opportunities – v - the disappointment, often so starkly divided[i])
·
‘saved’ or ‘damned’. And maybe we are back in the
world of some people’s Christian Easter, though just who or what is saved? ‘God
so loved the world’, animals, people, all of us together – done and
dusted, just some of us? And if it’s only some of us, then what is the
criteria: our choice, God’s choice, John 3 v 16 or Matthew 25 v 31-46? (And
then ‽istis got off a favourite hobby-horse)
In the UK recently, ‘Ofsted’[ii] has been much in the news,
(the Office for Office for Standards in Education , Children’s Services and
Skills,) not least following headlines such as this, a few weeks’ ago: ‘Headteacher killed herself after news of low Ofsted rating, family
says.’[iii] And social media sites have been buzzing
(just type ‘Ofsted’ into the Twitter search box, for example).
A lot of discussion focusses on the potential impact of a single
word, the summarising ‘overall’ judgement of effectiveness (that seems to
dominate the process of inspections by Ofsted and, if it’s ‘Good’ or
‘Outstanding’, can often be seen on banners outside such-judged nurseries and
schools[iv]).
Ofsted regulates and inspects services providing education and
skills for learners of all ages and also inspects and regulates services that
care for children and young people. But focussing on schools for now, the
latest version of the ‘School inspection handbook’ can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/school-inspection-handbook-eif
Part 2 of the handbook sets out the four key inspection and judgement
areas:
·
quality of education
·
behaviour and attitudes
·
personal development
·
leadership and management
‘Inspectors will also make a judgement on the school’s overall
effectiveness.’ (sn. 403) The ‘overall’ judgement. The one word that may or may
not get printed on a banner[v]
and hung from the school railings.
Section 405 tells us that: ‘Inspectors use the following 4-point
scale to make all judgements:
·
Outstanding (all ‘good’ criteria to be met securely
and consistently, plus additional criteria)
·
Good
·
Requires improvement
(In order to judge between Good and Requires improvement, inspectors will use a ‘best-fit' approach)
·
Inadequate (the grade that will be likely given if any
one of the inadequate criteria applies)
In the inspection handbook there is commentary and guidance on
what the grades look like in policy, procedural, systems and practical terms
across the four inspection areas.
Leaving aside ‘Requires improvement’[vi], the
descriptors for the other three grades seem to relate to a mixture of: the
curriculum and its delivery; the teachers and teaching; pupil outcomes;
management and governance – systems and functioning of leaders, particularly
the headteacher
One of the hot debates regarding grading seems to be about the degree
to which ‘contextual’ matters are taken in to account.
And ‽istis wonders how much might the overall effectiveness of a
school – the sum of the pupils’, teachers’ and support staff, headteacher’s and
governors’ capacity to respectively progress, achieve, learn, teach, lead and
govern - be affected by social, familial, structural, political and similar
factors?
Some of the Ofsted criteria do seem to give a nod to contextual
matters.
For example, an indicator of ‘inadequate’ under ‘grade descriptors
for quality of education’ (see sn.411) states: ‘The progress that disadvantaged
pupils make is consistently well below that of other pupils nationally and show
little or no improvement.’ Disadvantage is recognised (though its source and
the dynamics involved are seemingly unexplored) – but the expectation seems to
be that a school will be judged on its ability to prevent achievement that is
well below other pupils nationally, maybe irrespective?
Meanwhile, ‘progress’ could perhaps be rather more fully defined
(or perhaps ‽istis has just missed it…) alongside ways to measure ‘added-value’
- what a school adds for any pupil from their point of entry to the point when
their education experience and ‘ability’ turns in to those apparently universal
gateway indicators of judgement: qualifications and grades.
And at this point, perhaps strangely, ‽istis’
ponderings this week strayed from Ofsted to focus on the game of golf! Your
indulgence is asked for, as there may be a link…
Despite golf perhaps primarily being a game where one is essentially
playing as an individual against a particular course, the conditions on the day
(both greatly contextual?) and, some might say, against yourself (the ultimate context?)
- there still seems to be a preoccupation on competition and winning, and therefore
somewhat inevitably the opposite side of the flipped coin: losing. And we are
back to the one-word judgements...
Golf seems to be one of a small number of games or sports where a ‘handicap’
system has been developed and there are rabbit holes a-plenty to putt towards
on the internet that explain this feature[vii] including
explanations of the new, trade-marked ‘World Handicap System’.
Whilst on the one hand the ‘handicap’ system in golf perhaps looks
like an unusual attempt to level a playing field not found in many other sports,
possibly however it is one of those exceptions that proves the rule. The rule
being that some people who are not always the most competent in very basic
terms (hitting a small ball with a stick towards and into a hole) can win, will
win and will triumph over the naturally talented or those who work hard to
develop their skills… And that these same people may even establish and
maintain the very rules to make sure that they do. Or is ‽istis just being too cynical‽
‘All golfers are not created
equal. But with the golf handicap system, all golfers can compete equally — at
least, all golfers who take part in the handicap system.’
‘For all golfers who use handicaps, the
purpose is the same: To fairly compare oneself to other golfers, and to compete
fairly against those other golfers when talent levels are unequal.’
‘The purpose of a golf handicap system
has always been to attempt to level the playing field for golfers of differing
abilities…’
‘When golfers use the handicap system, no
matter what their ability is, they can play one another in a match and both
will have legitimate chances to win.’[viii]
Perhaps this scoring device is very handy in a game that, possibly
unfairly, is known/caricatured for its networking, social and business
advancement opportunities. Or is ‽istis just being too cynical‽
You can play but not to the point that requires overly extensive
practice and may impede time spent working, or on more serious pursuits (e.g: time
in the boardroom or office, time on the boat or the beach, time in the club –
or clubhouse, time in the members’ bar, being President, etc). Above all, you
can still win! Perfect for some people. Or is ‽istis
just being too cynical‽
So, finally coming back to Ofsted and judgements, ‽istis wondered
what might happen if a leaf was borrowed from the golfing playbook and a
‘handicap’[ix] system was developed
for schools and a schools’ inspection system – especially one that could more fully recognise ‘contextual’
matters – factors that may inhibit or promote achievement; a system that could
perhaps just level a little more of what are left of the educational playing-fields
(after some schools have had to sell them off)?
At times various different ways of defining a ‘headline measure’
have been used in the UK and for a period have indeed included a ‘contextual
value-added’ (CVA) calculation. In a detailed article from a 2017 edition of
the British Education Research Journal[x], George
Leckie and Harvey Goldstein note:
‘…the headline measure of school progress has changed from
‘value-added’ (2002–2005) to ‘contextual value-added’ (2006–2010) to ‘expected
progress’ (2011–2015) to ‘progress 8’ (2016–).’
They summarise why CVA was stopped by the Government in 2010 –
that it was: hard to understand; a poor predictor of success; expected
different progress from different pupil groups.[xi]
And in 2019 as debate continued (not least regarding the ‘one-word’
judgements), Ofsted published a paper explaining ‘Retaining the current grading
system in education.’[xii] Interestingly,
from September 2019 the areas for inspection were changed and the stark
‘outcomes for pupils’ was lost.
But ‽istis wonders not so much about the areas for inspection or
the grades but just what might happen to our perceptions of pupils and
teachers, of heads and governors/trustees, of schools and the education system
itself if a ‘handicap’ system was developed that was applied at the point of
judgement. Which schools and pupils might be newly seen as ‘winning’ and
‘losing’?
Trying to develop such a system could prompt informed and careful
discussion about factors that may inhibit or promote quality of education, behaviour
and attitudes of pupils, personal development and leadership and management. It
could help laud the work of pupils, teachers, support staff, heads and senior
teams, governors and trustees who are perhaps working miracles, everyday… despite…
Pistis has some suggestions to get the ball rolling.
Factors to consider might include both ones often identified and perhaps
some others:
·
Financial resources: ‘spend’ per child (with financial
resources aggregated from all sources including money raised/contributed by parents,
from charities, from investments, etc.)
·
Buildings, sports and extra-curricular facilities (for
arts including music, drama, etc.)
·
Class size
·
Teacher and support staff experience, qualification
level
·
Recruitment and retention of all staff
·
Pupils with additional needs – educational, physical
(medical) or emotional (pupils being supported by CAMHS or accessing school
pastoral support services)
·
Proportion of pupils:
o
‘in need’ (sn.17 Children Act 1989)
o
‘subject to child protection plans’ (sn.47 CA ’89)
o
‘in care/looked after’ (sn. 20 & sn.31 CA ’89)
·
Socio-economic indicators, including of social
deprivation for the area and the areas from where pupils come from (poverty, housing,
income, employment opportunities, local crime statistics including levels of pupil
involvement with the justice system – as ‘victims’ and ‘perpetrators’)
·
Historic ‘pupil achievement’ information: grades, next
steps in education, training or employment.
What do you think? What would you add or take away? How might
factors be identified, analysed, weighted and be taken into consideration? Could
a ‘score’ be established? How might that interact with the elements that Ofsted
inspect?
Or do we conclude that this needs filing in the ‘too complex’ tray
and settle for what we have currently?
And if you worry that some schools might always find a way round
the system, that ‘to those who have, more will be given, and they will have
abundance; but from those who have not, even what they have will be taken away’[xiii],
well Ofsted to its credit does consider that a ‘school (is) systematically
gaming its results…’ is one of the criteria to be used to define ‘inadequate’
leadership and management. Perhaps even considered a misdemeanour as serious as
improving the lie of your golf ball with a kick from the rough?[xiv]
So finally at the end of lengthy and probably far too ponderous
ponderings (a well-above par round in terms of quantity though maybe not in
quality!), there is perhaps an exhortation to continue wondering:
·
what can inhibit, promote and buttress effective learning
and achievement, teaching and pupil support, leadership and governance?
·
how might we possibly create an inspection system that
recognises and takes all the potential contributory factors into account?
·
whether we can commit to being tough on the causes of
reduced educational achievement and those pesky sloping playing fields?
·
what comprises a ‘quality education’ and desirable,
necessary, possible and practical yet ambitious outcomes for all children
and young people; and how and when would it be good to measure them?
…lest Ofsted, those in leadership and management positions in
politics and society, even all of us - are judged ‘inadequate’[xv]
and perhaps continue to fail so many of our children and young people.[xvi]
Finally, finally… a ‘Tweet’ spotted this week included a picture
of a poster published by the ‘Mental Health Hub’:
‘There is no better measure of a schools culture than how
inclusive it is of its most vulnerable students.’
And if the question of whether an apostrophe is missing distracts
you from the heart of the message, well that perhaps, possibly, maybe part of
the problem…
© ‽istis
NB: further reflections and comments linked to this week’s theme and
past blog entries to be found on Twitter: replies, retweets (which don’t
necessarily indicate approval, sometimes the very opposite!) and ‘likes’:
@Pistis_wonders. ‘Follows’ and respectful comment and dialogue welcome...
[i] As
the Easter sporting fixtures might have shown; as the BBC airs a new series
featuring just the winner of last year’s ‘Interior Design Masters’ (https://www.banjobeale.co.uk/about)
in the week that the final three of this year’s competition are chosen.
[ii] https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ofsted/about
Ofsted inspects: ‘maintained schools and academies, some independent
schools, colleges, apprenticeship providers, prison education and many other
educational institutions and programmes outside of higher education’ and regulates
‘a range of early years and children’s social care services, making sure
they’re suitable for children and potentially vulnerable young people.’ Its
stated values are: ‘We put children and learners first, and we are independent,
evidence-led, accountable and transparent.’
childcare, local authorities, adoption and fostering
agencies, initial teacher training and teacher development
[iv]
And just type ‘Ofsted banners’ into a search engine and several companies that
will print and supply bespoke banners will pop up (the judgement cast in
weather-proof vinyl for all to see, with many promising next day delivery!)
There has been discussion and a call from some for schools to remove such
banners, see for example: https://mobile.twitter.com/NEUnion/status/1643598546053091329
Type ‘Ofsted’ into Twitter, for example, and the discussion will unfold with
varying levels of heat and light.
[v]
And ‽istis wonders how many ‘requires improvement’ or ‘inadequate’ banners are
ever requested.
[vi] …which
is mostly defined in one line: ‘The quality of… education/behaviour and
attitudes/personal development/leadership and management (as appropriate)…
provided by the school is not good’
[ix]
Another term might be better, mind…
[xi]
And Leckie and Goldstein comment: ‘However, CVA did not a priori expect
different levels of progress from different pupil groups, rather it adjusted
for such differences if they arose. In reality, nationally some pupil groups do
make less progress than others and this must be adjusted for if we are to make
fair comparisons between schools, as otherwise we penalise schools with a
disproportionately high number of pupils in these groups. For example, the 2010
CVA model results (DfE, 2010b) show that male pupils, older pupils, pupils with
FSM eligibility, pupils in care, pupils with a special educational needs (SEN)
statement, mobile pupils and pupils living in deprived neighbourhoods all make
less progress than their otherwise equal peers. Pupils who speak English as an
additional language and all ethnic minority groups make more progress than
White British pupils with the exception of White Irish travellers and White
Gypsy/Roman pupils. By adjusting for ethnic background and family
circumstances, CVA for the first time rewarded schools for their efforts with
harder to teach pupil groups.’
[xiii]
To paraphrase Matthew 13:11–12 and to echo perhaps one of those trickier
passages from the Bible - alongside those outrageous Easter claims, possibly‽
