Facing Both Ways On Targets

Having spent one post saying why Michael Gove is the best thing to happen to education since whiteboard markers meant you didn't get chalk lines on your dark blue suits, I feel duty bound to point out one tiny erreur in today's announcements.

Before I start let me lay out my 2 guiding principles on this - setting targets is centralising, pointless, New Labour nonsense. And providing a better education for our pupils is always a good thing.

Today's EDP let on a frontpage splash that Norfolk Heads are fuming about the standard at which a school is considered to be failing is going to be risen from a 35% A*-C pass rate to a 50% one. In the article, a couple of the Heads move into very political territory accusing Mr Gove of all sorts of things. They are needless to say wrong. As one Head said in the story, even this new tougher target would mean that at a school deemed not failing, half the pupils would leave school without the core skills, things like English and Maths. Are we really saying that we are happy with a system where half of children are not passing the accepted standards? Of course not. Geeting barely a third of kids through their GCSEs is simply not good enough. And there isn't a Head or a teacher I know that thinks it is. If you aspire for the teaching & learning in your school to be better, then you don't just aim for 35.01% pass rate, you aim for every pupil who can pass to pass. I hope that along with this targets comes reform and support for schools who don't reach it. If it does then it isn't a bad thing. A non-teaching friend of mine today said, "so you mean half of kids can effectively fail and at the moment that isn't something we are really worried about? We only panic when 2 out of 3 fail?". When put like that ...

... but on the other hand the thing which is going to make education better isn't the target. New Labour had targets for all sorts of things, most of which were missed. I would suggest to Mr Gove that he ought to up the target still - 60%, 84%, 97% - heck, 100%!! Because that is what we want. All pupils being ready for the world outside of school. Not stuff full on "soft" subjects and a few "equivalents" here and there. Every pupil with good GCSE results; and oddly enough I think that really is the laudable aim of Mr Gove and the government team. But it isn't going to happen.

The public comments on the EDP story tore into the Heads for their lack of ambition. And herein I think is where Mr Gove has got it wrong. Giving a general target for all schools is wrong. There should be challenging targets set for each individual school that looks at CVA, intake, the curriculum they are taught and progress being made. Why should a school that moves from 29% to 34% (thus missing the current target) be considered worse than one that goes from 75% to 74%? CVA is a far better form of measurement than raw scores anyway. We measure all the times in school - we assess like crazy; AfL here, KS2 to KS4 there and yet we cannot find a way of differentiating the targets that we have? And if the school meets those targets, year on year, they should have more freedoms. If they do not, then they get support.

So please Mr Gove. We all want our schools to be better and under you they will be. But give each school a specific, dare I say differentiated, target and judge them against that rather than some faux national standard.

Put it this way, if I stood up in front of my mixed ability Year 10 History class and demanded a minimum C grade target for all pupis, irrespective of ability would that be a good thing? On one hand yes because it is ambitious, but on the other it is doomed to failure and may even alienate the kids who know they cannot achieve that. That is the problem and why I end up facing both ways on targets.

Academy Status

I have a deep dark secret. Shhhh ... I shall whisper it. Come closer. No - that's too close.

(I used to be a member of the NUT).

No I am not saying it again. I am ashamed of that today because of the increasingly bizarre and hysterical reactions they are having to absolutely everything Michael Gove and the coalition government does. In Gove, plus his Ministerial team which includes Nick Gibb and Sarah Teather, I think we have one of the strongest and most professional education teams in the Commons for many years. Only Morris inspired confidence in me, as a teacher, like Gove does. OK he's not perfect - close, but not perfect - but he is leading the biggest and most overdue revolution in education since the 1960s. So clearly, when we are talking about better teaching and improved standards the NUT needs to absolutely freak out.

Take today's announcement about failing primary schools becoming academies (I may come onto the targets for schools later). Good stuff Mr Gove. I have just watched the Head of City Academy Norwich (CAN) on SkyNews saying how the extra investment, the change in ethos and the control over curriculum has taken the school up from rock bottom. I have taught 2 pupils from CAN who come to Notre Dame for lessons. Both have been incredibly bright, motivated and hard working. They thirst for discipline and challenge. So much they travelled across the City to get it somewhere else. Now they say Academy status has turned the school around and is making a real difference to their education, and to their lives. In the old days, these aspirational kids may have travelled afar to go to "better" schools. Now they are happy, settled & achieveing well in their local school - local academy.

So if Academy Status can turn around the old Earlham High - and Heartsease, and Costessey - why should it not turn around our most challenging Primary Schools. With freedom, and the right leadership, these schools can improve too. A few years back if you stood up and said that Earlham High was in the middle of the league tables you would have been laughed out of the City. Now its a reality.

Of course, our friends - brothers - in the NUT declare this is a dangerous experiment. Yes NUT, so dangerous that hundreds of schools are having their standards raised and so experimental its been around for years from the Blair government onwards. I wonder if there is ANY change in education policy that the NUT wouldn't oppose. Their scaremongoring, desperate attitude is so out of touch with the NUT members on the ground that I know.

When people ask if the Unions have a mandate to strike, I don't ask if they have achieved a certain percent in a ballot. I ask if the Union leadership looks and thinks like its membership. On this, and so many other issues, I dearly hope not.

So come on Primary Heads, where is your aspiration? This is a great challenge. We know you want to improve the education of your pupils so grab academy status with both hands and engage with the change. Look at what it has done for schools around you. No more moaning about government dictats. This is education in our hands as professionals.

If Academy Status has worked for secondary it can work for primary schools too. We need a generation of Heads who are ready for that.

Not One But Many

It isn't one bad teacher in a school that we ought to be worried about, but when there are many bad teachers in a school.

A good friend often reminds me, that bad teaching by a teacher means they can go back and improve next year. But a bad year of teaching for a pupil, and they never get that time back.

OMG

I've been confiscating phones for years.

Whoops.

Cameron's Right On Teachers

There isn't a single parent or pupil reading this that doesn't rate the quality of teaching as one of the single most important factors in the quality of our education system; in fact, most might rate it as the most important factor. An inspirational teacher makes the world of difference.

David Cameron today launched the Conservatives Draft Education Manifesto and the central plank of this excellent document is just that - quality teaching.

The most important part of this is the acceptance that we need to get rid of poor performing staff. The quality of teacher training, but also the support provided in school, is vital here - but at the end of the day, the teaching profession is still a vocation but a tough one at that. Some people will not cope with life in the classroom, like others do not cope with the court room, mechanics garage or press room. So the Conservatives will tackle poor teaching with more speed - good idea, after all those children do not get that time back, their education moves on. Nobody ever says to a kid, "OK, to be honest that teacher wasn't very good, so do you fancy doing year 8 again with a better one?".

Now, if we are going to do more to get rid of bad teachers we have to do more to replace them with good ones; exceptional, "elitist" you might say. I would, however, say that Mr Cameron and Shadow Schools Secretary Michael Gove are only part of the way to explaining how we do this.

We do want only those with high quality qualifications to be teachers; but we need to understand what is stopping them from applying at the moment. This is not meant to be an exhuastive list, nor is it based on anything other than my thoughts, but we need to be ready to tackle:

1. Poor behaviour and the lack of methods to tackle this
2. The culture of targets and inspections
3. False alegations and the impact of them
4. Lack of support from some parents
5. Constant government reform
6. Wages & Conditions

I am sure in time these will, one by one, be addressed fully.

However to be frank this is the best and most important education documents in a very long time and it deserves to be welcomed; it certainly was from people of all politics in my staffroom.

UPDATE: I understand Labour have slammed the proposals and the Unions have gone mad because they say sacking bad teachers may lead to a temporary rise in class sizes whilst the new teachers are trained up. I would urge Labour and the Unions to try that arguement with parents on the doorsteps or in the playground - the parents I know, including myself, would rather have a great teacher with more kids than a bad one with fewer.

UPDATE 2: Speaking to a friend who is "in" teacher training he has said that this could be done with no impact on class sizes at all - good to hear - as long as the incentives to teach are right and the Teach Now programme is implemeted properly. Great to see the party really thinking this stuff through - excellent eye on detail of policy.

Bullying in Schools; Why are few ever excluded?

Amazing press release of the day - Official Government figures have revealed that just ninety pupils across the country were expelled last year for school bullying, despite a new survey finding half of all 14-year-old children have been bullied.

Across Norfolk less than 5 pupils were expelled last year from state secondary schools. In over two-thirds of local authorities across England, not a single child was expelled for bullying. In Norfolk 40 pupils were suspended from state schools – meaning the disruptive students returned to the school where they caused misery for their classmates.

Since 1997, Labour Government rules have deliberately made it more difficult for schools to expel pupils, undermining the authority of head teachers and meaning bullies end up back at the same school as their victims.

Bullying makes far too many children’s lives a misery. But the Government’s own figures show that in the vast majority of cases bullies are returned to the same school as their victims after a short punishment, rather than being expelled.

The key to tackling bullying is giving Norfolk’s teachers the powers they need to crack down on bad behaviour. But under Labour, the balance of power in the classroom has shifted too far in favour of disruptive pupils.

Conservatives would give Norwich’s schools the power to take a zero tolerance approach towards serious offences such as bullying. We will give our teachers the tools they need to maintain discipline in the classroom before it spirals out of control.

And the result from the Commission into the Bleeding Obvious is...

Some schools waste money, according to a report (read this). But isn't the report itself the biggest waste of money - I could have told you this for free, as indeed could most of the people who work in schools?

What have Labour got left to say?

The news that a ComRes poll for tomorrow's Indy shows a strong Conservative lead on the NHS, despite Labour's summer attack on the issue, shows again that the old political narrative is dead. Labour have tried to convince people that the Tories wish to privatise the NHS - let us assume for a moment that people believed this. What does the poll then tell us? This narrative, alive since 1997, has simply said that reduced spending equals less services (or fewere schools'n'hospitals, as Blair would say). Parties who want lower tax and less government spending also want to sack Nurses and Teachers. Now, it is all change.

People no longer wish taxes to continue to rise; most believe they should be lowered.

People no longer believe cutting costs means sacking frontline workers; in fact teachers, policeman and nurses would be the last thing to be cut out of the education, police and health system (believe me, there is plenty of bureaucracy to choose from first).

So if people do believe the Labour spin and still trust the Tories more with the NHS what does that say - other than another Labour line is dead. What now do Labour have left to say?

Of course the Tories don't wish to privatise the NHS. David Cameron, who of course has made a pledge to increase NHS spending despite overall cuts in government spending, now has people on side - he ought to take this chance to lay out in clear detail the reform which needs to accompany it.

NR5 project visit

On Tuesday I was lucky enough to be given a guided tour of the NR5 project, which runs out of the North Earlham area and is a supportive inclusion unit for many of the marginalised and excluded pupils from the community. It also doubles up with Future Radio on site, as well as hosting many community events. I was surprised to hear it has to register as an Independent School in order to work alongside Norfolk County Council; given the amazing work it did I am surprised that we cannot make these agreements easier to reach. I was shown around by trustee Gerry Aldous and project manager Dawn Jackson and got to meet the staff and many of the youngsters who use the extended provision; including the "In Harmony" group. Both Gerry & Dawn have a real understanding of what community engagement means and the project is a very impressive piece of both organisation and real grassroots delivery. Typically funding is always an issue - it seems to be with all of these excellent local initiatives - and I hope I was able to help with some advice and thoughts about funding streams in the future.

Inclusive education; and the fate of our youngsters who are, for whatever reason, excluded from our educational system; is of real interest to me. The kids who come here get an education and curriculum that is suited to their needs, almost constant 1:1 support and a chance to engage in positive activites. This support goes on from before school to long after it. I wonder how much we've saved in reduced anti-social behaviour (for example) because of the work that this project does. I'd call it a real spend-to-save initiative!

Our new county team - of Cllrs Hutson & Mackie - ought to visit as soon as they can to see this project in full swing. The NR5 project can be assured of our continued support, especially if I am lucky enough to be the MP for NR5.

The GTC - Pointless and Wasteful

Norfolk Blogger may be totally off the mark when it comes to politics, but he continues to hit the right notes when it comes to education; and in fact serving teachers of all parties do seem to be coming together on a bit of a consensus when it comes to edcuation policy - we just need this to filter up to the political parties themselves.

In this particular case, NB puts the spotlight on the GTC (General Teaching Council) which he asks what it has achieved in the last 9 years apart from threatening to rob teachers of their QTS over drunken behaviour and the like. Since when did the state control us like this? Anyway ...

... Although I would agree with every word, it isn't the utter pointless nature of the GTC which irritates me. I could just about handle a government created body which had no point but discharged its duties in an effective and efficient manner. The trouble is that the GTC is neither.

I recieved a letter from it this week.

It told me that I am not registered with the GTC and I must be; OK but here are the facts.

I am a qualified teacher in my 8th year working at my 2nd school. I am in my 6th year at Notre Dame High School.

They are writing to me at my home address; how did they obtain this if I wasn't previously registered.

I have voted in pointless GTC elections in the past.

I have done all this - apparently - without being registered.

I have been teaching in schools - apparently - without being registered.

So there is one of two explanations:
1. I have been registered all this time and the letter is a total waste of my time and my taxpayers money.
2. I have not been registered and have illegally been teaching for many years. All those grades will have to be annulled. Those kids in universities shall have to be withdrawn. I shall have to stop marking this GCSE coursework. Oh well!

The GTC says everything about Labour - a giant, monolithic organisation with no purpose or sense of good about it. It wastes money, creates pointless paperwork and most of all, has no impact on my life, my teaching or most importantly my pupils lives.

I trust that when Mr Gove is looking for savings to be made - the £33 registration fee per qualified teacher comes from the government remember, because tecahers complained about having to pay it ourselves - in the Education Department this is first on the list.

The GTC? Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.

Education, Education, Education

I have spent the day going from educational establishment to educational establishment. This morning I met with Dick Palmer the Principal of Norwich City College for a private meeting to discuss the new proposals for redevelopment of the site at stage one. I am not at liberty to say more but will do so after the plans are launched next week. From there is was off to school for a few hours of paid employment. I was in various campaign meetings for much of the afternoon and then this evening I went to meet UEA students to discuss the coming campaign and introduce myself. There was a good turnout but, oddly I suppose, people seemed more interested in my background than necessarily asking policy based questions. They wanted to know about my family and also about life as a teacher too; plus also about taking on Charles Clarke. I was told by one that they were more interested in what type of person I am than anything else - they wanted to know about my character and judgement. I am grateful to the students who organised it and I hope to make this the first of many visits to the UEA - I am returning for a debate on 31st October.

The Cameron Plan IS good - but it will only work if our young people make it work

The incredibly detailed plans put forward by David Cameron today on a new 21st Century National Service, which contrasted well with the warm words and fluff from Gordon Brown, are very good on a number of levels.

Politically this plays extremely well - my colleagues have been impressed and I can see it being a big vote winner in middle England. It also got Cameron his best headlines in, amongst others, The Sun. However good the political success, I do have one slight query - will it work?

The plan is brilliant and something I would have loved to have done, not that many years ago! It will instill a sense of pride, promote charities, develop skills and hopefully find a decent outlet for some of that energy they seem to have. But like so many things, this is a plan which will appeal to many "shinies" - that is the term for young people who will get involved with everything and do their best.

The trouble is that these shinies are not the ones terrorising council estates, damaging parks, swearing at residents or stealing cars. And as the plan is - so far - voluntary there won't be the system in place to force them.

As good as this is - and it is good - I think that it won't hit the targets we need to hit. This proposal may provide a way out for some of those who "hang-on" to gangs but it won't impact the ringleaders.

Cameron got that answer a few days ago - a partnership between parents (first and foremost), schools and the police must do that.

Are there times when less is bad, more is good, less is good and more is bad?

This interest post from Norfolk Blogger made me think about a couple of related abuses of statistics.

The LibDems think that a reduction in the number of pupils eating school lunches is bad news and that the school meals service is in crisis. As Nich rightly points out, more pupils taking packed lunches is not a bad thing. It depends whats in the lunch box - I once saw a kid whose Mum packed him 6 Cadbury's Mini-Rolls for lunch but equally most pupils have a healthy and balanced lunch. It is simply not a statistic that you can draw many conclusions about and Nich is right to say that this was embarrassing for the LibDems.

But don't we see this all the time?

Some schools say that a low exclusion rate means good behaviour in their school. Not really, I'd rather have a school that will exclude to keep discipline than one who would rather keep disruptive kids in the classroom to keep their figures down. As a teacher, a low exclusion rate provokes two thoughts - either excellent discipline or a leadership team that won't support staff in maintaining discipline.

The same is true for crime statistics. Some say that low arrest rates are good. But doesn't it depend on how much crime is being reported and detected? Again, I'd rather have a police force with a high conviction rate meaning they were catching criminals rather than one with a low rate meaning they might be missing them or that people weren't reporting crime.

Politicians, on all sides, are too glib with these statistics. Sometimes the obvious reaction isn't the right one. High arrest rates and high exclusion rates can sometimes by good news for residents, parents and pupils.

Cameron's Grammar Fightback

I have just recieved this e-mail from David Cameron trying to put thr Grammar School issue to bed. You might see this as desperate, you might see it as bold ... but I think what the general tone says about Cameron is what counts. I like what he has to say and I like how he says it. Bravo.

Last week, the newspapers were convulsed by a debate about something that the Conservative Party did not do when it was last in office; will not do when it is next in office, and even if it did do it - would almost certainly see it reversed. That's why I described the debate about bringing back grammar schools as pointless.

National selection was abolished because it was deeply unpopular with parents, who didn't want their children to be divided into successes and failures at the age of eleven. That's why in eighteen years of Conservative Government, neither Margaret Thatcher nor John Major created grammar schools. That's why Conservative MPs and candidates in areas without grammar schools do not campaign for them to be brought back.

If they did, parents would be left asking what happens to the large majority of children who don't make the grade - and those parents would be right. Far from being some winning slogan, a pledge to build more grammar schools would be an electoral albatross. That's why Labour want to hang it round our neck. They know it keeps us from joining and leading the real debate over their failure on standards, discipline and opportunity for all.

There is a kind of hopelessness about the demand to 'bring back' grammars, an assumption that this country will only ever be able to offer a decent education to a select few. I want the Conservative Party to rise above that attitude. It cannot be the limit of our ambition for some children to get a decent education; any party aspiring to government must aim to ensure a decent education for every single child. We will never be taken seriously by parents - never convince them that we're on their side and share their aspirations for their children - if we splash around in the shallow end of the educational debate, clinging on to outdated mantras that bear no relation to the reality of life today.

Parents want us to do something about the shocking standards in many of our three thousand secondary schools, not tie ourselves in knots over a grammar schools policy. This is a key test for our Party. Does it want to be a serious force for government and change, or does it want to be a right-wing debating society muttering about what might have been?

A serious party must understand the widespread crisis in education today and respond with a scale of ambition that is appropriate to the challenge. Behind the government's propaganda, it is clear that on literacy, numeracy, discipline, behaviour, we're falling way short of what we need. The challenge for our Party is to tackle educational under-achievement across the board.

When it comes to encouraging excellence, of course it's true that grammar schools can provide a ladder of opportunity for some - but far too few. We need to be the party of aspiration and opportunity for all. With Gordon Brown as our opponent, we can claim that vital territory. He still believes in a know-your-place society where state largesse, not personal responsibility, determine your future. That's not the Conservative approach, and that's why we're doing the serious thinking about how we produce an education reform plan that actually works.

That means no more confusion of ends and means. Every true Conservative believes in aspiration and opportunity for all. But that belief has been obscured by an outdated attachment to a few schools which deliver aspiration and opportunity to some.

I couldn't have put it better myself!

EXCLUSIVE: LibDems pull Teather from Catholic schools event

Last week was a Catholic educators conference at which all of the big players were due to hear from LibDem Education Spokeswoman Sarah Teather as the keynote speaker. I have been told by an ultra-reliable source that Ms Teather was pulled, by LibDem HQ, at the last moment because of fears that her party support for the government over the gay adoption row may cause unpleasant scenes. Instead delegates heard from each other as catholic Headteachers filled in the gap left by the Brent MP. What a shame that both the government and the opposition can seem to have a grown-up debate about this but the LibDems cannot. I mean - Catholic teachers aren't like the W.I., are they?

Ruth Kelly? Not a problem.

Poor Ruth Kelly, cabinet minister and former Education Secretary, is under fire from various outraged lefties complaining of her decision to send one of her many children to a private school because they better cope with the Special Needs of that child. Ms Kelly is doing what any parent would do - putting their child first, above her reputaion, her politics and her party. Good on her.

David Cameron is spot on for backing her up today. He said it would only be wrong if Labour were in favour of abolishing private education and that Ruth Kelly made the right call - as a parent. The left of politics leaps up and down like they do on such occassions.

Ruth Kelly has made a choice that I would like every parent to have and she should make it her mission in government to make that so.

LibDems want to abolsih competition in school sports

LibDems around the country who want to be taken seriously as a force in British politics - even one that is a third party - must hold their heads in their hands and weep everytime something like this happens.

From the party that wanted rights for fairground goldfish comes the notion of abolishing competition in school sports, just as the rest of the nation finally agrees it is a good thing.

LibDem MP Sandra Gidley made the point in a recent House of Commons debate and I hope that the leadership of her party make her suffer for this. Why, I hear you think?

I am about the only person in my school who doesn't think that sport is the absolute cure-all for every problem in the system - including under-achievement and poor behaviour. I think PE is a nice run around a few hours a week, helps towards health and fitness and gives the kids a much needed laugh. I was the fat kid who was always last to be picked - but I didn't care because generally I enjoyed the sport despite being absolutely awful at it. But that aside I think the one thing it does teach the pupils is that you can't win all the time ... unlike academic subjects where "deferred success" has replaced "failure" in our lexicon, PE remains a bastion of reality. You win some, you lose some. Fact of life, etc etc.

Only the LibDems, who are becoming increasingly illiberal on such issues, want the blandness of "everyone wins a prize" to be injected into school sports.

I wonder what former Olympic runner Sir Ming Campbell would have to say about this...

The future of parliamentary debate

After school I organised the first parliamentary debate for my A Level Politics group and I have to say that all of them did brilliantly - more confident, better prepared, wittier and straight to the point. They made a lot of our current MPs look like amateurs! The subject of debate was "Tony Blair's 10 years in power have been a sparkling success" - the motion was lost 7 votes to 5, which says a lot about the impact of Blair on 16-17 year olds who have only really known a Labour government!

Two girls took the role of Labour frontbencher and the Tory Leader of the Opposition. They not only made their own speeches but also took a barrage of interventions from backbenchers and from the other dispatch book. The two whips on either side took on the role of a cross between a cheerleader and a pitbull terrier.

The speeches were thoughful and based upon fact. It was interesting that Blair's fans took his record on crime and public services whilst those who opposed him concentrated on two key issues - Iraq and the NHS. The Labour supporters got rather annoyed by the constant Iraq references. Their frontbencher snapping from her seat: "Don't you lot have anything else to talk about?".

The opposition wanted to stick to Iraq, Labour wanted to move on ... more like real life than you'd imagine.

They soon got snappy as fellow MPs tried to put them off their stride and kept trying to refocus the debate to their point. Just like parliament!

Really this was the best I've seen in many years of teaching and I am now determined to work with these kids and, who knows, ending up at the National Parliamentary Debating Competition?

Best line: Labour whip: "I bet you Tories wish you hadn't had thrown all those mentally ill people onto the streets during your time in power - look, they've all ended up on your frontbench!"

Strangest point to make: Tory Leader: "20,000 years ago there were a fewer people than there are today."

Most disagreements: Labour and Tory frontbenchers: Has crime fallen or risen since 1997? Everyone had statistics to prove their point.