The Schools Blog

Keith Bartley, chief executive of the General Teaching Council has made it clear that the GTC is extending its powers so that effectively it has control over what teachers do in their own time, as well as when at work.

This sort of control does not exist in most other walks of life, nor do teachers in other western democracies suffer it.  Tell someone who works in an advertising agency, or who is a footballer, or who is a programmer that how they behave outside their work might affect whether they have a job or not, and there would be an industrial tribunal hearing called within minutes.

But it wouldn’t happen, because the employer values these people so much they will allow them their freedom, in order to have them deliver the goods in work.

With teachers it is different and we are heading towards something that leads back to the days before the second world war when female teachers were not expected to get married.

The big problem is that the GTC is not just talking about obeying the law - behaviour according to them could be lawful but unacceptable.  Clearly this opens the door to suggesting that a teacher who has an approach to sexual matters which is quite legal but which doesn’t fit with the mainstream as defined by GTC, could be thrown out of the job.

From next year teachers must “uphold the law and maintain standards of behaviour, both inside and outside school, that are appropriate given their membership of an important and responsible profession”.    “Appropriate” is the key word.  Who is to say what is appropriate.   Is it “appropriate” for a middle aged male teacher to be joining in the chanting and singing at a football match in his spare time?  Is it “appropriate” for a 20 something female teacher to go to a night club wearing a mini-skirt?

Of course the powers introducing this reform will say, “it won’t be used like that”, but then if that is the case, it should be reworded so we know what it is there for.  The fact is that all reforms of this nature are used to crack down on people who express their individuality and to reduce creativity.   If you have any doubt of that, imagine what will happen if a teacher writes a perfectly legal novel which explores themes of violence within a school.

Here’s a funny thought.  A former Ofsted chief (who can hardly have the highest level of credibility) has given a report on QCA (whose credibility is lurking somewhere beneath the basement).

His view is that QCA acted on the basis that “it’ll be all right on the night” and was “in denial”  about the problems it faced having brought in ETS to run the SATS tests.

As we know QCA had offered the government what in their quaint language they called “copper-bottomed” assurances that everything would happen on time with the SATS at the moment that no one was marking anything (probably because they’d run out of red pens.

But rather than take full blame itself the QCA board disbanded the National Assessment Agency (NAA), and suspended the chief executives, David Gee and Ken Boston.

Gee recommended that ETS get the marking contract.  Sutherland says everyone failed to check ETS ability - and the fact that it had failed regularly in the USA.

And at last someone (even if it is an ex-Ofsted man) is having a bash at the DCSF (known now in most quarters as the Department for Cushions and Soft Furnishings).  They are blamed for failing to deal with the situation when it became known.  It looks like they were either saying “not our problem” or simply failing to believe it was all going wrong.

Boston clearly points the finger at the Dept and ministers: “Throughout the process of procuring the contract and delivering the tests according to DCSF specification, ministers and officials had access to exactly the same data and information as the NAA and the QCA; they were active participants in the process … and in no way at ‘arm’s length’.”

On whether QCA is fit for purpose, Sutherland said yesterday: “It has not delivered and there has been a massive failure.”ETS also blame QCA in part - although they (unlike anyone else) accept some of the blame.  They note that QCA kept changing the contract.  They also say that QCA stopped it taking part in the enquiry - which raises all sorts of other questions.

For several months we have been watching Ofsted unravel. It has not been an edifying sight as everyone holds on to their jobs and everyone blames everyone else. Of late the education side of Ofsted has been saying that it has nothing to do with the social services side (where all the recent horrors, such as documents being shredded after 3 months) are revealed, but it is obvious to anyone with a second to look, it is all the same body.

Now comes the recognition (7 months late - but that’s how they do it in government sponsored bodies these days) that QCA is a disaster awful.

The head of QCA has clearly got a whiff of what the independent report into the latest fiasco (the SATS scandal) and has decided to chuck it in.

Which is more than happens in Ofsted, but lets take a look at the scenario. Mr Boston has resigned as chief executive of QCA has had 7 months to contemplate the utter disaster of the SATS results, during which time he has continued to take a £328,000 salary.

So why did it take so long for him to go? Was he trying to see if he could wriggle out of this one, perhaps in the hope that the report into his cock-up would say it wasn’t really him that was to blame and £328,000 is the going rate for idiots?

No, he said: ‘I have reflected since the summer on the delivery failure and on the difficulties associated with key stage testing.’ Actually I could quite happily reflect throughout the summer on that sort of money.

The company that did the marking of the SATS went last August and had to hand back £19.5m. Will the boss of QCA have to hand back his salary? I seems unlikely.

When members of most school management teams are asked, “what do you do to motivate your teaching colleagues and boost their morale?” there is generally a long pause.

That is not to say that nothing is being done, but rather that what is being done is not immediately obvious.

But, if what is being done it is not immediately obvious to the senior management team, who are responsible for the well-being of the teaching staff, then it almost certainly isn’t obvious to the rest of the school.

Of course it is possible to reply that it is not the duty of the senior management team to motivate teachers, or to be concerned with raising their morale. Teachers are professionals, and as professionals they should be self-motivating.

There is certainly something in this, but such a view must be set against the fact that a highly motivated teacher is always better than a de-motivated teacher. A teacher who is just doing the work and not much more (perhaps because of problems or issues that have nothing to do with teaching), will be doing less of a service to the school, and to the pupils or students, than one who is fully motivated.

For this reason alone, it is perhaps worth considering methods of raising teacher morale, and of motivating staff.

That simple piece of reasoning lay behind the creation of the report, “Raising Teacher Morale”.

It contains 40 separate strategies for raising the morale of individual teachers, and the teachers across the whole school. It eschews any overt group bonding ideas, and the sort of approach that might make some teachers cringe! Instead it focuses on the individual. Where policies are given that could work across the school they are given in a way that can be applied to individual teachers. The results can be quite remarkable.

The book is supplied in photocopiable format or on disk, so that copies can be made and circulated among the senior management team, thus allowing each person to become aware of the approach, and understand exactly why such approaches are being introduced. It also allows everyone to see the benefits that the schools can accrue in a short space of time, without any extra funding.

Raising Teacher Morale is available by ordering on line for £49.95 as a CD book or as a printed volume in a ringbinder plus £3.95 delivery within the UK. You can also order from the publisher on 01536 399 011 with a credit card or by fax on 01536 399 012.

Schools may order with an official school order - orders to home addresses must be accompanied with a cheque or details of a valid credit card (or you can click on the link above to order on line).

I doubt that anyone from Ofsted reads the daily “Diary of a School Administrator” blog.  If they do they’ll have found a surreal story which has been running for some 250 episodes.  It tells the story of how a school is taken over by a corrupt Academy that tries to steal all the money from the accounts while using parasites to change the behaviour of pupils and staff.

Obviously there is nothing in it to be taken seriously, except that from time to time the Diary takes a swipe at Ofsted, an organisation that is routinely seen to be inept and incapable of investigating whether a cup of tea actually contains sugar.

Much of the vitriol against Ofsted in the Diary comes from the fact that Ofsted has repeatedly inspected schools and stated that the finances are well-organised and the financial control is robust, only for it to be revealed that at the time vast quantities of money was being lifted from the school by one or more senior members of staff.   Despite this ludicrous error, repeated from school to school, Ofsted has carried on, even on one occasion inspecting itself and finding itself doing a brilliant job.

I mention this because in the last few days the attacks on Ofsted in the Diary of a School Administrator blog have been getting more and more stringent - just as Ofsted approached self-destruction.

Yesterday, in case you missed it, the chairman of a Commons committee that looks into such things said he has lost confidence in the inspectorate.

Christine Gilbert, the chief inspector of schools, was accused in the committee of acting with an “air of complacency” after she firstly admitted that three children a week had died from neglect and abuse in the 16 months to August this year, and then had the utter audacity to defend the inspection of social services.

This comes on top of Gilbert acknowledging that Ofsted said Haringey council was “good” in an inspection weeks after Baby P’s death.

Then there was worse - Gilbert said that Ofsted routinely destroyed evidence and information after three months - despite the fact that they were undertaking annual reviews.   As the MP pointed out, such reviews can only be based on heresay.

Given that the government has allowed Ofsted to continue despite all its previous errors I doubt that they will do much about it this time, and undoubtedly Ofsted will inspect itself again next year and once more find that it is doing a wonderful job.