It's not about poverty

I suspect that this blog will be "stating the bleedin' obvious" for most teachers but I feel that teachers' voices are not being heard in the current arguments on education.

The national debate on education appears to be driven by a concern for those in poverty.  The 'close the gap' agenda pushes schools to raise the attainment of those who have been on Free School Meals at any time in the last six years.  The goal is to match the attainment of those who are not in poverty.  The argument made by government is that schools are letting down the former based on schools' low expectations.  The CVA model which assessed how well schools were doing taking into account the circumstances of the children was stopped partially because it was seen as 'too complex' but also because, so they argued, it reinforced low expectations of some students.

I recently read "The Tail" (Ed. Paul Marshall), as it promised to explain what could be done about the 1 in 5 children achieving very few qualifications.  Part of the book tried to define what "The Tail" was and pointed out that only 25% of the children in the tail received Free School Meals.  The point was emphasised that poverty does not define "The Tail".  Yet, during the remainder of the book, other contributors talked about children on FSMs as if they were "The Tail".  Many of the solutions suggested in the book were disappointing in that they relied on market forces, league tables and rising floor targets to drive the system.  I finished not knowing who "The Tail" were, nor what could be done about them.

Many people point out that people who live in poverty can escape their circumstances and achieve highly.  This is used to justify the claim that all people who live in poverty can do this.  As a mathematician I recognise the flaw in this 'proof'.  The fact that one person did well whilst living in poverty disproves the statement "All people in poverty will do poorly in education".  However, it does not prove the statement "All people living in poverty can do well in education".  It merely suggests that "Some people in poverty can do well in education."

This is an important point: Poverty is not a bar to doing well in education as some people have shown.  So what then, is the difference between those who do well and those who don't?

The government's argument is that it is down to the quality of the school.  Some schools with high FSM levels and high attainment are highlighted to demonstrate the impact of a good school.  The rest of us are urged to follow suit.  This doesn't answer the question though.  Some children do well from a poor background whilst in a 'bad school'.

In my experience, whether a child has Free School Meals doesn't matter as much as why they do.  A child whose mother is a young, middle-class widow, for example, and working part-time to support her children is likely to achieve well in school.  A child whose parents did poorly at school and have low-paid jobs or no jobs at all because they have few skills and qualifications is likely to achieve poorly in school.

It is not the poverty that makes a difference but the parent's, or other significant adults', attitude to education and the quality of the support given to the child that makes all the difference.  This is why schools with high immigrant populations tend to do well.  Though the children are classed as FSM and EAL, they and their parents are driven to succeed.  The LSE have recently (published between writing and posting this blog) carried out research which suggest the same thing (as reported in the Telegraph.)

I was once told that I was making excuses for failure but I am not.  Without identifying the reasons that so many of our young children do not do as well as they should, we cannot put in place policies that will truly solve the problem.

Now, that would be something worth writing about.

It's about collaboration, Stupid!

In the same school, I have experienced working independently and, at a different time, working in collaboration with other schools.  We initially chose to work by ourselves because we thought that were were better than other schools, that we had nothing to learn from them and did not want to share our success.  That all ended when Ofsted decided to put us in Special Measures.

Special Measures is a very cruel way of working out that you aren't as good as you thought you were and that splendid isolation is not that splendid after all.

We started to work with schools and the local college closest to us and set up curriculum structures across the different settings.  This enabled us to create courses (such as the Young Apprenticeship in Performing Arts) which any student from any school could apply for and they were delivered with shared staff and resources.  When the Diplomas came along we were already working in a collaborative way and these new courses fitted our models.  This meant that we were in an excellent position to bid for several Diploma lines and we were very successful with our bids.

At its height, the boundaries of each institution in the partnership became very blurred.  At my school we were teaching students who 'belonged' to other schools, with staff who were employed by other institutions.  'Our' students were sometimes elsewhere being taught with students from across the partnership by staff from different places.  It was complicated and it worked.  Students enjoyed much wider curriculum provision that we could have offered by ourselves.

The changes (I can't call them reforms, because that makes them sound like good ideas) introduced by the current government has put the partnership under pressure.  With no Diplomas and no Young Apprenticeships we have moved to BTEC courses.  Most of these 'count' in the league tables but some do not.  The EBacc has encouraged parents and students to 'play safe' and opt for Geography, History and MFL subjects at the expense of the BTEC courses.  Nevertheless, despite these pressures, the partnership is still going and courses are still being run.

In the future, there will be a greater need for this sort of collaboration.

Funding restrictions at Post 16 will mean that shared courses in the local sixth forms will need to increase (the partnership does this to some extent now).  See ASCL Article.

The Primary schools in our cluster are all improving rapidly but all are vulnerable to rising floor targets.  We are working together now more than ever.  We have held several days where different cross-school teams have met to discuss how we can support and develop each other.  This has included SEN, Literacy, Numeracy as well as finance teams.  We are already seeing the benefits of shared working across the cluster.

Since I have joined Twitter, the collaboration I'm involved in has widened even further.  With Teachmeets and the new ResearchEd conference (http://researched2013.wordpress.com/) there has never been a better time for the profession to share and work together.


Sir Michael Wilshaw (yes, him) pointed out that the transformation of schools in London was mainly based upon school-to-school collaboration (what-a-difference-ten-or-so-days-make).  We know the model works so let's get together.


Collaboration has been of great benefit to me, the school and the students in the wider community.  Let's all take the time to reach out to other schools regardless of their reputation or Ofsted grading and look for common issues to solve.  There will be more than you imagine.

Exams: Fit for purpose? Which one?

We often hear that GCSE exams are not fit for purpose but the question that needs to be asked is: "What is the purpose of exams?'

There appear to be three purposes for exams; they are:

1. Indicating the standard each student has obtained in a particular field of study.
2. Differentiating between 'bright' students and 'weak' students.
3. Measuring a school's effectiveness.

These purposes are at odds with each other and call for different types of exams/grading.

If the sole purpose of the exam system is to indicate the standards each student has reached then the testing system should set out the standard that needs to be achieved for each grade and, if a student meets that standard, they should be given the grade

However, this leads to the problem that if a large number of students reaches the same standard, the second purpose of differentiating between students would not be met.

In order to meet the second purpose, it would be necessary to set limits for each grade so that, even if a student does make the standard for a particular grade they are only awarded it if there are grades of that type left.

My understanding is that the old O-Level was norm-referenced in that the proportion of each grade was fixed and awarded based on your rank position (relative achievement).  The GCSE is criterion-referenced and grades are awarded upon the standard achieved (absolute achievement).

Norm-referencing is good for purpose two, in that is generates very clear differentiation between students but it does lead to unfairness when students reach the same standard but are awarded different grades. Criterion-referencing is good for purpose one but, once larger numbers of students start to reach the same grades, differentiation becomes harder.

When you throw into the mix the third purpose, which has the effect of requiring schools and teachers to improve constantly, trouble is bound to occur!

In order to resolve the tensions that exist I would propose the following to cover each purpose above:

1. GCSE grades are given by reference to strict criteria and these are checked by Ofqual (or a similar body) comparing assessment methods and pass marks.
2. Each student is also given a ranking for each subject based on national norms.
3. School effectiveness is measured by looking at student progress (eg KS2 to KS4) rather than by absolute attainment (eg 5A*-C inc EN&MA).

This would allow all students who deserve an A grade to be awarded one and would remove the arguments over 'grade inflation' vs 'grade improvements'.  It would also allow employers and universities to differentiate between students.  Finally, schools would focus their efforts on ensuring that all students make good progress rather than on ensuring some students achieve a C whilst ignoring others.

Why the Olympics is the wrong goal for school sport

The 2012 Olympics is currently underway and there has been much hand-wringing over the state of school sport, particularly the state of state-school's sports.

Lord Moynihan has suggested that the Olympics should leave a legacy by improving school sports.  This has been echoed by Lord Coe and picked up by The Sun and John Major demanding more sport in schools.

Some commentators have demanded that the school day is lengthened (Dayley Thompson suggests 30 mins extra at the start of each day whilst Anthony Seldon suggests 2 hours at the end of each day).

We have had complaints that 21 schools have been allowed to sell off their school fields, concerns that the government has dropped the requirement that schools have 2 hours of PE a week and Michael Gove's move to cut the funding for the School Sports Partnerships now looks somewhat foolish.

With so many knees jerking at the political level we must make sure that any changes to schools and school sports does not create problems that are not there.  I do not believe that the Olympics is the best goal for school sports for the following reasons:

1) The size of the Team GB Olympic squad is around 600 athletes.  The population of the UK is about 62 million.  That means that only 0.00096% of the population will ever become Olympic athletes.  So should we really set up school sports with the aim of catering for this small population and ignore the other 99.999%?

2) There are many sports which are not part of the Olympics.  If we focus our efforts on the Olympic sports we would no longer have rugby or cricket in schools but could have BMX biking.  OK, this is not likely to happen but there have been complaints that schools allow students to do things like aerobics, which are not in the Olympics.  If the Olympics becomes the standard we could lose far more than we gain.

3) Many students hate sport at school, I was one of them.  The current demand for more Olympic sports in schools is being made by former Olympic athletes, who tell us all how enjoyable Olympic sports are.  Well to you, maybe, but I enjoyed squash, climbing trees and hiking in Derbyshire, none of which I could do at school.  For me team games were an opportunity to stand in a wet field whilst no one passed the ball to me and athletics was an opportunity for me to demonstrate how not to throw, run or jump.  I am envious of students at schools today who get to take part in a far wider variety of sports that I ever used to.

So what should we do?
Well, let's first celebrate our successes!  We have done incredibly well for such a small country, we must be doing something right.

Elite athletes need our support and that costs money.  Giving funding to them from the National Lottery is a good thing and should continue.

Leave schools to encourage everyone to get involved and to find an activity they enjoy, even if it isn't competitive or a team sport or part of the Olympics.

Reinstate the Schools Sports Partnerships which, despite what Gove claims, were having a huge impact upon students taking part in sports in schools.

Schools need to work closely with local sports clubs to encourage students to get involved.  Students who do have talent should be supported by local clubs and, if necessary helped to get better coaching.

Where students have real talent, offer them scholarships at specialist sports schools which can cater for their needs.  This doesn't need to be independent schools but this does mean that the Government will need to develop centres of excellence in individual sports throughout the country.

If we can achieve the goal of helping young people find activities that they enjoy and provide them with a healthy lifestyle AND create pathways for talented students to reach the highest levels of Olympic standards we will have left a pretty decent legacy from these games.

What is so wrong with resits?

OK, confession time: it took me three attempts to pass my driving test.  Yes three!  I know that some people manage to get through first time.  Others, like myself, take a little longer to reach the required standard.

The thing is, I did reach the required standard, eventually.  Is my achievement any less because I didn't pass first time?

Our education system has used two ways of judging exam success:

Many years ago, exams were decided against a 'norm'.  This meant that no matter how well the cohort of students had done in their exams, only a fixed percentage could get an A grade or a B grade and so on.  Clearly this is unfair because one student could do better than a different student in another year and achieve a lower grade.  Or put another way, two students could have reached the same standard but be awarded different grades.

Now we set standards against which we assess students.  If the student achieves the standard, they get the grade that goes with that standard.  This is far fairer.  However, there is no limit on the number of students who can achieve an A-Grade.  Whoever reaches that standard, gets the grade.

Politicians, universities, the media and the public complain that being able to resit a module or test again and again makes it far too easy to achieve a high grade.  However, why shouldn't a student who has achieved that standard be awarded the grade?  They may not have achieved it first time but they did reach the standard in the end.

Universities, professional qualifications and work-based assessments all allow resits, why do we want to deny this to students in school?

The answer is probably that we can't actually decide what school exams are for.  Should they be to recognise achievement or should they be to select students for the next level of education?  Whilst there is this tension between the two purposes there will always be an argument over resits, 'grade-inflation' and so on.

I actually like students being able to take resits, and I don't see what is wrong with them.  After all, if we applied the princple of no resits to the driving test, I would still be trying to get to work each day on the bus.

Oh, for Dux sake!

The government has finally realised that their decision to scrap AimHigher is likely to mean that fewer pupils will be pushed towards university so they have created their own scheme.  This was reported in the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9144416/Brightest-pupils-pushed-towards-Russell-Group-universities.html

The message is that:
"The brightest pupils from every state school in England will be fast-tracked towards elite universities as part of a new drive to reward talented teenagers."

Hooray!

Hang on, look at the details of the scheme . . .

Each school will be required to nominate ONE 13 to 14 year old student who will 'win' a visit to a Russell group university.  No, not a place - a visit.  Furthermore these champions will be awarded the name of 'Dux'.

Now I am all in favour of encouraging and supporting young people to go to university and for them to see that the Russell Group is achievable for them but what does this scheme actually say?

Firstly, The Russell Group is not for everyone, it is only available to the brightest person in your school; the rest of you are just Duds.

Secondly, calling the chosen student a Dux will not mean much to most 13 or 14 years olds in state education - the intended target - and will further distance them from the goal of a Russell Group university.  "I don't know what Dux means so this probably isn't for me"  The use of this term will alienate the very people it is aimed at; it is pretentious nonsense.

This scheme is elitist, tokenistic and pretentious.  I really did have to check that it wasn't 1st April when I read the article.

If we are serious about getting young people to go to the best universities we need to encourage all to AimHigher.

Mr Gove: How should I respond?

Dear Mr Gove, 

I have just received the following letter in the post.  I have changed the name of the student and the school but the remainder of the letter is accurate.

Dear Sir/Madam

You may not be aware that one of your pupils - John Peterson has been an active member of St John Ambulance since he was 6 years old and a Cadet for nearly 4 years.

During his time so far as a Cadet he has spent 268 hours training and accrued over 300 hours of volunteering both on duty providing direct care to the public and as a youth helper with our younger members.

John is a Cadet Sergeant and has just completed the Grand Prior Award Scheme which entails completion of 24 subjects over a minimum of 3.5 years.  Because of John's hard work, commitment and determination during his work towards the Grand Prior award he has been recognised for his achievements and is invited to a Buckingham Palace reception held by her Royal Highness the Princess Royal, our Commandant in Chief.  This reception will be held in the Bow Room of Buckingham Palace on [Date removed]. 

The purpose of this letter is to respectfully ask for your consideration in granting John an Authorised Absence on that day when his parents approach you with this request.

Thank you in advance

At the moment I have discretion and will grant John an Authorised Absence but what should I tell him and his family (or others in a similar position) when I no longer have this discretion?