This
is the fourth post in a series, where I look at the generic grade descriptors
from Ofsted, and show you exactly how vague they are, and how grades are based
more on personal opinion rather than actual evidence. As with previous sections
of the criteria, it was difficult to split the descriptors up into comparable
sentences, and this fourth section was particularly jumbled.
4.
Grade Descriptors: quality of leadership and management
Outstanding: Key leaders focus relentlessly on
improving teaching and learning, resulting in teaching that is likely to be
outstanding and at least consistently good.
Good: Key leaders and managers consistently
communicate high expectations and ambition in the subject.
Satisfactory: Key leaders and managers provide a
concerted approach to improvement in the subject.
Inadequate: Capacity for further improvement is limited because
current leaders and managers have been ineffective in securing essential
improvements.
In the first instance, I notice that in order for a head
of department to achieve an outstanding, all the teachers in that subject need
to have achieved a ‘good’. This creates a situation where HODs are putting
enough pressure to be counted as bullying on teachers who fall below this
standard.
I’m also very confused by the difference between the
grades of good and satisfactory, the former requiring managers to ‘consistently
communicate high expectations and ambition’ and the latter ‘a concerted
approach to improvement’. I just don’t see a clear path from bad approaches to
improvement to good approaches there. I’m no Ofsted inspector, but I’m also not
stupid, and this lack of clarity would allow someone to manipulate an
inspection result very easily. Perhaps if the good descriptor said something
along the lines of, ‘an effective approach to improvement’ it would be much
more linear.
Outstanding: Actions are based on a deep and
accurate understanding of performance in the subject.
Good: Planned actions based on accurate
self-evaluation to overcome weaknesses have been concerted and effective. As a
result, achievement has improved or consolidated previous good performance.
Satisfactory: Planned actions by leaders and managers have improved
the quality of teaching so that very little is inadequate.
Inadequate: Leaders and managers are not taking effective steps to
secure satisfactory and better teaching for all groups of pupils, including
disabled pupils and those who have special educational needs.
What’s
with the use of the word ‘concerted’ all the time? Not only that, but here it’s
jumped from the satisfactory grade to the good. If someone is being ‘concerted’
then you can argue that they are either satisfactory or good, whichever one the
observer feels like. And if everyone has got to achieve good, then this will
make or break whoever you are assessing.
Again
it’s difficult to see a clear path from inadequate to outstanding, as the
language changes around so much between grades. A ‘deep and accurate understanding
of performance’ in outstanding becomes ‘accurate self-evaluation to improve
weaknesses’ in good: would good not better be described as simply ‘an accurate
understanding of performance’? You can then clearly see that in order to
achieve an outstanding grade, you need to deepen your understanding of how your
subject is performing.
Outstanding: The pursuit of excellence in all
activities relating to the subject is demonstrated by an uncompromising and
highly successful drive to strongly improve achievement, or maintain the
highest levels of achievement, for all pupils including disabled pupils and
those who have special educational needs, over a sustained period of time.
Good: They model good practice and demonstrably work to
monitor, improve and support teaching, encouraging the enthusiasm of staff and
channelling their efforts and skills to good effect. As a result, teaching is
improving and is at least satisfactory, with much that is good.
Satisfactory: Capacity to secure improvements in the
subject is demonstrated by a trend of sustained improvement in achievement
although a few significant weaknesses remain.
Inadequate: Despite remedying a few small areas of weakness, perhaps
recently, improvements are fragile, too slow or depend on external support.
Now
the grades seemed to have jumped again, so that in order to achieve a good,
then most teaching needs to be good. That’s how I see it anyway, but you could
also interpret what’s written here as the teaching needs to be satisfactory in
order to achieve a good as a head of department.
I’m
also concerned that SEN students only appear in the outstanding criteria. The
wording for that particular grade also contains the word ‘uncompromising’,
which I think encourages HODs to again put as much pressure on teachers as they
possibly can. I’ve seen and heard of a lot of inhumane, bullying and
unreasonable behaviour towards teachers, all done in the name of high
standards, and it’s exactly that zero-tolerance approach that has caused it.
If
you want to read the full Ofsted grade descriptors they can be found at this
link.
Do you agree
that these descriptors are worded in a confusing and unclear manner? Do you
think they imply that managers need to relentlessly expect more and more of
teachers, no matter what the human cost? Please comment below.
Similar post: How Ofsted Grading Criteria Can Be Manipulated 3
0 comments:
Post a Comment