Education Jenga!
The conversation about inspection appears to be going around in circles. Insiders are communicating with outsiders, to try and reach an outcome that suits both. Consultation is good, but it may not work unless we tackle this thing at source. As we take a step back to recognise the sheer amount of additional initiatives, we can begin to see the we may be losing sight of how to provide quality teaching and learning, let alone how to inspect it.
Only if we start by looking at the curriculum, can we begin to see the problem. We're now learning that the constant loading of content and expectation, does not create effective and sustainable education. This approach neglects what we know about child development, it doesn't make children smarter and it begins to make the whole system wobble.
The curriculum is big. Very big. And always getting bigger. The sheer breadth and detail from early years upwards would tell us that teaching is fast, and silently, becoming superhuman. Sink or swim learning curves for newly qualified teachers reflect this. It should not be normal that the only way to actually 'cover' the curriculum content, is to leave school, go home and switch the laptop back on, just to get by.
As we progress from the infinite content of early years, through the key stages, every primary subject has now become a specialism. Every teacher went to bed as coordinator, and woke up as a 'leader'. Accountable for staff development, outcomes, assessment, strategic improvement and quality assurance.
Simultaneously, the same teachers are now expected to deliver another nine or ten subjects, each one under the same scrutiny from their peers.
'Senior leaders and people with a responsibility for teaching and learning, will then evaluate their internal evaluations, and quality assure their quality assurances.
Challenges with retention and sustainability bubble.
This will now become the norm.'
Over time, additional initiatives will be added to this curriculum. Phonics and reading will incur additional detail and scrutiny. Personal development will be redefined and regulated. And whilst schools go about their mainstream business, delivering a mainstream offer, the doors will open for any pupil with SEND, regardless of need, lack of expertise, specialist provision or a bespoke curriculum. Teachers will then, for each lesson, start in the middle with their age-related curriculum, and somehow, attempt to make it work for every child.
Pupils who are disadvantaged are woven into this narrative without proper exception. As the curriculum accelerates, they are either at the 'expected standard' or not, even when we know that their standard of living is not at the expected standard. Self-esteem often takes a hit, with the realisation from a young age that life, and school, may not be entirely fair.
After we cram each day with as much as possible, in a world where tea breaks occur on the move using safety-first thermos cups, we then assess the same content, informing young children or families whether or not, they are above or below the norm.
Having put all of this into place, we inspect this. To do this, we ask every school to inspect themselves first, before presenting this in a document, ready to quality assure the head and senior leaders, quality assuring their subject leaders, who subsequently quality assure their colleagues.
'School staff increasingly seek self-care, whilst the framework provides a nod to 'workload'.'
As the children celebrate, with heads full of things that they may never need, they head for high school. A place where it's normal to make the day longer to cover more content. The sheer number of exams and depth increases, whilst we then discuss teacher retention issues, pupil attendance, behaviour and disaffection.
I would have to say that I've met a lot of good, expert inspectors in recent years. When I talk to them, I know that they're being explicitly fair because more often than not, this is their experience too. In my view, whilst we seek to make inspection fit for purpose, it really doesn't matter 'how' we change inspection, until we address 'what' we're inspecting. It's time to stop and rebuild secure foundations. The curriculum review must prioritise quality not quantity, tackling the systematic structure of our offer. Adding more bricks, and having a taller tower, will directly increase risk, reduce effectiveness and compromise sustainability. Less can definitely be more.
If we know exactly 'what' we want the tower to look like in the first place, and we have a vision for the purpose that it can serve, then we can begin to agree about 'how' best to inspect.
The WIN / WIN
It feels like we're in a process of change. That usually means that we have to live with a little uncertainty, in order to reach the right outcome.
#Win
Firstly, the curriculum review is timely. So far it makes fair references to the things that schools are experiencing. This may not feel like any kind of a revolution, but it's good that the challenges are being exposed and are now appearing in black and white. With this in mind, we can hope for a more ethical approach, prioritising quality and overriding this current machine. We really cannot overlook the fact that the curriculum is everything, and so it's right that we start here, seek to guide, and then focus on teacher skillset development.
#Win
Again, consultation regarding inspection is good, as is the work taking place to recruit and train inspectors with the right experience. I have personally seen positive change with the approach to inspections. Some of the recent changes and discussions are interesting. The tone of inspections appears to have changed. Some of the high stakes consequences appear to have been reconsidered, where coasting, closure and safeguarding judgements have previously all created unmanageable stress.
