Teacher Performance

Having read Stephen Ball’s article ‘The Teacher’s Soul and the Terrors of Perfomativity‘ it is surprising to read that so many professionals are against the change in the sector. This reform is not being driven from within the industry, but from politicians. Education is a public sector industry, funded by public tax money so there should be a case for teacher related pay. Parents see their tax money going into many different areas of the public sector but the most noticeable for them on a day to day basis will be their child’s education, so if they aren’t getting value for money then who should be held accountable but their child’s teacher. In private sector industries, if an employee isn’t bringing in the results expected of them then questions will be asked, so why isn’t this the same in the private sector?

Recently in local news, there has been stories of a a small number of teachers going on strike due to performance related pay. I would question who this actually benefits as it will be the pupils missing out on days of quality and essential learning when a teachers responsibility should be pupil welfare.

Teacher performance is largely based on test results, which has created the test culture of our education system where Jon Berry questions whether we are actually teaching our pupils or are we just training them to pass exams. However, I fail to see how else you can track the effectiveness of learning without testing. David Bell states that teachers should be given the freedom on the front line to teach how they see fit backed by an independent advisory body, as OFSTED is seen as an organisation whose whole tone and approach was, and remains, punitive and unsympathetic to teachers.

It seems as though education is now starting to be seen more like business as everything is related back to being ‘cost effective’. The introduction of performativity requires individual practitioners to organise themselves as a response to targets, indicators, and evaluations. For some, this is an opportunity to achieve success, while for others it provotes inner conflicts, in-authenticity and resistance.

Education ministers argue that performance-related pay rewards good teachers, makes the profession more attractive to good-quality graduates and raises standards of student achievement. However, the NUT strongly reject performativity, arguing that there is strictly no evidence to support that it improves pupil attainment while it does encourage teachers to work in isolation, rather than pooling their expertise.

Ball’s article raises excellent points on both sides of the argument for this reform. Arguments for the reform are coming from government ministers and large business’ who have financial interests in schools (academies) and this is understandable as they are looking for a good return on their investment. However, with all the research supporting the case that performativity offers no benefit in any education system in the world, then it is important to allow teachers to continue with the excellent job they already do in the classroom every single day.

Educational Approaches

While researching both the Michaela school in Wembley and the Sands school in Devon, it is pleasant to see how our country can develop and promote varying approaches to a successful educational model. The school that instantly appealed to me was the Michaela school, there seemed to be a mutual respect for pupils and teachers surrounded by an environment that promotes good manners and self discipline.

The Michaela school’s ethos is based around having high standards and expecting high standards from their pupils. It is interesting that when reading their website, the vision and thinking behind the schools methods is all based upon exceptional behaviour and appearance being at the forefront of the schools mission while pupil learning seems to take a back seat. The headmistress defends her approaches as developing the pupils into well rounded human-beings but allowing the ‘children to be children.’ How do they achieve this with a longer school day and demanding the children complete an hour and a half of homework every evening? The school is certainly a good base to prepare children for adult life but school should be a place to learn academic skills and the life skills being instilled on them at the school should be left to parents. The video below shows how the Headmistress came to have these ideologies of the school and why she is implementing them.

The school would be very appealing to teachers as there appears to be little disruption in lessons and allows the teacher to get on and just teach. However, it would be interesting to see what the teacher-pupil relationship is like and what learning actually takes place during lessons. Everything just seems very regimented and although the website would like to deliver the message of having the pupils best interests at heart, I doubt that it does.

The Sands school approach is much the opposite.It places an emphasis on pupils taking ownership and responsibility of their own learning. This starts with pupils selecting their own subjects to study and lessons aren’t even compulsory. However, the school is privately funded by parents so there may be extra pressure at home to attend lessons which they are paying for.  Teachers focus on building positive and nurturing relationships with their pupils to promote a very healthy learning environment. In result, it seems that Sands is more of a learning community than a traditional school, where the direction of the school is given to the staff and the pupils as there is no headteacher or senior leadership team. This is based on allowing the pupils to make choices and let them deal with the consequences.

Teaching in the Sands school would benefit those who enjoy building positive relationships with young people. It appears to be a very laid back approach with small class sizes to benefit pupil progress and with a recent OFSTED inspection (2016) grading of ‘Good’ then this approach is certainly an effective one.

I wouldn’t pick a school that I thought was the best, each offers their own pro’s and con’s. Neither are appealing to me as a working environment and I wouldn’t choose to send my children to either of them. However, I would like to see a school that could blend the positives of each to make a school that works for all.

 

Grammar Schools

Recently, in September 2016, the government published a green paper proposing the re-introduction of selective Grammar schools. This was proposed under the headline ‘Schools that work for everyone.’ Theresa May‘s plans are based around an idea of giving poorer families the same chance of a quality education that previously has only been perceived to have been given to wealthier families. Mrs May based the background of her vision on recent events in Britain (Brexit vote) as she expressed it as the public rejecting ‘normal’ politics and voicing a need for change. She sees this change as giving all children the chance to have a world class education no matter what their background and no based on where they live.

However, this was met with some resistance. Sam Freedman argues that grammar schools are not generating an education for everyone, but are socially divisive. Over the past 6 years the government has been forming an education system for all by introducing the Ebacc, which places a focus on pupils taking more traditional subjects at GCSE level. Freedman also draws comparison to education systems worldwide and states that the most successful systems (Korea, Finland and Canada) only offer strictly comprehensive systems. Freedman also highlights the tests needed to access a grammar school education. Placing such pressure on a primary aged pupils to pass a test that can alter the course of their education can have detrimental effects in the future. Pupils could pass the test but there still may not be enough school places to offer at a grammar school, so placing them in standard comprehensive may lead them to think they are not good enough and will miss out on a better education.

Sir Michael Walshaw also draws upon his personal experiences that schools should be raising school standards. Obviously schools that have a selective intake will fair better than their non-selective counterparts but this isn’t offering a fair, inclusive education for all. He states that the way forward for education is to continue with the improvements that are already in progress, which is backed by Oxford university taking it’s highest percentage of pupils from state schools and that this isn’t the time to be shaking up the education system.

Angela Rayner argues Mrs May’s point that grammar schools give people more of a choice, but are instead an anti-choice as it becomes more about the grammar schools selecting their pupils. She argues that grammar schools are adding a ‘concrete roof’ to a child’s ambition and that every child should have the right to access an education and make a contribution to this country once they have left education.

The Labour party strongly oppose the creation of grammar schools stating instead of improving equality, they make it worse. While the conservative party’s support for them is getting stronger while the Liberal Democrats seem to be sitting on the fence.

There are interesting arguments on both sides but the centre of the argument should be what’s best for the pupils and their education as this will improve our country in the future.