“The system isn’t working as intended”
Nick Brook – deputy general secretary at the NAHT
What is your chief aim with this accountability commission?
We’ll be meeting five times between now and July to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the current accountability system, before moving on to consider alternative models of accountability. We want to hear from NAHT members and anyone else who has an interest and view to contribute, because the more people we have contributing, the stronger the final recommendations of this accountability commission will be.
We’ve pulled together some of the sector’s leading educationalists and experts [including Ross Morrison McGill], and also have support from NFER and other respected education research bodies, who will be providing us with a review of evidence based on an international comparisons, so we can understand what other countries are doing in relation to accountability.
The overall intent is to produce proposals for an alternative vision. We’ll be announcing interim findings in July and publishing a report in September. I really hope we can be radical in our thinking about where we want to be.
How does this follow on from the ‘Redressing the Balance’ report you produced last year?
That report highlighted how too much emphasis has been placed on assessment for statutory purposes, and that we need to focus more on assessment for the purposes of teaching and learning.
The fairest way of holding schools to account is on the basis of the progress pupils make during school. You need an assessment when pupils start, and another at the end. One of the recommendations we therefore made was to make KS1 SATs non-statutory once a reception baseline has been introduced. We want government to go further, however, and also remove the other checks and tests that have been, and are planned to be introduced, so that between reception and Y6, teachers can get on with the job of teaching.
Are there any developments since then that have reassured or concerned you?
The government published its own consultation on primary assessment immediately afterwards, in which they proposed to remove KS1 SATs, which gave us cause for optimism. Of late, however, we’ve been public in our opposition to the introduction of a multiplication test in Y4. Our view is that children learn their multiplication tables already, and that it’s part of the national curriculum in every school. It just seems like an unnecessary national test that won’t tell teachers or parents anything they don’t already know.
Do you foresee having to overcome any particular obstacles once your alternative vision for accountability has been formulated?
I’m optimistic. Everyone I’ve spoken to has acknowledged that the system isn’t working as intended, but what I’ve found is that there’s an absence of vision as to how the system needs to evolve.
I believe we shouldn’t wait for the government to come up with solutions. This is a great opportunity for the profession to take ownership over the issue and come up with proposals for a future that we want to work in, rather than letting someone else do that for us. The present accountability system has contributed significantly to driving up workload, pressure and stress within the profession, which is encouraging people to leave. The onus is on us to come up with ways of addressing the issues we’re currently experiencing.
“There’s little incentive for schools to work together”
Ross Morrison McGill – teacher, author, speaker and director of TeacherToolkit
What failing in the current system of schools accountability needs addressing most urgently?
Many teachers are put off teaching in schools serving challenging communities because they simply don’t believe they’ll be treated fairly by the accountability system. That can’t be right.
Regardless of school context, it appears that every teacher is now having to evidence everything they’ve taught throughout the year, on the off-chance that a person visiting their classroom looks favourably on what’s seen, versus the reams of evidence available on demand.
Over-reliance on performance tables as a proxy for school effectiveness has introduced a multitude of perverse incentives into the system, which together get in the way of delivering excellent education for all pupils. There has undoubtedly been a narrowing of the curriculum across both primary and secondary schools towards what’s tested, and a shift to teaching to the test, not the syllabus. There’s little incentive for schools to work together for the common good of pupils in their communities.
If schools are measured by league tables and EBacc compliance, schools will simply ‘jump hoops’ rather than do what they believe is best for their pupils and teachers. An EBacc curriculum simply determines what a school will prioritise in their curriculum, sometimes in opposition to the needs of students.
In your experience, have you found the Ofsted inspection process to be a fair and workable one?
There appears to be too much variability in the quality of inspection and validity of judgements. There’s undeniably both good and bad practice out there, but with the stakes so high for schools, we need greater confidence that the judgements reached are fair, and not dependent upon the competence or confidence of the inspection team.
I’ve experienced nine school inspections under various frameworks, and although the last two have been in a more ‘open’ manner, the process is still largely driven by a set of results achieved by a small group of pupils representing a fifth of the whole school population. I’d like to see the lead inspector held to account for their decisions, particularly when schools require improvement, and be tasked with supporting a school through various actions and milestones.
Can you cite any examples where the current system of accountability has served you and your colleagues well?
Inspection can be a positive catalyst for change, and I’ve known school leaders who have very much welcomed that independent assessment of strengths and weaknesses. Equally, I’ve heard of examples where a poor overall judgement has made the task of improving the school near impossible, as school leaders struggle to attract new staff and retain the talent they already have on the back of a damning report.
An inaccurate Ofsted outcome can lead to an unnecessary turnover of staff, and worse, unfair dismissal. Research by UCL suggests a 4% turnover versus 0% for schools judged Outstanding. If we overhaul the four possible outcomes to ‘Good’ and ‘Not Yet Good’ we could probably save the taxpayer millions, and reduce what I believe is a growing retention crisis.
