"Less is More"
Geoff Barton
Click here for a print version of this article.
Another autumn term. Should we be feeling optimistic about where we are in the New Labour trajectory of education? After more than a decade are its ideals battered but still intact? Or should we be feeling hemmed in by a government that some say has lost momentum and seems to be thrashing about aimlessly for new ideas?
In truth, probably neither.
One of the great things about schools is that whilst they might be microcosms of society, they’re also tiny enclosed universes in which their own laws of science prevail. If we’re honest, we can usually work in them on a day-to-day basis without feeling too often the chill wind of another Whitehall wacky-wheeze or the tremor of another policy juggernaut.
Schools, especially at the start of a glossy new school year, convey an infectious optimism unlike any other institution we could choose to work in. This doesn’t always last long, but it’s usually there at the start of the year. Perhaps it’s childhood that does it – that sense, if we look beneath even our most sullen students, of readiness for laughter, seeing the world differently, and a desire (however hidden) to be successful.
It’s what all schools – however Ofsted characterizes them – usually manage to capture for much of the time, the optimism of young people and, with it, the passion and commitment of the adults who want to help them to learn and develop.
The problem, of course, is that this in itself isn’t quite enough. Lots of purposeful happiness in our schools won’t ever suffice. Society rightly wants youngsters with a range of specific skills and qualities and looks to its schools to develop them. And that’s only a step away from too easily criticizing schools for issues which are frankly beyond our control and are the wider responsibility of parents, carers and communities.
Schools, in other words, have huge expectations attached to them – but are also a convenient source for blame.
The boundaries between accountability and scapegoating can sometimes seem perilously blurred, as in the past year’s announcement of the National Challenge initiative – an arbitrary policy which effectively named and shamed schools which had achieved below 30% 5A*-C including English and Maths.
This measure, designed theoretically to target support to schools in challenging circumstances, instead came across as a petty and vindictive outburst which took no account of a school’s often fragile reputation, community perception, progress or local retention and recruitment issues. One of the National Challenge schools near to us suddenly found its local primary school saying it didn’t want to come to the shared sports day any more. It was fearful of being ‘tainted’ by the bad publicity the school had received.
This highlights one of the most striking features of our system of accountability – the sledgehammer emphasis on targets.
And here at the start of the autumn term 2008 the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) have announced another battery of statistical measures – nine more, in fact. That brings the various comparators in the annual school performance tables to 44.
There are measures for the proportion of pupils achieving expected levels at KS2 and 3, the number achieving level 7 at KS3, the proportion studying languages at KS4, a value-added measure for sixth form progress, as well as old favourites such as year-on-year comparisons, average point scores and absence rates.
In fact in the January 2009 performance tables parents will be spoilt for choice – no fewer that 10 ways of ranking schools at KS2, 13 at KS3, 16 at KS4 and five at KS5.
It’s hard to argue that this gives any meaningful choice to parents or helps them to make an informed judgement about a school’s qualities. Nor does such a plethora of targets and statistics help schools to focus on the things that matter. If we know anything in schools it’s that “less is more”, that keeping things simple - rules, routines, expectations, assembly messages – usually helps.
It’s as if I were to enter a cookery competition and ask what I’ll be judged on – whether it’s taste, presentation or technical skill?
“It’s rather more complicated than that,” the judge says: “we want to see that you’re using quality ingredients, that products are locally sourced, that organic items feature, that the equipment has been thoroughly sterilized, that you’re making reference to classic French cooking but bringing it to life in a contemporary English way, that thought has gone into menu planning, that there’s a balance of freshness, acidity and ‘umami’, that the final dish is healthy and nutritious …” and so on.
I think I’d probably stomp off to McDonald’s.
So by all means let the DCSF’s basement army of statisticians use all the data they want to make as many comparisons, connections and draw as many conclusions as they want. That’s their job. But brandishing a clutch of new targets menacingly – “here are more ways in which you’re going to be held to account” – really doesn’t help anyone and in fact ends up diffusing our focus in schools.
So let’s be bold. Let’s make it a “less is more” start to the year, focusing on what we know matters – providing a rich and varied range of structured experiences for the young people in our care; giving them opportunities irrespective of social class and background; setting higher expectations than they or their parents may have; ensuring that they master the basics; developing an independent passion for learning.
In the process we shall bring on a future generation of young citizens ready to take their place in a world that’s going to need all the skills and qualities they can muster.
Geoff Barton is a NET Leading Thinker
|
