Latest Entries »

Published, Edinburgh Evening News, 14th June, 2010

When Is a Curriculum not a Curriculum?

Curriculum for Excellence is the most divisive debate in education in living memory. Its introduction has polarised opinion both in local communities and in education circles.  It has regularly been vilified for its vagueness, for its lack of clarity and for its lack of prescribed content. But, for me, these criticisms miss the point entirely. However, they have come about as a result of expectation: an expectation that teachers will have a prescribed curriculum to deliver. Without this, the security blanket of being told what to teach is removed and this makes even the most able practitioners uncomfortable. So, the biggest mistake of all is that it was named ‘Curriculum’ for Excellence, as it is not a curriculum at all. As well as providing a refreshingly positive methodology, it is a series of outcomes and experiences that all pupils should gain throughout their school years with schools free to develop the content they feel best fits the desired outcome. Whilst that is actually highly desirable, it is also quite a complicated process to introduce, develop and evaluate.

To add further to the confusion, we still have only a limited idea of what the examination system will look like and this makes secondary school teachers extremely nervous. It is simply not good enough to introduce a curriculum, however worthy, if the assessment design is not in place. It is like playing football without goal nets. We still have a lack of quality information regarding syllabi, weighting of marks, length of courses, when pupils will sit examinations and so on and so forth.

Here is one example of the confusion that faces school management teams up and down the country: What is termed third and fourth stage is meant to provide a general and broad education until the end of S3. This being the case, the likely effect is that pupils will actually have a reduced number of examination subjects in S4 as a single year will simply not provide the amount of time required to be presented in 8 subjects (currently the case in S3/S4). So, either schools will present candidates for fewer subjects (narrowing the curriculum) or schools will start preparing pupils from the beginning of S3 (the current situation). Is it any wonder we are confused? Add in to the mix that the Scottish Qualifications Authority in their infinite wisdom has significantly changed the Science syllabi at Higher for the year after next, immediately prior to the changes Learning and Teaching Scotland will announce for the design of the new Higher, and this shows a lack of joined-up thinking that makes Mr. Blobby look like a genius strategist.

In practice, then, primary schools will be doing fabulous work on the new curriculum whilst secondary schools twirl their fingers and await more detail. Parents need to know that teachers, therefore, are not just being ‘dinosaurs’ resistant to change but that they are genuinely concerned about the lack of really important detail.

And yet, there are probably very few teachers indeed who do not believe in the underlying philosophy of CfE. So, all of the criticisms aside, why do I believe in what the new curriculum seeks to do?

Well, it continues to ensure our focus is primarily on helping youngsters to become articulate, literate and numerate but it attempts to go further so that children become better equipped with skills which will allow them to enquire, reflect, problem solve, strategise, analyse and create. It tries to make what children are learning relevant to the world in which they live and, indeed, to a future that we have yet to imagine. It provides context and the opportunity to link learning across the curriculum, not in superficial ways but in meaningful ways.

Further, we need to understand that a national curriculum (and the thinking behind it) is crucial to the development of our young people. These are children who will one day lead their nations and it is therefore essential that they learn in a secure environment, where discipline, self-belief and the value of our fellow human beings is central to the learning process. Without developing an ethos where caring for others or valuing differences in culture or religion is seen as worthy, we create citizens who are intolerant and incapable of perspective. This would be the greatest failure of all. 

 CfE seeks to meet this challenge head on by creating, or at least encouraging, a strong, values-based ethos where children learn in an environment that is thoughtful and mutually supportive.

My fervent belief is that Curriculum for Excellence provides us with the platform for a worthy 21st Century Education and each of us should be applauding it. It is unfortunate, but entirely understandable, that it has not yet galvanized or inspired the profession. Someone, somewhere, really needs to pull their proverbial finger out and engage the profession in a way in which they have thus far failed to do.

The Problem with Risk

Interview Published, The Scotsman, 6th July, 2009

I was born in 1964, so my childhood covered the 60s and 70s. When I think back I am struck by the differences between my era and the world in which children grow up today.

When I was young there were no Play Stations, no X-boxes, no internet, no mobile phones, no hand-held computers, no digital or satellite television, no credit or debit cards; we didn’t even have a remote control for the T.V. or the C.D. player (oh, and of course we didn’t have CDs or DVDs or videos even). In fact, television channels stopped broadcasting at around 11p.m., with BBC1 playing the national anthem.

Indeed, there were only three television stations and children’s programmes were limited to an hour at lunchtime and two hours in the afternoon. Do you remember the shows we waited for in eager anticipation? The list is endless: Trumpton, Camberwick Green, The Flowerpot Men, The Herbs, Hector’s House, Jackanory, Crackerjack, Mr. Benn, Bagpuss, The Double Deckers and my personal favourite, The Banana Splits. And then, as we got a bit older, we watched the delights of The Six Million Dollar Man, Charlie’s Angels, The A-Team, Wonder Woman and The Incredible Hulk. Saturday night was all about Bruce Forsyth’s Generation Game, New Faces, The Price is Right, the Saturday Night Movie followed by news and then Sportscene with Archie MacPherson. We really lived, didn’t we?

And yet, we really DID live because what we lost in not having modern technology and thousands of television channels and endless hours of mind-numbing American kids’ shows, we made up for in our personal freedoms. At only eight or nine years of age I remember a world in which I left my house on Saturdays just as Dickie Davies, with his shock of white hair, was introducing World of Sport. My mum would tell me to be careful when crossing the road and off I’d go. I lived in Prestwick, so my friends and I would gather and run down to the golf course and the beach, exploring local burns, church graveyards, climbing trees, wandering through derelict buildings, shouting at golfers as they addressed the ball on the first tee, and returning home either when it got dark or we got hungry.

Our parents had no way of contacting us, no way of knowing where we might be, and yet trusting our ability to avoid risk and danger. And you know, by and large, we did avoid putting ourselves at risk. Instinctively we knew what to look out for, what to be wary of – we were street-wise and we knew how to keep ourselves safe.

Today, we live in a world that is fearful. Parents have become hugely risk averse, so that their children are exposed to a back garden (under supervision, of course) at best. What really worries me, though, is that children themselves are becoming more and more risk averse. They are surrounded by Play Stations, TVs, computers, the Internet, DVDs, CDs, videos, Music Systems and i-Pods and they communicate with their friends by Instant Messenger and Text Messaging. When faced with the outdoors they often don’t know what to do with it. In my experience, you tell children to go and play in the woods and they are back in ten minutes saying, “We’re bored!”. Indeed, I have myself heard, “What if there’s a bad man in the woods?” How sad that our children have become so fearful. They are now so protected, so surrounded in cotton wool that they are in danger of being unable to assess risk at all. When that happens, and I believe that process has already begun, then our children are in real danger. We risk producing young adults that will be unable to cope with an adult world, either in the workplace or on the street.

So my plea is that each of us is, in some way, responsible for modifying these deep-rooted fears that we all share. We should not place children at unnecessary risk but we must expose them to some risk. Otherwise, we risk their future health and safety and that is something none us want.

Being called a name in the playground, being kicked in the shin, being excluded from a group, being made fun of – all of these experiences have happened to us all but in many ways these experiences, in isolation, help us to be prepared for a world where not everyone is kind to us, to a world that does exclude and to a world that will not allow each of us to get our own way. That is not to excuse these events when they occur and we should not tolerate that kind of behaviour, particularly if it becomes systematic and ongoing. However, there are times that we should allow children to fight their own battles before adults jump in, take over and mediate. If we always fight their battles for them children never learn to overcome problems with others and they become reliant on the adults around them. That is really dangerous – for we risk a nation of individuals who are fragile beings, incapable of tolerance, compassion or empathy.

Risk aversion also leads schools to remove trees from playgrounds and diving boards from swimming pools.

Parents can track teenagers with GPS enhanced mobile phones and monitor their email and phones. Young children have only carefully arranged “play dates” rather than risking emotional or physical bruises that may be incurred in the social labyrinth of one’s neighbourhood.

Do we really have to be so afraid? Is the world more dangerous? Despite the sensational stories in the tabloid media, the answer is probably “no.” Reliable statistics are hard to come by, but the risk of abduction seems to have risen at about the rate of population growth for decades and family members commit the vast majority. Physical harm from various activities seems similarly unchanged, although you might be surprised by some ‘dangerous’ activities. In a ‘Google search’ I found a scholarly article analyzing data related to escalator injuries in the population of under-5 boys. Read it and you will start using the stairs.

Childhood has never been risk free, but if we succumb to our fears our children may end up ill equipped to live successfully in adulthood. Protecting children from the risks of trees, diving boards, escalators, uncomfortable social situations and incomplete homework assignments is almost certain to produce adults with deficits.

When assessing the risks to your child’s long-term well-being perhaps the first place to look is in the mirror.

In conclusion, whilst you may not agree with everything I have written, we adults need to take great care, because in protecting our children we DO risk exposing them to a world less forgiving than our own.

Let’s get back to 1964, where my life began; to a time of freedom, for though there were many things wrong with that era, it was a period of history from which we can also learn.

Published, The Scotsman, 31st May 2010

Am I alone in questioning the importance our Universities attach to the subject of Mathematics? I can understand the need to be numerate, the need to be arithmetically confident and assured, but I am less convinced that we need to aspire to all students achieving success at Maths. I find it incomprehensible that you need Standard Grade Mathematics to study Acting at the University of Central Lancashire, or to study Fashion Design at the University of Glamorgan, Cardiff and Pontypridd.

These examples are not unusual; indeed, you can hardly find a degree course at a British University that does not make Mathematics at Standard Grade an entry requirement. Now, on a personal level, I love Maths and I love teaching Maths but I cannot understand why a student wishing to study drama has to prove competence in ‘the interpretation and use of proportionality between the size of the sector and the angle at the centre of pie-charts’ to be allowed to follow their chosen acting career path.

And perhaps, Maths is not the only subject that needs to be looked at. What about the pupil with a specific language difficulty who fails to achieve Standard Grade English and as a result can then not be considered for a Foundation Degree at the University of Derby in Motorsport Technology. Again, I completely see the need for a level of competence in literacy but I am also heartbroken for those kids who struggle with those required competences but who display a real talent or a real gift for creative or practical subjects.

Our system disenfranchises these young people and discards them from Higher education and it seems to me an entirely illogical way of assessing someone’s ability in their chosen field, particularly when the chosen field is far removed from the enforced entry requirements in English and Maths. Perhaps then there is value in the new Numeracy and Literacy qualifications we are anticipating in the Curriculum for Excellence, but their true value will only be demonstrated if Universities accept these qualifications, thereby opening up Higher education to a wider yet equally deserving audience.

Parents often ask me what the priorities should be within education. I usually remind them of Skinner’s quote, that is to say, ‘Education is what remains after what has been learned has been forgotten’. This quote makes parents, and teachers too, of course, reflect on what the function of a good school truly is.

When we think back to our own school days our memories are of those instances when we found something to be funny, challenging or, at worst, humiliating. Today, I believe, the truly successful school is the one that relishes the first two and creates an ethos where the third is unacceptable.

The basis for a sound education has to be fundamentally founded in the notion that learning should be enjoyable and about more than just the simple accumulation of facts. Education intrinsically develops our spirit, our emotional core. As soon as learning becomes tedious or pressured, children switch off completely or become incredibly anxious about their ability to learn. A good education, then, becomes more than just learning for the sake of knowledge. It becomes empowering and creates choice and independence. Learning should be a journey of joy, wonder and excitement.

The education system is now so reliant on summative assessment (i.e. examinations) that the education we truly want for our children is in danger of being lost altogether. We have come to the stage where if we cannot measure something then it is not worth doing and we are the poorer for it. That is why assessment for learning is a positive move from the Scottish Executive as is the much-maligned Curriculum for Excellence.

As well as my very serious concerns over summative assessment, my other major worry is the blinkered belief that the function of the good school is to teach children everything. Our knowledge-based curriculum is becoming so over-crowded that we are in danger of covering everything but doing nothing particularly well. Again, Head Teachers must stand firm and allow their schools to prioritise. Clearly we need to listen to what parents tell us, as well as being true to our own educational philosophies, to ensure our core aims of ensuring children are literate and numerate are kept at the very top of our agendas.

By de-cluttering the curriculum and by discriminating against continual summative assessment, we free teachers to focus on their own strengths, to take children on voyages of discovery, to allow personal learning and teaching styles to flourish, to remove the pressure that comes from testing and when all of this is allowed to happen, what do you think happens? In the real world, children and teachers begin to truly enjoy the teaching and learning process. We begin again to realize the fundamental need to have fun, to develop a love of learning, to create a nurturing, caring ethos, to support children through their learning without the need for fear or restrictive demands.

We can offer an education system to be proud of and I, for one, am absolutely committed to the new Curriculum for Excellence, as it will allow teachers to develop teaching programmes worthy of the students who sit before them.

We have to provide an education that is valuable to our pupils, not just for today, but also for thirty or forty years hence. We must ensure that our focus is primarily in helping youngsters to become articulate, literate and numerate but as much as these qualities are essential we must go further and ensure that children are being equipped with skills which will allow them to enquire, reflect, problem solve, develop strategies, be analytical and be creative. To do less would be to disadvantage an entire generation. In addition, we need to think of children as future adults. They are people who will one day lead their nations and it is therefore essential that they learn in a secure environment, where discipline, self-belief and the value of our fellow human beings is central to the learning process. Without developing an ethos where caring for others or valuing differences in culture or religion is seen as worthy, we create citizens who are intolerant and incapable of perspective. This would be the greatest failure of all.

Schools must now ensure a strong, values-based ethos where children learn in an environment that is thoughtful and mutually supportive. They must focus on the unquestionable need for literacy and numeracy whilst, at the same time, giving children the breadth and variety of experience that will round them as human beings. We must draw back from the stifling requirements of summative assessment and we must prioritise within our vast knowledge-based curriculum.

Schools develop well when differences are not only tolerated but also welcomed. We live in an age where society, or perhaps government, seeks to ensure ‘consistency’, but in so doing, parameters are inadvertently set that create a ‘one size fits all’ mentality. This is dangerous. We need schools to be different from each other; each offering their own priorities and areas of expertise. Why? Because no one system of schooling works for every individual child – we need to address that fact rather than ceding to the belief that education can only be delivered in one way.

A 21st century education should take children by the hand and show them the wonder of learning, and in so doing, create a generation of people thirsty for knowledge but, more importantly, it should teach us compassion and thereby enable wisdom. To educate properly we need to care less about the storing of facts and more about the lighting of fires, less about league tables and more about wider achievement, less about examination results and more about the citizens we aspire to be, less about conforming to the norm and more about celebrating differences. Scotland could be leading the way and should be leading the way – we just need to have faith in what each and every one of us knows in our heart, that education is far more important than the simple learning and retention of facts.

My fervent belief is that Curriculum for Excellence provides us with the platform for a worthy 21st Century Education and each of us should be applauding it and welcoming it with open arms.

Published, The Scotsman, 27th April, 2010

Curriculum for Excellence has regularly been vilified for its vagueness, for its lack of clarity and for its lack of prescribed content. For me, these criticisms miss the point entirely. However, they have come about as a result of expectation. The biggest mistake of all is that it was named ‘Curriculum for Excellence’ as it is not a curriculum at all. It is a series of outcomes and experiences that all pupils should gain throughout their school years with schools free to develop the content they feel best fits the desired outcome.

To add further to the confusion, we still have no idea what the examination system will look like and this makes secondary school teachers extremely nervous. It is simply not good enough to introduce a curriculum, however worthy, if the assessment design is not in place. It is like playing football without goal nets.

In practice, this will mean Primary schools will be doing fabulous work on the new curriculum whilst secondary schools twirl their fingers and await more detail.

So, these criticisms aside, why do I believe in what the new curriculum seeks to do?

Well, it continues to ensure our focus is primarily in helping youngsters to become articulate, literate and numerate but it attempts to go further so that children become better equipped with skills which will allow them to enquire, reflect, problem solve, strategise, analyse and create. These are children who will one day lead their nations and it is therefore essential that they learn in a secure environment, where discipline, self-belief and the value of our fellow human beings is central to the learning process. Without developing an ethos where caring for others or valuing differences in culture or religion is seen as worthy, we create citizens who are intolerant and incapable of perspective. This would be the greatest failure of all. 

 CfE seeks to create a strong, values-based ethos where children learn in an environment that is thoughtful and mutually supportive.

My fervent belief is that Curriculum for Excellence provides us with the platform for a worthy 21st Century Education and each of us should be applauding it. It is unfortunate, but entirely understandable, that it has not yet galvanized or inspired the profession.

Published, The Scotsman, 9th February, 2010

The announcement of a 40% cut in student teacher places is a crushing indictment of the failure of the people responsible for working out how many teachers are required. Somebody, somewhere is really shockingly poor at basic arithmetic. Correct me if I’m wrong, should the equation not be thus: Write down the number of teachers who are due to reach their retirement age, add the average number of teachers who leave the service annually, factor in known demographic changes, and work out the number of teachers you will therefore require in the coming academic year. You would think that we might have got the hang of this by now. Indeed, a great deal of time and effort does go into these calculations and yet they appear, almost always, to be reactive. Too many teachers qualified in the last two years so the powers that be now cut student teacher places by a staggering 40% (and higher in some parts of the country). The reality is that in 2014, as a direct result of this announced cut, The Scotsman will be reporting on the fact that there is a chronic shortage of qualified teachers.

A recently qualified teacher had previously covered a class in my school on a short-term basis and proved herself to be exceptionally good. On my recent request to her to return for further supply days, she apologised and informed me that she was unavailable because she had taken up a full-time, permanent post at a bank. How sad that having spent 4 years in training, followed by a Probationer placement for a year, that this young teacher has been forced into alternative employment because there was simply not enough work.

If you are going to allow young people to spend 5 years of their lives qualifying for a really worthy and important profession should you not be a little more rigorous in  working out the number of teachers your country actually requires. It is simply not good enough to be getting this so wrong, so often. My Head’s report would read: Must do better; numeracy a real weakness…

Published, The Scotsman, 24 April 2010

Quite often the very subject of independent education is met with a vitriolic reaction where individuals denigrate the system as being plagued by elitism, inequality and restricted access. The debate is particularly vicious in Scotland where political persuasion often influences personal views regarding equality within society.

For once, I feel I can speak with a little authority on this matter, as I was educated in both sectors and have taught in both sectors and the idea that private schools are populated by the children of the wealthy is an absolute myth. In many families (my own included) both parents work full-time and go without in order to meet the fees.

Furthermore, financial assistance is now available and is often based entirely on financial need. Regardless of income, the sector has become more accessible than it has ever been, with some schools offering free places for those with the most limited of financial means. What this means in practice is that ‘private’ schools contain a healthy mix of parents from a wide range of social and cultural backgrounds.

For some parents the best education on offer will mean a maintained school in their local community; for others, it will mean an independent school, chosen for a huge variety of reasons and often not linked to the notion of academic excellence.

I, for one, am not interested in whether my school community is made up of wealthy individuals or “intelligent” children. What I am interested in is having parents who are seeking the best for their children, who are committed to the values of a traditional Scottish education and who make an informed choice about the quality of my school and what it has to offer.

The cynical amongst us will point to the Charities’ Law as being directly responsible for the independent sector opening its doors that little bit wider but, whatever the motive, that is now immaterial. The fact is that if you wish your child to be independently educated, the ability to pay is no longer the central issue and regardless of your political persuasion this should be welcomed.

Interview Published, The Scotsman, 13 January, 2010, and in ‘Independent Schools Magazine’ , July 2010

I get the feeling that we do not ask ourselves this question often enough. What is the purpose of a school? What is it actually for? If you follow our current thinking it would appear that it is fundamentally founded on the belief that schools are doing well if their pupils achieve a set of excellent examination results. The logical conclusion, therefore, is that, above all, we should ensure our pupils’ heads are filled with the required knowledge to allow them to pass a series of examinations. Oh dear, oh dear…

At the moment, our secondary education system is a protracted application process for tertiary education and we are the poorer for it. I have met many people with first class honours degrees who are, in my opinion, eminently unemployable and many people who leave school at sixteen with few qualifications who are hugely successful and eminently employable. Now we must not see these cases as the rule, but they are not merely a small number of ‘exceptions’ to that rule.

Education is being damaged by the need to jump through academic hoops that actually curtail an individual’s imagination and, in many ways, damage their originality of thought. Universities now complain that students arrive lacking fundamental skills. In my opinion, they arrive lacking these skills because of our need to assess learning in a very uncreative manner. This is the current process: teach the content of the curriculum, learn the content of the curriculum, regurgitate the content of the curriculum under examination conditions and do this well to receive an A grade. My contention is that this approach is fundamentally flawed and actually quite dangerous.

The independent sector does not get away scot-free from these criticisms. Too often we spoon-feed our students to the extent that we take away their capacity to ‘think’ and, indeed, to think outside the box. Too many of our pupils enter University without the tools to achieve success in a less structured and less formal environment. We need to do more to prepare our pupils for the realities of life in the real world. More work experience placements, more work with disadvantaged sections of society, more hands-on, practical application of knowledge, more freedom to make mistakes and a greater sense of responsibility and independence.

Our students need to start being allowed to develop their creativity and their critical thinking. We need to look at the education systems of other countries and learn from their successes. Scandinavian countries, in particular Finland, have been out-performing us for more than a decade. If you look at their systems of public education, you see one vital component which is different to our own. Examinations or tests, of any kind, do not kick in before the age of 16. This means that education from 6-15 is allowed to develop without the worry of “passing the tests”.

Universities should not be allowed to wag the dog (i.e. our schools). We should leave it up to individual Universities to work out how they attract potential students and how they assess them. Schools should concentrate on educating their pupils rather than schooling them. We need a period of ‘educational enlightenment’ in the United Kingdom, driven by ensuring our young people have skills and knowledge, not knowledge alone. It is my contention that if we worry less about league tables and more about individual development, then we can become a nation of invention and industry once again. Currently, we are not achieving those dreams and those aspirations and I, for one, am fed up with the notion that a good education equals a series of As in examinations. Why? Because it just isn’t so.

So, what is a good education? Well, it should be about developing individuals into people who are tolerant, cultured, have high self-esteem but with humility at their core, who have a set of skills that allow them to create, problem-solve, analyse, reflect and consider. This is not ‘pie in the sky’. This is absolutely achievable for all of Britain’s children, but we need to radically alter our view of what education is actually for and we need to do it now.

Interview Published, The Scotsman, 7th May 2010

Mike Russell, Cabinet Secretary for Education, has been on a fact-finding mission to view the Swedish model of education, following Don Ledingham’s superb attempts at bringing more localised powers to the schools of East Lothian.

However, Mr. Russell was even better employed by looking at Finland’s education system which, unlike Sweden’s, has been ranked top of the OECD’s PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) rankings for the last decade.

So what might Scotland learn from Finland? Well, children do not begin formal education until the age of 7 and they stay in one school for a period of nine years which culminates in all students at aged 15 being awarded a completion certificate. At this point those students who are more academic can continue in their studies and others can take vocational qualifications. Once a student has embarked on either of these two routes they can still opt for the alternative route at a later point.

Remarkably, there is no Inspection system and, indeed, very little accountability anywhere in the system. Schools operate on the basis of trust. There is no national curriculum, each school creates its own and in addition there is no external awards system until you follow the senior academic phase at age 17.

Finland also teaches children for fewer hours than any other OECD country. In fact their pupils end up with the equivalent of three and a half years less tuition than their Italian counterparts.

One significant factor in Finland is that teacher education programmes are one of the most difficult degree courses to be accepted into. Only 900 students per year join the programme out of 6000 applicants and 24% of Finland’s students place teaching at the top of their ‘most wanted’ professions.

So here we have a country whose assessment results place it at the top of the world’s education league, where teachers are trusted and highly qualified, and where a massive 57% of the adult population are participating in some form of educational course.

Why would any country not want to look very closely at Finland and try to see which factors are making the difference? Scotland’s education system, once the envy of the world, continues to complacently rest on its laurels. It is now time to stop scoffing at other nations and to be willing to learn from and to listen to others who are doing better.

Published: The Scotsman, 22 January, 2010

The first a school knows of a forthcoming inspection is when a large white box arrives by courier with labels taped all around it adorned with the letters HMIe (Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education). There is no mistaking what you are about to open, what the contents will be and what the impact will be on your school’s community.

In November 2006, such a box arrived in my school’s reception and my stomach quite literally turned over – indeed, it did several rotations. I felt the blood draining from my face and I sat in my office (with a ‘do not disturb’ sign hanging on the door) whilst I contemplated how to break the news to my staff, pupils, parents, Board of Governors and my wife!

The first thoughts that spring to mind are ‘damage limitation’ because every Head knows that no teacher and by definition no school really wants to be ‘inspected’, judged and reported upon with a published report available to all. It is human nature to immediately assume that you are going to do badly, that the newspaper headlines will read “Independent School Fails Inspection Spectacularly”, that you are going to end up publicly humiliated and on a jobseeker’s allowance.

The widely reported and tragic suicide of Irene Hogg highlights the significant worries that perpetuate throughout school staffrooms and management teams when an inspection is announced, the period of frantic preparation prior to their arrival, the week of inspection and the long wait for the publication and public digestion of the final inspection report.

However, all of my fears were hugely unfounded. Of course, it is uncomfortable to be scrutinised and there are some drawbacks to be being judged over such a short period of time once every seven years, but those issues aside, I actually enjoyed the process immensely. I found the inspection team to be approachable, supportive, caring, keen to advise, keen to listen and above all they gave me the opportunity to evaluate their performance and allowed me to counter any of their critical findings by using my own evidence to support my school.

The final report described their experiences over the course of the week, but also contained the school’s evaluations and these permeated the published inspection report.

HMIe come in for considerable and often unwarranted criticism because their attendance is largely unwelcome and stressful but the process allowed my school to take a long hard look at itself and in doing so, we improved. If the process improves the education of Scotland’s children then it is necessary. However, we do have to ensure that the process becomes less stressful whilst maintaining the necessary rigour. The new inspection model, recently introduced, has, in many ways, sought to remove the stress and allow schools a greater input into the final report. This is to be welcomed.

Powered by WordPress | Theme: Motion by 85ideas.