I
recently posted about how the new Teacher’s Standards are open to manipulation,
(New Teacher’s Standards – how they can be manipulated) and I’ve looked at the Ofsted
grade descriptors here in a similar light. Over the next few weeks I’m going to
go through the generic aspects of the documents found at the link at the bottom
of this post, and show you exactly how they can be manipulated to serve
someone’s personal agenda, starting this week with the grade descriptors for
achievement. There’s quite a bit to get through so I’ll just get onto it.
1.
Grade
Descriptors: achievement of pupils
Outstanding: Almost all pupils, including, where applicable,
disabled pupils and those with special educational needs, are making rapid and
sustained progress in the subject over time given their starting points.
Good: Pupils are making better progress than all pupils
nationally in the subject given their starting points. Groups of pupils,
including disabled pupils and those with special educational needs, are also
making better progress than similar groups of pupils nationally.
Satisfactory: Pupils are progressing at least as well in the subject
as all pupils nationally given their starting points. Groups of pupils,
including disabled pupils and those with special educational needs, are also
making progress in line with similar groups of pupils nationally.
Inadequate: Pupils’ learning and progress, or the learning and
progress of particular groups, is consistently below those of all pupils
nationally given their starting point. Learning and progress in any key stage,
including the sixth form, lead to underachievement. The learning, quality of
work and progress of disabled pupils and those with special educational needs
show that this group is underachieving.
To
me, this is completely illogical. It’s well known that satisfactory is
officially no longer satisfactory any more, and that’s been the case
unofficially for a while. Here, in order to be satisfactory, your students need
to be doing as well as ‘all pupils nationally’. So, in order to be good, which
is where you need to be to avoid being in trouble, then your students need to
be making better progress than average.
So
all the teachers are expected to be good, and have students above average,
which makes above average the new average, which causes teachers to have to
raise their game again in order to achieve good and so on and so on… It’s just
not possible for all teachers to achieve the required grade of good, and they
are therefore being set up to fail.
Outstanding: They learn exceptionally well and as a result acquire
knowledge quickly and in depth, including in the sixth form and areas of
learning in the Early Years Foundation Stage.
Good: Pupils acquire knowledge quickly and are secure in
their understanding of the subject.
Satisfactory: Pupils generally learn well in the subject, with no
major weaknesses.
In
this particular section, there is far too much leeway in terms of
interpretation. In particular the phrase ‘pupils generally learn well’ is so
open to individual manipulation: can you really form evidence for grading something
as inadequate on the basis that there was a general lack of not learning very
well? Anyone could say that about anything.
Also,
I think the emphasis on ‘acquiring knowledge quickly’ presumes that all
students have the ability to do this. A teacher with a class full of slow
learners cannot achieve the ‘good’ grade that is required of them, and may even
have been given such a class on purpose.
Outstanding: They develop and apply a wide range of skills to great
effect, including reading, writing, communication and mathematical skills that
will ensure they are exceptionally well prepared for the next stage in their
education, training or employment.
Good: They develop and apply a range of skills well,
including reading, writing, communication and mathematical skills that will
ensure they are well prepared for the next stage in their education, training
or employment.
Satisfactory: They acquire the knowledge, understanding and skills,
including those in reading, writing, communication and mathematics that will
ensure they are prepared adequately for the next stage in their education,
training or employment.
Inadequate: Pupils’ communication skills, including in reading and
writing and proficiency in mathematics overall, or those of particular groups,
are not sufficient for the next stage of education or training.
I
acknowledge that requiring students to be ready for the next stage in their
education is nice and specific, which is exactly what is needed to avoid
manipulation. Here you could argue against an observer who is trying to grade
you as inadequate when you are not by showing results and requirements of
possible progression routes. That’s exactly what the entirety of these grade
descriptors should consist of.
However,
developing ‘a wide range of skills to great effect’ is possible to be graded on
tacit evidence only. You could argue that it is my opinion that they did not
develop them to great effect (outstanding), they only acquired them
(satisfactory). It’s possible another person might have a completely different
opinion. How can you prove one or the other?
Outstanding: The standards of attainment of almost all groups of
pupils are likely to be at least in line with national averages for all pupils
with many above average. In exceptional circumstances, where standards of
attainment of any group of pupils are below those of all pupils nationally, the
gap is closing dramatically over a period of time.
Good: The standards of attainment of the large majority of
groups of pupils are likely to be at least in line with national averages for
all pupils. Where standards of any group of pupils are below those of all
pupils nationally, the gaps are closing. In exceptional circumstances, where
attainment is low overall, it is improving at a faster rate than nationally
over a sustained period.
Satisfactory: The standards of attainment of the majority of groups
of pupils are likely to be in line with national averages for all pupils. Where
standards of groups of pupils are below those of all pupils nationally, the
gaps are closing overall. In exceptional circumstances, where attainment is low
overall, it is improving over a sustained period.
Inadequate: Attainment is consistently low showing little, fragile
or inconsistent improvement, or is in decline. There are wide gaps in
attainment and in learning and progress between different groups of pupils and
of all pupils nationally that are showing little sign of closing or are
widening.
Here
the grades are skewed in comparison to the first section. There, in order to be
good you had to have students that were above average. Yet this section
requires them to be average in order to achieve good. Which one is it? I showed
that the first one was a logical impossibility, so this one is much more
likely. But which one will your observer decide to judge you against? It’s up
to them entirely.
I
also find the requirement of bringing below average students up to scratch odd.
So that if you have a less able class, you need to work even harder to ‘close
the gaps’ between them and an average student in order to reach the required
standard of good. They are required to improve at a faster than average rate in
order to achieve good as well, leaving us in that loophole again of needing to
be better than average to achieve good, where all teachers are required to be
good, which then makes that above average standard the average…
If
you want to read the full Ofsted grade descriptors they can be found at this
link.
Can
you see any other problems with the above grading criteria that you’d like to
share? Do you feel like you’ve been assessed under these descriptors and had
your result manipulated downwards? Please comment below.
0 comments:
Post a Comment