Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.
Don't forget to look at the how to guide.
Discussion in 'Education news' started by Shedman, Jan 9, 2019.
A nice article on how a school is thinking on moving from 3 years to 2 years @moscowbore
Thanks for that.
The head is fighting for his life. The MAT takeover is now inevitable and the head knows his coat is on a wobbly peg.
My reading of the article is that the school has been gaming the system. Any old course to achieve league table points, getting the non-productive students off the roll ASAP. I am not sure why the head thinks that the OFSTED report is unfair. He does not point to inaccuracies in the report and seems to be saying that he is doing his best.
I have to agree with the report too Moscowbore. Animal care for all students? That is just ridiculous! One thing that was a surpirse was their P8: 0.21; that is a good P8. That will make a lot of schools, who are thinking we have a good P8, OFSTED won't bother us, sit up and panic. I am grateful I am in a school with a 3 Year KS3, least my workload is not going to shoot up
Anyone who has worked in schools for 20 years or more will be very used to this depressing situation. Constant change every 2-3 years (even 1-2 years in recent times) and a lack of any curriculum stability has been the norm for a very long time now.
It’s so demoralising when you’ve redone the department’s SOW’s 6 or 7 times in almost as many years. Even more demoralising is when you are doing this type of work (again & again!) for a revolving variety of random top down reasons. You eventually realise that you, and your department, have repeatedly put in loads of extra hours & effort to facilitate change that is merely the current whim of a zealous SMT member, the latest Ofsted edict, MAT consolidation, or a government minister’s personal ideology.
After years of this pointless carousel you finally realise it was never about what changes were in the best interests of the pupils as you had once naively thought. You realise that your department has a vast collection of redundant SOW gathering dust on office shelves alongside boxes & computer files full of barely used, let alone further developed, written resources & equipment painstakingly prepared to go with the various SOW.
By this time however some up and coming newbie is now in charge of this never ending task. They, and the usually new, SMT line manager or HOD, don’t know, don’t want to know and definitely don’t care about all the wasted hours, money & resources put into the myriad of previous SOW incarnations. They don’t want to build on anything already existing, analyse what worked well or not, recycle any resources that may have taken hours of staff time or have cost a lot of money. No, they just want to, once more, start from scratch using the current curriculum buzz words, ideas, initiatives and budget to reinvent the whole thing again in their own image.
You look on helplessly as the conscientious ones demonstrate the genuine commitment, enthusiasm & work ethic to the latest changes that you once brought to the same tasks every 2nd year or so. You sadly see them believing they are creating something that will last, be built upon, appreciated and, most importantly, beneficial to the pupils over the long term. You sigh realising that was you 15 years ago and then... you gratefully retire.
@Jamvic Never a truer word spoken
The ‘gratefully retire’ bit?
The school my daughter attends has been penalised by OFSTED for running a 3-year GCSE programme. They were explicitly told that their 'requires improvement' was pretty much solely because of it. Very sensibly, the governors voted to ignore OFSTED and continue with what they were doing. Good for them.