A few people have asked me to get round to writing something about the experience of having an Ofsted inspection earlier in the term. There's a kindly-written post about this on the blog, too.
I guess I have been waiting to clarify my thoughts about this.
It hasn't happened.
So, here are my thoughts for the moment.
Firstly I wonder about the role of self-policing in all this. Is the self-generated fear, obsession with detail and making the place perform at its best even worse than what Ofsted actually want? I think perhaps it is. As it happens, Ofsted came round in the middle of lots of building work and other stuff going on and there simply was not the time to rehearse the usual performances. I felt hugely supported by the senior staff and just as much by the whole staff team. I think we were pretty confident and also pretty straight with the inspectors. I had tried a few slightly cheeky lines in our Self Evaluation Form (SEF) too - somewhere it says that we are not "trying to get a good Ofsted", for example.
Perhaps I was lucky - but the inspectors who came were both knowledgeable, and also perceptive. I was asked a lot of difficult questions and I found it a tough day. Equally I learnt a fair bit and I felt they respected the work we are trying to do. In some respects, they commented that we were trying to do too much and ought to rely more on our professional judgment than trying to keep up with everything.
So, with reference to the notion of "performativity" - I didn't find the whole thing excessive, and I did find that the inspectors were willing to accept my/our own judgments of how we were doing as long as they were sensibly put forward and supported by critical thinking or evidence.
So far the discussion is perhaps too focused on things the individual nature of the HMI and second inspector who came, rather than the system.
What I don't like about the system, is its intolerance of dialogue and critical reflection. In the act of Ofsted saying - this is a good school...this is an outstanding school...this is a failing school... - the statement actually becomes the state of reality. A school said to be outstanding, is outstanding.
I've been looking back over the files at work, all the way back to the days of the Inner London Education Authority (ILEA) and their inspection visits. (Which reminds me, that I wish I were as good at filing and organising materials as my predecessors were. A small apology to the future.)
The reports on these visits are letters, to the headteacher and the staff. They are not just well written, without any of the cut-and-paste jargon Ofsted use. They are also written as if there is a dialogue going on. I do think you might consider....I know you are thinking about....This is something we all need to consider more...
It was a pleasure to read those phrases.
I think that the terror of Ofsted is not to be counted simply in the stress leading up to the visit, and whilst they are there. Really the "terror" is that what they say, comes to be. What I would like to see, is an inspection process that is carried out and written up as a professional dialogue involving staff and the inspectors, also including the views of the local mothers and fathers whose children attend the school.
At the moment, one party to the conversation simply terminates all discussion by making an absolute judgment.
By "performativity" I am thinking about Stephen Ball's use of the term.
I am also interested in the earlier use of the term by Jean-François Lyotard and the notion of it being an act of "terror" for the game of conversation to be terminated. "By terror I mean the efficiency gained by eliminating, or threatening to eliminate, a player from the langauge game one shares with him. He is silenced or consents, not because he has been refuted, but because his ability to participate has been threatened (there are many ways to prevent someone from playing)" - La Condition postmoderne: Rapport sur le savoir (The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge) (1979),p63-64
Sunday, 9 December 2007
Early childhood education and care: some of this week's news
Open Eye and the Early Years Foundation Stage
Anyway this week has become pretty interesting because of the letter to the Times Educational Supplement about the Early Years Foundation Stage and the decision to set up a group called Open Eye to monitor it.
I've written a fair bit before criticising the EYFS - on the grounds of its content and organisation, the time it will use up in nursery settings of all varieties, and the amount of money it has cost to devise (and that's before you count up the costs of printing and distributing the thing).
But I think that now the EYFS has been legislated for, and is out there, the best way to serve the interests of young children is to work on the practice in implementing the EYFS. Like all changes, the EYFS could do a lot of harm, but equally it has the potential to free lots of things up - it makes it easier to think holistically about children's learning and their care, and it specifically supports play-based approaches to learning.
Whilst I am not in favour of the goals for reading and writing, these are not actually any worse than what was in place before in the previous Foundation Stage. There is a difference between being opposed to formal literacy teaching too soon (count me in) and objecting to it only when the method changes from one you like (i.e the "searchlights" model in the previous Literacy Strategy starting in Reception) to one you don't (synthetic phonics, as outlined in the Rose Review and in the new Literacy Strategy).
When a group of people get together like this after the curriculum has been finished, to protest against it - doesn't it make you wonder what is going on? Where were they 12 months ago when it was up for consultation?
So, at the risk of sounding rather conservative about this, I will stick to my current position - playing whatever part I can to shape intelligent implementation of the EYFS. The debate about whether we should have it, or not, belongs to the past.
Nursery places for two year olds
The Guardian led on Saturday with plans to announce the extension of the pilot to provide free places for 2 year olds living in poor neighbourhoods.
There is a lot to be said about this plan, in its favour. I know from my own professional experience that allowing families to access nursery education and childcare for their children from 2 years old can be hugely beneficial. Why reserve it only for those who can pay? As a children's centre head, I've found that not only do the children really benefit, but it also becomes possible to develop good relationships with the parents and get them involved in other Children's Centre services - which again can easily get taken up by those more affluent mothers and fathers who are better at scanning the menu of services on offer and picking out what they want a la carte. My view is that we want everyone to use Children's Centres - I don't have any time for people who want to exclude the middle classes. I support policies which help to balance things out and make sure that a range of families use their local centre.
But...I really hope that someone at the Department for Children Schools and Families is thinking carefully about this before there is a charge into another huge nationwide scheme without thinking first.
My reservation?
There is a lot of childcare out there which is not very good. Government money should only go towards paying for children's places in nurseries and centres which can demonstrate that they can benefit the child. The more disadvantaged the child, the better the place has to be.
Conversely, putting little children into poor nurseries won't just fail to benefit them. It will harm them. It will put them back. All sorts of research, from the Tavistock Centre's report by Alastair Bain and Lynne Barnett in 1980, through to the EPPE Project since 1997, shows that poor nursery care makes children more aggressive, and less open to learning.
The plan for places for two year olds should be a small part of much bigger plans, I think, to improve the quality of nurseries and centres in England. It could also be a step towards the eventual achievement of something close to the Swedish and Danish model of seeing early education and childcare as part of the welfare state, accessible to all, rather than a commodity which can be bought by the affluent and a sticking plaster over the wounds of the poor.
Anyway this week has become pretty interesting because of the letter to the Times Educational Supplement about the Early Years Foundation Stage and the decision to set up a group called Open Eye to monitor it.
I've written a fair bit before criticising the EYFS - on the grounds of its content and organisation, the time it will use up in nursery settings of all varieties, and the amount of money it has cost to devise (and that's before you count up the costs of printing and distributing the thing).
But I think that now the EYFS has been legislated for, and is out there, the best way to serve the interests of young children is to work on the practice in implementing the EYFS. Like all changes, the EYFS could do a lot of harm, but equally it has the potential to free lots of things up - it makes it easier to think holistically about children's learning and their care, and it specifically supports play-based approaches to learning.
Whilst I am not in favour of the goals for reading and writing, these are not actually any worse than what was in place before in the previous Foundation Stage. There is a difference between being opposed to formal literacy teaching too soon (count me in) and objecting to it only when the method changes from one you like (i.e the "searchlights" model in the previous Literacy Strategy starting in Reception) to one you don't (synthetic phonics, as outlined in the Rose Review and in the new Literacy Strategy).
When a group of people get together like this after the curriculum has been finished, to protest against it - doesn't it make you wonder what is going on? Where were they 12 months ago when it was up for consultation?
So, at the risk of sounding rather conservative about this, I will stick to my current position - playing whatever part I can to shape intelligent implementation of the EYFS. The debate about whether we should have it, or not, belongs to the past.
Nursery places for two year olds
The Guardian led on Saturday with plans to announce the extension of the pilot to provide free places for 2 year olds living in poor neighbourhoods.
There is a lot to be said about this plan, in its favour. I know from my own professional experience that allowing families to access nursery education and childcare for their children from 2 years old can be hugely beneficial. Why reserve it only for those who can pay? As a children's centre head, I've found that not only do the children really benefit, but it also becomes possible to develop good relationships with the parents and get them involved in other Children's Centre services - which again can easily get taken up by those more affluent mothers and fathers who are better at scanning the menu of services on offer and picking out what they want a la carte. My view is that we want everyone to use Children's Centres - I don't have any time for people who want to exclude the middle classes. I support policies which help to balance things out and make sure that a range of families use their local centre.
But...I really hope that someone at the Department for Children Schools and Families is thinking carefully about this before there is a charge into another huge nationwide scheme without thinking first.
My reservation?
There is a lot of childcare out there which is not very good. Government money should only go towards paying for children's places in nurseries and centres which can demonstrate that they can benefit the child. The more disadvantaged the child, the better the place has to be.
Conversely, putting little children into poor nurseries won't just fail to benefit them. It will harm them. It will put them back. All sorts of research, from the Tavistock Centre's report by Alastair Bain and Lynne Barnett in 1980, through to the EPPE Project since 1997, shows that poor nursery care makes children more aggressive, and less open to learning.
The plan for places for two year olds should be a small part of much bigger plans, I think, to improve the quality of nurseries and centres in England. It could also be a step towards the eventual achievement of something close to the Swedish and Danish model of seeing early education and childcare as part of the welfare state, accessible to all, rather than a commodity which can be bought by the affluent and a sticking plaster over the wounds of the poor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)