Skip to main content

Command and control and accountability agendas and the impact on all learners

If, like me, you believe that personal, professional and school development is dependent on a culture and ethos that recognises, supports this, and which is built on trust, where does this leave us in a prevalent culture that is focused on comand, control and accountability agendas? 

We need to be encouraging and supporting our teachers to innovate and be continually examining and developing their practice. I spoke with a couple of teachers recently who were saying to me that they were desperate to innovate and try new things, but the culture within their schools was working against them in this. They described a school leadership style which was very directive, kept adding to their workload as new directives came from outside the school, and which was looking for the same characteristics of practice in every teacher. Does this sound familiar? I was hoping such cultures were diminishing and disappearing, but I'm afraid they may be on the rise again as school leaders themselves face a barrage of command, control and accountability agendas from Academy Boards. Ofsted, HMIE, quangos, local authorities, local and national politicians, and all supported by a media who are predominately right-wing in outlook. Such a culture, supported by high-stakes testing and league tables, can lead to many school leaders adopting the very same approaches in their own establishments, and therefore exactly the same can  appear in classrooms. Such cultures promote tick-box approaches to school development and what Mark Priestly has described as 'performability' defined as 'a pressure to perform in particular ways, most notably in terms defined and measured by external factors.' 

Do we ever stop to consider what such cultures promote in our learners? I don't thing such cultures will help us develop what Carol Dweck has called 'Growth Mindsets'. They are more likely to promote the exact opposite, as they see teachers and school leaders demonstrating the very 'Fixed Mindsets' that we should be striving to move away from. Such cultures are unlikely to promote innovative practice or thinking by anyone. They lead to data-driven approaches of the worst kind and teaching-to-the-test approaches that are the anathema of free thinking and innovation. Is that really what we want for our learners, schools and education systems? I think not. We all need to utilise data to inform our actions and to help us validate the success of otherwise of our actions. To do that we need to engage intelligently and critically with data and not just use it for our interests or agendas, which it is possible to do with all data. I have seen the same data being used to justify completely opposing courses of action. One of first steps when using data should be to examine its accuracy and validity for the purpose to which it is being applied. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you standardised testing!

We are and need to be held to account. Schools and education are funded, mostly, from public funds, and it is right that we should account for how we use those funds for maximum impact for all our learners. However, there is real danger when accountability measures begin to dominate and drive our actions. All teachers, schools and their leaders should embrace their responsibilities as public servants, but also as professionals and their professional knowledge base. We should be prepared to argue, and present research and evidence, for our actions, and be able to defend our practice against the uninformed, misinformed or dogma of others. If all we focus on is controlling, commanding and holding to account those within the system we promote a culture of fear, low morale and poorer outcomes for our learners. A disservice to them and the communities in which we live and work.

To raise attainment and address equity gaps we need a system that encourages people to think and give of their best. The highest performing education systems across the world have high degrees of trust in, and respect for, the teaching profession. Whilst they still have accountability agendas they are not as high-profile or directive as many we experience. Many who have had such an approach are now looking to change what they do, either because they have been shown to clearly fail, or because they recognise such an approach is now no longer fit for purpose. I suppose this is all about balance, and for many of our schools, teachers and systems, I don't feel we have the balance right. The people who suffer the most when the balance is wrong are our learners, pupils and teachers!

Popular posts from this blog

The Power Within

I sent a tweet the other day which seemed to generate a deal of resonance with some on my PLN. What I said was that meaningful school development can only come from within and cannot be imposed from outside. Now 140 characters on Twitter does have benefits but, as anyone who tweets regularly knows, it also has huge limitations in what you can say. So what I would like to do here is offer some further explanation of what I was trying to convey in my tweet.

For many years well meaning and informed people have increased our understanding and have made constructive suggestions  on how schools can develop and move forward. We also know that there have been lots of other suggestions made by less informed but vocal contributors to this debate! As all in education and schools know, everyone has an opinion or view on what should be going on in our schools. The media loves to feed on all of this and much of it stokes the fires of debate and gives oxygen to some of the wilder suggestions.

As som…

Testing Times for Scotland

'These are not high stakes tests; there will be no 'pass or fail' and no additional workload for children or teachers.' John Swinney 25/11/16

I start this look at the introduction of the Scottish National Standardised Assessments (SNSAs) with  statement above from John Swinney, the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, made when he announced the contract for our new standardised testing had been awarded to ACER International UK, Ltd. This organisation is a subsidiary of the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER), whom have been responsible for the development of the National Assessment Program - Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) regime of high-stakes testing in the Australian system since 2008. I also believe they were one of a very short list of providers who tendered a bid for this contract.

I was drawn to this statement as I reflected on many of the responses I have received after I put out a request on Twitter …

Play not tests

Last night I attended the launch the 'PlayNotTests' campaign being led by Sue Palmer and the Upstart organisation in Scotland. This campaign is aimed at getting the Scottish government to think again about their decision to introduce standardised testing into Scottish schools, particularly in Primary 1. Upstart is a group whose main aim is the establishment of a play-based 'kindergarten stage' in Scottish schools, and they want to delay children's introduction into the formal education system until they have reached seven years of age. Before that, Upstart and their supporters, of which I am one, believe that young children learn best, and begin to develop the attributes they will need for life and learning, through play based learning, most of which should be located outside of classrooms and school buildings. This is a model that has been successfully developed by a number of Nordic systems, with positive impacts on the well-being as well as the learning of young…