When I watched the mighty division 4 Doncaster Rovers in the late 1980s, my favourite player was always a midfielder, the drivers of the team. Alan Little, not the glamorous Ian Snodin, for this the vast majority of people think Manchester United’s Roy Keane rather than the perfumed David Beckham. Probably this was to do with my father’s mantra, ‘a hard day’s graft for a fair day’s pay’. I preferred the workhorses to the players who sometimes spectacularly performed. Similarly in teaching, the frustration most senior leaders had with the lesson observation format was that you knew you had staff who could and would perform the ‘showcase’ lesson but were not consistently at it. Indeed, whilst at my first school, I was advised to keep some ‘show’ lessons prepared for when the bosses/inspectors came round. Keep the best china locked away was very much the defensive philosophy.
Now, I believe Ofsted have finally stumbled on a more realistic formula that will eradicate the ‘show-pony’ teachers/schools and will give a more realistic, hopefully developmental inspection. By moving away from teaching and learning to interrogating the curriculum we teach, there will be an important shift in focus, which if headteachers do not panic into providing Ofsted ready showcase curriculums, should lead to schools providing the curriculum their communities and students need. It has always struck me that the chaotic recent years of the EBacc requirement and Progress 8 judgement has stifled curriculum development, curriculum offers, providing a restrictive offer so clearly unsuited to many of our students and not providing the skills the country needs. The lack of linguists in this brave new world has always been embarrassing and is going to be an economic problem.
Ofsted will now look at the three ‘I’s, three areas: intent, implementation and impact. The intent of the curriculum is a key question that will ensure staff cannot use ‘bluster’ and charm. Why are you teaching this topic now? Where does it come in your plan? How are you assessing their learning to ensure there is a connection between year 6 and 7? These are key questions that will get away from the superficial. What the students need to know and what your coherent plan is are reasonable premises for building a curriculum.
The second area will be the implementation. How are you realising your intentions? If you are teaching predominantly via computer, will this ensure all students learn? Are you needed? Similarly, will mixed ability teaching ensure all students gain the crucial knowledge? How will you catch-up those who do not? This then leads on to the third area, the impact of the intent and implementation. Have the students learnt the key information teachers taught them? Clearly, assessment and intervention will now need to be ongoing and not the madness of year 11 panic catch-up. This clearly places even greater responsibility on the school midfield, the middle leaders who will be required to drive this through.
The development of middle leaders confident in their curriculum map, confident in what students are supposed to learn and clear about what style of teaching, method of teaching at any one time an observer could expect to see. The middle leaders will have to be clear in their use of assessment, home learning and be able to speak with confidence of what the students have learnt and who is making progress and who is not. Headteachers and schools, more than ever, will be reliant on hardworking, consistent heads of department who know their curriculum and know their staff. No show-ponies or glib conversations but hard graft, clear evidence not ‘schmooze’ is now required – the Alan Little Pitbull not the Ian Snodin Papillion. Not what will happen but what is happening on a day to day basis, which could lead to better judgements.
Neil Morris 