Improving 'Requires Improvement'
Having written a couple of posts focused on the language of leadership, I thought I'd go for the trilogy with a post on perhaps the most contentious phrase currently knocking around in education - the dreaded 'Requires Improvement'.
In some ways, I can see what OFSTED were trying to achieve by bringing this wording into their approach. I was no fan of 'Satisfactory', on the basis that it really meant that only some children made progress in the lesson; the truth is that those children tended to be the higher-attaining, literate students from more advantaged homes, who were best able to deal with weak teaching whilst still making progress. I'm happy to accept that this is not, in fact, satisfactory.
I'm also attracted to the idea of fostering greater openness and pragmatism in the discussions we have, formally and informally, on the genuine effectiveness of our lessons. If you are a (non-superhuman) practicing teacher, the likelihood is lessons which don't go so well will not be an infrequent occurrence, and getting comfortable with recognising, discussing and reflecting on these failures is one of the most significant steps towards becoming a really effective professional. Thinking about my own career, I remember being given lesson judgements of 'good', when what I think the observer really meant was 'that was a good effort, you're clearly working hard and you are valued here'; the fact that some of those lessons clearly didn't actually work in teaching the students very much has, on occasion, been seen as of secondary importance to the aim of providing a supportive, positive experience for me. And looking back, I'd suggest that I may well have benefitted from feedback that was perhaps a little franker, clearer and more direct, as this may have helped me squeeze more learning from my failures, earlier on.
Is RI a sensible way forward therefore, as a judgement for individual lessons? It's certainly (assuming, and I realise that this is highly contestable, that the judgement is accurate) a frank, clear, direct appraisal... and yet too often it just doesn't feel right. We have to put our language into a cultural context; it's a reality that in Britain, this sort of uber-direct evaluation is rare. Our culture, in some ways, places a high premium on interpersonal tact, discretion and diplomacy, which may not be immediately very helpful when trying to improve the performance of a school or a school system, but it's nevertheless an unavoidable reality. We can't create a more open and less fragile culture of genuine reflection simply by 'telling it like it is', by getting straight to the point and no messing. Tennessee Williams once made the point that 'all cruel people describe themselves as paragons of frankness', and I think I'm reaching the conclusion that there are too many times when RI is applied to individual lessons that the wording is counter-productively blunt.
So what's the best way forward? It could easily be argued that the language of it all isn't the real problem, and that it's the very act of evaluating or attempting to quantify the success of lessons which gets in the way of observation being a genuinely helpful, developmental process for the teacher. However, bearing in mind that the very large majority of schools will in fact be using 1 - 4 judgements on lessons in the foreseeable future, I wonder if changing the language might actually help the process. How different would it be if, instead of Outstanding, RI etc, the judgements made on a lesson were:
- Highly Successful
- Largely Successful
- Partially Successful
- Unsuccessful
This would equate to the current judgements in terms of the quality of the learning, but would recognise that, just because a lesson doesn't really work, there are almost always some elements that do, and some learning that occurs. Would it be easier to hear that a lesson had been deemed 'partially successful'? Would that make it easier to manage the emotional response and therefore focus on the discussion and feedback? Would it make no difference whatsoever? I'd be very interested to hear if any school out there has developed their own language for this, or any feedback on the above; get in touch with me by commenting here or @tomboulter.
In some ways, I can see what OFSTED were trying to achieve by bringing this wording into their approach. I was no fan of 'Satisfactory', on the basis that it really meant that only some children made progress in the lesson; the truth is that those children tended to be the higher-attaining, literate students from more advantaged homes, who were best able to deal with weak teaching whilst still making progress. I'm happy to accept that this is not, in fact, satisfactory.
I'm also attracted to the idea of fostering greater openness and pragmatism in the discussions we have, formally and informally, on the genuine effectiveness of our lessons. If you are a (non-superhuman) practicing teacher, the likelihood is lessons which don't go so well will not be an infrequent occurrence, and getting comfortable with recognising, discussing and reflecting on these failures is one of the most significant steps towards becoming a really effective professional. Thinking about my own career, I remember being given lesson judgements of 'good', when what I think the observer really meant was 'that was a good effort, you're clearly working hard and you are valued here'; the fact that some of those lessons clearly didn't actually work in teaching the students very much has, on occasion, been seen as of secondary importance to the aim of providing a supportive, positive experience for me. And looking back, I'd suggest that I may well have benefitted from feedback that was perhaps a little franker, clearer and more direct, as this may have helped me squeeze more learning from my failures, earlier on.
Is RI a sensible way forward therefore, as a judgement for individual lessons? It's certainly (assuming, and I realise that this is highly contestable, that the judgement is accurate) a frank, clear, direct appraisal... and yet too often it just doesn't feel right. We have to put our language into a cultural context; it's a reality that in Britain, this sort of uber-direct evaluation is rare. Our culture, in some ways, places a high premium on interpersonal tact, discretion and diplomacy, which may not be immediately very helpful when trying to improve the performance of a school or a school system, but it's nevertheless an unavoidable reality. We can't create a more open and less fragile culture of genuine reflection simply by 'telling it like it is', by getting straight to the point and no messing. Tennessee Williams once made the point that 'all cruel people describe themselves as paragons of frankness', and I think I'm reaching the conclusion that there are too many times when RI is applied to individual lessons that the wording is counter-productively blunt.
So what's the best way forward? It could easily be argued that the language of it all isn't the real problem, and that it's the very act of evaluating or attempting to quantify the success of lessons which gets in the way of observation being a genuinely helpful, developmental process for the teacher. However, bearing in mind that the very large majority of schools will in fact be using 1 - 4 judgements on lessons in the foreseeable future, I wonder if changing the language might actually help the process. How different would it be if, instead of Outstanding, RI etc, the judgements made on a lesson were:
- Highly Successful
- Largely Successful
- Partially Successful
- Unsuccessful
This would equate to the current judgements in terms of the quality of the learning, but would recognise that, just because a lesson doesn't really work, there are almost always some elements that do, and some learning that occurs. Would it be easier to hear that a lesson had been deemed 'partially successful'? Would that make it easier to manage the emotional response and therefore focus on the discussion and feedback? Would it make no difference whatsoever? I'd be very interested to hear if any school out there has developed their own language for this, or any feedback on the above; get in touch with me by commenting here or @tomboulter.
Comments
Post a Comment