(Our) Senior team were very enthused with the rich source of data provided within the reports (and thought that the analyses including within the appendices section of the main reports were really interesting).
Indicators of a school’s contribution to well-being: consultation
Indicators of a school’s contribution to well-being: consultation
OFSTED consultation - SHEU's response Part 1 questions Q1. Do you agree with this view of schools’ accountability for well-being? AGREE Comments The model of providing schools with their own data to compare against a local profile is one SHEU has practised for over 30 years. SHEU also welcomes the positive effect the approach would have on raising the profile of well-being in schools. However, well-being is a difficult and very sensitive subject and so SHEU thinks that great caution needs to be adopted in regard of the use of such measures by OFSTED and their subsequent publication. SHEU has long thought that if the confidentiality and control of results were not in the hands of schools, then they would be reluctant to collect data in the first place. SHEU welcomes the caveats given in paragraphs #18 and #27 but it cannot be guaranteed that inspection teams will follow the spirit of these guidelines. Moreover, SHEU imagines that a challenge by journalists for LAs to reveal schools' results under the Freedom of Information Act could result in a league table of schools' bullying figures being published. SHEU regard such a prospect with trepidation. SHEU urges OFSTED to consider how to resist such a move. Accountability can still be maintained without publication. Data can be shared with OFSTED inspection teams and School Improvement Partners, and the outcomes of these discussions can be made public. But discussions need to be conducted calmly and in private. In this way, schools will not be afraid to collect the figures they need. Q2. Do you agree that a ‘well-being profile’ for the local area should be made available to schools and inspectors? AGREE Comments The practicalities of compiling such a profile seem fraught with difficulties. If schools in a locality are using different providers to ask different questions using different approaches, the profile will not be able to support the weight of consideration that you intend. There are also difficulties of timing and capacity; schools may prefer to survey at different times of year, but this will undoubtedly affect some of the results. The model SHEU practises is of school surveys commissioned at the level of local authority or Primary Care Trust; this avoids duplication of effort, ensures consistency and reduces problems of comparability across authorities. Commissioning research is neither quick nor straightforward, and asking schools to take on this new task needs more consideration than is given in the document. Q3. Do you agree about the use and limitations of indicators? AGREE Comments SHEU agrees but, the level of sophistication given in your account of their limitations may not apply in practice. An apparently negative finding, once known, can be hard to get away from, even if it is understood as not revealing a real problem. SHEU is aware of LAs being red-'flagged' because of their bullying figures from Tellus. Reports of 'being bullied in last 4 weeks' by pupils need to be understood in the context of what pupils call bullying. Pupils can label quite trivial behaviours as bullying, or conversely see as acceptable what we might consider very aggressive behaviours. Pupils' perceptions need to be understood at a more than superficial level if such figures are to be interpreted and acted on with confidence. While it's easy to make such a point, SHEU has seen that such headline statistics from Tellus can still create anxiety and possible over-reaction by LA staff. How much more likely are parents, teachers and local journalists likely to over-react? Q4. Do you agree with this approach to the publication of the indicators? DISAGREE. Comments SHEU suggests that there be no publication of indicators which is not approved in advance by the headteacher. The behaviour of some journalists and editors seems frankly mischievous and SHEU is anxious about the damage that could be done. Q5. Are these the right indicators relating to quantified outcomes? AGREE Comments SHEU has reservations about the physical activity measure and the lunch measure. Re. Activity: Pupils can be present and have the opportunity to take part, but it is very hard to establish if they are actually taking part. Neil Armstrong used cardiac monitoring many years ago and could not always tell from recordings whether the pupil had PE lesson that day. Re. Lunches: this measure will tell you something, but the best packed lunch can be much healthier than the worst choice of school meal. Q6. Will the items listed in paragraph 26 yield appropriate indicators of pupils’ well-being and the school’s contribution to it? DISAGREE Comments Again, this will tell you something but the list is partial, vague and subject to distortion. There are very key concepts (like self-esteem) which are missing from this list. Subject to distortion: SHEU is reminded of suggestions that despite the volume of testing and improved results, maths attainment is not improving because of 'teaching to the test'. If we take 'healthy eating' as an example: if I want genuinely to change pupils' attitudes to healthy eating, I might arrange a series of discussions where pupils can clarify their own attitudes and slowly think through how to negotiate with other family members changes in the way they eat. However, if I focus only on improving pupil and parent perceptions of the efforts that the school is making, I will arrange frequent newsletters, cooking demonstrations and colourful poster campaigns, chosen for their high salience rather than likely impact on behaviour. Q7. Do you agree with the approach set out above? AGREE Comments Our existing practice overlaps a great deal with what is proposed. However, SHEU is not convinced by (a) the capacity for schools to fund and critically assess tenders for research, (b) the limitations of indicators being understood by all parties (c) the value of publishing indicators without the prior agreement of the school. Schools are arguably over-stretched and over-surveyed as it is; SHEU would like to have read more about how the capacity and funding for schools to adopt this approach is going to be provided. Q8. Do you agree that an accreditation system as proposed above would be appropriate? AGREE Comments [None]
Post date:
16 January 2009 13:25