Education Leader and Manager September 2009
6
7
9
11
In this issue
Teaching and learning
College pay
Ofsted changes
Data sharing
When the going gets tough ‌ The prospects for further education colleges and their employees are not looking good. AMiE is a partnership between ACM and ATL
Colleges in both England and Wales are facing severe threats to funding, and the outcome is likely to be cuts in provision for students and trainees and job losses among staff. In England it seems that the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) has lost the plot.
Over recent months we have seen the capital budget, 16–18 and Train to Gain funding fiascos. Even now, many colleges are not clear on their allocations for this new year and are having difficulties finalising their budgets. Some colleges have been told that they will not be compensated for monies invested in preparations for capital projects that were encouraged by the LSC.
FE funding cuts
2
Peter Pendle, General Secretary, ACM, and National Officer, AMiE
As predicted in the last edition of Education Leader and Manager (ELM), this has resulted in colleges taking legal action against the LSC. Others are facing major reductions in their Train to Gain funding. As a result of the financial uncertainty, colleges were unwilling to commit funds for a significant pay settlement: the national negotiations resulted in a paltry 1.5% offer. The unions, conscious of the perilous financial position of many colleges, are likely to accept the offer, albeit reluctantly, aware that a higher settlement is likely to increase the number of redundancies across England. Yet it seems that the major concerns of LSC Chief Executive Geoff Russell are the implementation of the discredited Framework for Excellence, and anxieties about any increase in fraud. The words ‘fiddling’ and ‘Rome’ come to mind! Certainly, if any provider had managed their affairs in the way that the LSC has over the past 18 months, they would have been condemned as failing and closed immediately. AMiE is helping its members to deal with the sharp increase in restructuring and reorganisation proposals in the face of the worsening financial situation. The national FE agencies are also certain to face swingeing cuts. In Wales the position is no better. Across the country, colleges are facing huge reductions at the direction of the Welsh Assembly Government. Following a concerted campaign led by ACM/AMiE in partnership with other unions and fforum, several million pounds were added to the budget. Unfortunately, this was insufficient to remove the need for major cuts in most colleges and, as in England, restructuring proposals are coming forward.
When the going gets tough, time after time colleges have proved themselves to be resilient in the face of adversity.
Job losses will affect all grades of staff: lecturers and support staff as well as managers. Generous voluntary redundancy arrangements are becoming a thing of the past, with even philanthropic principals forced to consider implementing severance arrangements at the statutory maximum. And for those managers who do survive, the situation is almost as bad: there is still the same amount of work to be done, but shared between fewer colleagues.
More will have to be done with fewer resources, and this will prove stressful for many of our members. To top it all, we will see the imposition of the bureaucratic and ill-conceived machinery of government changes. The tragedy is that the Labour Government really has done so much for FE and students over the past ten years. We have seen a major expansion in funding in real terms, an improvement in infrastructure, a rise in participation and hugely improved levels of student achievement. What a pity that this progress is now threatened, as this lame-duck government crawls to the election finishing line. We are sceptical that the additional monies planned for 2010/11 and 2011/12 for 16–18 student growth will survive a new government. The Spending Review has been postponed, and already we hear talk of public sector cuts of 20%, which means that we will all be ‘relieved’ if we ‘only’ suffer actual cuts of 10%. 2010 is likely to bring a Conservative Government with a large majority. Many claim that the situation for colleges under a new administration can’t get worse, and point to the Tory Green Paper on Learning and Skills, which promises much of what college leaders have been demanding. But that Green Paper was written before the recession and, in any event, FE is unlikely to be the top priority of a new government. And some of us remember the record of the last Tory Government on FE: the creation of the Further Education Funding Council (FEFC), colleges pitted against each other in a market-driven, winner-takes-all bunfight, the franchise fiasco, Derby Wilmorton and the rest, Roger Ward and macho management, funding increases dependent on adopting new contracts, and the withdrawal overnight of the demand-led element. If you think it can’t get any worse, then think again. And a top priority this time round will be a massacre of public sector pensions! So how will colleges survive? Well, that brings me back to my title for this article: because when the going gets tough, time after time colleges have proved themselves to be resilient in the face of adversity.
Union matters
talking points
To be conscious that you are ignorant is a great step to knowledge. Colleges have survived incorporation, convergence, more funding methodologies than we can count, FEFC, LSC, Ofsted and ALI, internal audit, external audit, the funding memorandum, individual learner accounts, the abolition of individual learner accounts, mergers, competition, demandled, contestability … Need I go on? But as John Stone, Chief Executive of the Learning and Skills Network (LSN), writes in the summer issue of LSN Briefing: ‘FE is rightly proud of its ability to cope’. And why is that? Because the overwhelming majority of college leaders and managers, teachers, lecturers and business support staff put their students first, focusing on placing them on the most appropriate course and delivering the teaching and support they need to achieve their ambitions and aspirations. Rarely do you find a workforce that is so totally signed up to a shared vision as that in FE colleges. And as a result, we come up with effective and inventive solutions to the challenges presented by government incoherence, control freakery and panic. It is going to be a very rough ride for at least two or three years. There will be casualties. Some college employees will lose their jobs, some students will lose their courses and some colleges will cease to exist. And the new Diploma may well be axed too! Rest assured, ACM/AMiE will be fighting hard to protect its members from the impact of the recession, as well as campaigning and lobbying to ensure that the worst excesses of government policy are resisted. The more colleagues you can encourage to join AMiE, the better we will be able to lead the struggle. In the meantime, when the going gets tough, the tough get going – and there isn’t a tougher group of workers than managers in FE.
Benjamin Disraeli
AMiE’s new database AMiE’s new membership database went live on 1 September following a year of planning and development. It has lots of enhanced features, enabling us to be even more efficient and making the administration of member records quicker and easier. As a result of the new database, all future correspondence will be sent to members’ home addresses. If you have moved recently, please let us know. To inform us of any changes to your membership record, including your home address, please email membership@amie.uk.com or telephone Wendy Ridolini, Membership Co-ordinator, on 01858 411541.
Contact the Editor Editor: Nadine Cartner Email: nadinecartner@amie.uk.com Tel: 020 7254 1445 If you’d like to see pictures of your students feature on the cover of ELM, or if you’d like to contribute an article, book review, quote or letter, please send these to the editor.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Martin Luther King, Jr Computer dating is fine, if you’re a computer. Rita Mae Brown We make a living by what we get, we make a life by what we give. Sir Winston Churchill On the marketisation of education – well, we’ve been there, done that, failed. Ken Spours
3
Schools White Paper
4
21st century schools Mary Bousted, General Secretary, ATL
* Your child, your schools, our future: building a 21st century schools system (DCSF, June 2009)
Schools must, Janus-like, face both ways in their efforts to close the skills gap.
Those who manage and lead public services, and educationalists in particular, might have been hoping for a period of respite from a seemingly endless stream of initiatives and directives. Instead, dear reader, the Government has produced another White Paper* outlining its vision for the school system in the 21st century; the title does what it says on the tin. It is a not-so-well-kept secret that the majority of education legislation is ignored by the system – lying forgotten and unloved in the legalese of government bills. Will this White Paper suffer the same fate, or will it actually make a mark on the system? In other words, can we let this one pass us by, or do we need to sit up and take notice? Actually, that’s a hard question to answer because this White Paper, like so many others, is a curious mix of the old and new. The Government’s justification for yet another piece of legislation is familiar, but compelling. We need to prepare for the future and, in particular, we need the education system to equip the next generation with high-level skills. Jobs that require low or no skills are fast disappearing (from 3.2 million unqualified adult workers today, to less than 600,000 by 2020). Thus, according to the paper’s authors: ‘The implications of this are clear; without skills and qualifications, today’s young people will struggle to find meaningful work in the future; and in an economy increasingly focused on high-skill activities, those without good skills and qualifications will be increasingly marginalised.’
Schools must, Janus-like, face both ways in their efforts to close the skills gap. Looking towards themselves, each school will have to offer a pupil guarantee, which promises good behaviour, strong discipline, a broad and flexible curriculum, personalisation, sport and cultural activities, and health and well-being. In addition, each school must have a teaching and learning policy. Parents get a guarantee too. They will have opportunities, information and support to exercise choice with and on behalf of their child, a home–school agreement and access to extended services. Looking outwards, schools must work in partnership with others and with wider children’s services in order to provide the full range of opportunities that children and young people will need for success. Much of what is proposed here is old news: school federations are a good thing; collaboration on 14–19 partnerships will be encouraged, but to make it all happen, from this month Ofsted will grade schools for partnership working. What is new is that the drive towards collaboration is hardening. The Government is to develop an accreditation system for providers wishing to operate groups of schools. Thus the door is opened for a rapid proliferation of education providers and a further constraint is placed on local authorities, which must in the future consider the use of an Accredited Schools Group where a school is placed in a category, or is otherwise a cause for serious concern, as a solution to the problems the school is facing. There will be a new inspection framework, commencing this month, where the focus will be on the quality of teaching and impact on learning, with inspectors spending more time in classrooms observing teaching.
The School Report Card will be introduced from September 2011, with a single grade combining the categories of pupil progress, pupil attainment, pupil wellbeing, pupils’ and parents’ perceptions, and narrowing gaps in performance, with further consultation promised on the categories and the indicators that will underpin them. Literacy and numeracy will remain a sharp focus of the accountability system, but the national strategies contract will not be renewed when it comes to an end in 2011. Their demise is long overdue. But it is a shame that this will not mean the end of the ‘that’s the way to do it’ approach by government, because the White Paper continues to fail to recognise that schools have a great deal of professional expertise. The expectation remains that schools should buy in external help as a first resort, if they need to improve teaching and learning. Finally, the one bit of the White Paper which caught the newspaper headlines was the licence to teach – the tabloid ‘teachers’ MOT’, renewed every five years. The details still have to be worked out, and ATL, in social partnership, will be involved in detailed discussions with government. However, our starting point will be that we believe the licence to teach proposals would be a bureaucratic nightmare and would result in a horrendous paperwork trail following teachers as they move from school to school through their careers. So, the 21st century schools White Paper is a mixed bag. There are some goodies, but still too much of an obsession with structures, not standards, which is where this Government said it would not go 12 years ago. ATL will continue to point out that investment in workforce development is the best way to improve teaching and learning – but that doesn’t make sexy politics, does it?
5
AMiE is the leading trade union and professional association for leaders and managers in colleges and schools. Our services Our services include:
1 representation, help and advice on all employment matters. Our casework service is recognised as simply the best offered by any trade union
1 publications and best practice guides on curriculum and management issues
1 policy influence in political circles 1 education news updates 1 pensions advice, including information leaflets on important topics such as improving your pension prospects
1 good deals on insurance and many other services and products.
Our membership We welcome college managers at all levels in further education colleges, sixth form colleges and adult education provision; school headteachers, deputy headteachers, bursars and heads of department. We also have many members in national organisations, training organisations and other areas of the education sector, including higher education.
To join AMiE Tel 01858 411 541 Email membership@amie.uk.com or visit our website www.amie.co.uk AMiE is a partnership between the Association for College Management (ACM) and the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL)
AMiE bookshelf
6
Too cool to ask? Review by Bob Vesey, Director of Learner Services, Harrow College
September is a very busy time in colleges; doubtless much will have landed on your desk over the summer that requires your attention. It’s quite possible that our controlling government departments will have followed the Prime Minister’s injunction to announce two ‘items of business’ every week across the summer (reported in the Observer, 12 July 2009), leading to yet more irritating initiatives. Whatever is in your in-tray after your summer break, if you can find time to pick up, read and reflect on only one item, it should be this one: Frank Coffield’s latest publication, All you ever wanted to know about learning and teaching but were too cool to ask.
All you ever wanted to know about learning and teaching but were too cool to ask (LSN, 2009) can be downloaded free of charge from www.lsnlearning.org.uk/publications
However, Coffield has a point; the recent capital and revenue funding debacle – generated by the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) and catastrophic for many colleges – did happen on the watch of a chairman and a chief executive both from an industrial, rather than an educational, background.
As chair of AMiE’s Education Committee, I have always been keen to reinforce and champion the Association’s commitment to Coffield pointed to publications about keeping teaching and learning, and students’ FE in which the terms ‘teaching’ and interests, at the heart of the organisation ‘learning’ scarcely figure: publications and central to its work. So in June, when the that focus on the language of business Learning and Skills Network (LSN) issued and engineering and which seek to an invitation to hear Frank Coffield, Emeritus suggest that the main role of colleges is to Professor at the Institute of Education, launch improve economic competitiveness. He his latest publication, I jumped at the chance. characterised this model as ‘education with the heart ripped out’ and encouraged To introduce his new volume, Coffield gave his audience to challenge the assumptions a witty and entertaining overview of the behind that view of education on the place that learning and teaching currently grounds that in fact it serves the interests enjoy in further education. He provided of neither industry nor the economy. a detailed and convincing critique of the business or management model currently employed by too many of those who would lead the college sector (or ‘learning and skills system’, to use the Government’s preferred jargon). Given recent failures in banking, high street chains and transport corporations, the business or management model is perhaps an easy target.
The publication is in two parts: the first directed at learners and the second at teachers. Produced in partnership with groups of learners and teachers in colleges, Coffield introduces the metaphor of a tandem bicycle to suggest that an effective partnership between learners and teachers is the basis of learner success.
Coffield talks about upward and downward spirals to help explain two types of experience of education. In the downward spiral, learners who are labelled as clever or thick are treated differently, with lower expectations being attached to the latter. Lower expectations go along with less stimulating work and result in lower levels of motivation, less confidence and less likelihood of success or continued engagement with learning; lives outside college become more important. The contrasting upward spiral starts with an assumption that ‘excellence can be achieved by all’. That assumption generates high expectations, rich feedback, acknowledgement of different rates of learning and a celebration of cultural diversity. Students are consulted about learning, and teaching and learning communities develop that promote an environment where all – learners and tutors – can reach their potential. The challenge for teachers and leaders in colleges is to ensure that we develop this kind of framework for our students. Coffield uses the idea of a learning apprentice to encourage students to think in terms of working in partnership with their tutors and to develop a shared responsibility for learning. In the second part of the booklet, Teaching and Learning, Coffield provides a characterisation of good students, good teachers and good lessons. The characteristics of good students, drawn from students themselves, are exactly as we would want them: a good student is punctual, attends most classes, has the right equipment, is self-disciplined, does not disturb others’ learning and so on. The description of a good tutor is similarly not something we would take issue with. Equally, students are able to describe a good lesson in ways that would not differ from what professionals would regard as best practice.
7
Coffield argues and demonstrates that learner engagement should be at the heart of everything we do in colleges.
In ‘a good lesson: the tutor and students are on time; attendance is consistently high; the tutor is organised, in control and knows what she’s doing; the lesson is structured, varied, lively and engaging; everyone is treated equally and contributes; there’s mutual respect and a friendly, workman-like atmosphere’ and ‘students don’t leave feeling confused or secretly in need of help, too afraid to ask ...’ ‘Student engagement’ or the ‘learner voice’ is on the agenda of all colleges and is a focus for Ofsted inspections. It also features significantly in the LSC’s unnecessary and bureaucratic Framework for Excellence. But Coffield argues and demonstrates that learner engagement should be at the heart of everything we do in colleges – not because Ofsted or the LSC require it, but because it is central to an effective model of learning and teaching.
College pay/Union news
National pay negotiations in England The Association of Colleges (AoC) has offered the trade unions a recommended increase of 1.5% on pay and allowance for all college employees. ACM/AMiE has agreed to accept the offer with reluctance as the best that is likely to be obtained by negotiations in the current financial climate. Other unions are currently considering the offer, but are expected to accept it. ACM/AMiE General Secretary Peter Pendle said: ‘We have reluctantly decided to accept the offer because of the funding problems being experienced by colleges. Over recent years we have made steady progress in narrowing the difference between salaries in further education and those in schools; this year sees that gap increase again and is something that will need to be taken into account in negotiations next year. However, our priority this year must be to protect as many jobs as possible and avoid redundancies. We were particularly disappointed that AoC failed to address the issue of underpinning for the lowest-paid in our colleges.’
College funding in Wales
8
Money, money, money …
Brian Thornton, AMiE Regional Officer for Wales
In July, 28 sets of proposals from local authorities, FE colleges and training providers were revealed as the basis for the much heralded ‘transformation’ of Welsh education. Eleven local authorities, including Cardiff, Swansea, Conwy and Gwynedd, plan to set up local consortia between groups of schools or between schools and FE colleges. They will have joint governance and management and will, in some cases, share facilities. Other authorities plan to unite all post-16 education under one umbrella. Other models involve wholesale secondary reorganisation, still others college mergers. The Welsh Assembly Governance Subcommittee that Deputy Minister for Skills John Griffiths is due to chair will consider these matters. There is no evidence that there has been an overall calculation of the costs (or savings) involved in this transformation. Jane Hutt, the Minister for Children, Education, Lifelong Learning and Skills in Wales, has this summer announced a £165 million capital investment for schools, which ‘will have a huge impact on our schools and FEIs, ensuring that our young people will be learning in educational facilities that are modern and fit for purpose in the 21st century’. This capital funding was explictly targeted to allow local authorities and colleges to progress with their reorganisation programmes. We learnt from John Griffiths that about £18 million is designated for post-16 education – fairly small beer, one might argue. AMiE has argued with the Minister that monies should be set aside not only for capital funding, but also to fund the human cost of the transformation. Transformation needs to work with those working in the education sector, not be imposed upon them, and without the correct financial support for the human side in the equation, then we can only fear the human cost of the proposed changes.
Mr Griffiths has called for a re-evaluation of the funding methodology of post-16 education. Some may consider it odd that such a re-evaluation emerges at the time when the Department for Children, Education, Lifelong Learning and Skills has claimed that we are finally at the ‘harmonised rate’. Some may have a sense of alarm about this, given that on some projections the UK will have the worst public debt in the developed world by 2017. Resources for education are likely to nosedive. Nevertheless, most would agree that the current funding arrangements need to be improved. As part of this review, we suggest that ministers and civil servants seriously consider providing three-year budget plans, to enable proper planning. In such an environment, the sector may seek alternative funding, perhaps from Europe. According to the latest information from the Welsh European Funding Office, only 35% of the £1.81 billion available has been committed to projects. This means that over £1.1 billion remains to be committed to projects during the period 2010–13, or around £200–£250 million per annum. In any case, no convergence funding has as yet found its way to any FE institution. There is deep concern in colleges regarding the complex procedures and processes that FEIs need to undertake to submit projects for such funding, and the tendency of these to change frequently. This causes inefficiencies and, to put it bluntly, wastes people’s time. Notes on the guidance for FEIs on convergence were only published in June 2009, two-and-a-half years into the convergence regime. ACM/AMiE will take the case for the simplification of the processes regarding convergence funding to the Deputy Minister, and will call for an investigation of the logjam that is preventing access to these monies.
School inspection
9
Ofsted changes From this September, the inspection system for maintained schools in England is changing. Nansi Ellis, Head of Education Policy and Research, ATL
Ofsted’s intention is that there should be a greater emphasis on promoting improvement, evaluating pupils’ achievement and wider well-being, and focusing on teaching and learning. The frequency of inspections will depend on a school’s track record, and school leaders will be invited to take a much greater role in the inspection process. The head’s participation in the process is a key feature of the new inspection system, but it is not mandatory. Heads will be invited throughout to give views on the inspection trails; participate in joint lesson observations; attend inspection team meetings; and discuss the inspectors’ recommendations to ensure that these are understood. Schools already rated as ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ will have up to five years free from inspection, provided that their results don’t drop, that annual surveys show contented parents and that there are no safeguarding or welfare concerns. ‘Satisfactory’ schools will be inspected within three years and special schools and pupil referral units every three years regardless of their previous rating. Ofsted will carry out annual ‘risk assessments’ of each school, and will also publish an ‘interim assessment’ of any school that is not inspected within three years of their previous inspection. Over time, the risk assessment will be replaced by the proposed ‘School Report Card’. Although completion of the self-evaluation form (SEF) will not be made mandatory, Ofsted will use it to help inform their decisions about whether to delay an inspection for a ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ school. Most heads will be familiar by now with the SEF, completed at least annually. Changes have already been made, mainly to part A of the form, to reflect the changed inspection judgements.
However, you are not expected to have a new SEF completed immediately. During the autumn term, inspectors have been told to use the most recently archived version of your SEF alongside any parts of the new SEF which you have completed. From September, most schools will receive between one and two days’ warning of inspection. Schools in special measures will continue to receive regular monitoring visits without notice, and re-inspection after a specific period. Up to 40% of schools rated as ‘satisfactory’ will also receive unannounced monitoring visits to check on their progress. Once the school has been notified of the inspection, the lead inspector will telephone the head within 24 hours. In a second, extended, telephone call, the lead inspector should discuss with the headteacher the available evidence, including the SEF and contextual information, in order to prepare the pre-inspection briefing. You should receive that by 4pm on the day before your inspection. There should then be no need for a long meeting with the inspection team at the start of the inspection. Instead, you should expect the lead inspector to hold a brief introductory meeting with the headteacher, and half an hour with the senior leadership team to ensure that the school understands key issues identified in the pre-inspection briefing. At the head’s discretion, the inspection team can brief staff on key issues. The new inspection framework gives greater emphasis to leadership and management, including the leadership and management of teaching and learning, and leaders’ and managers’ success in communicating ambition and driving improvements – through overcoming barriers and tackling weaknesses. Further information about the changes can be found on the Ofsted website: www.ofsted.gov.uk
10
New guidance and legal requirements
Safeguarding learners
John Lowe, AMiE Council Member
New guidance
New requirements
Becta (www.becta.org.uk) has produced for consultation Safeguarding Learners in a Digital World: An E-safety Checklist for Further Education and Skills Providers Working with 14–19-year-old Learners (2009). It contains very succinct and useful checklists for leaders and managers, technical staff, curriculum managers and teachers, and for learners. As you would expect from Becta, it also contains references to many webbased resources, and the guidance itself is to be published in an interactive format on the web. This is well worth looking out for.
In addition to increased Ofsted scrutiny, safeguarding will also be subject to greater legal requirements during the new academic year. These will affect schools as well as colleges. They apply to volunteers as well as employees.
Volunteering England (www.volunteering. org.uk) has published Safeguarding student volunteering in the Further Education sector (2009). This also contains many useful checklists and references to other resources. It points out that from September 2009 safeguarding will be part of Ofsted’s new inspection framework (see also page 9). For the first time, safeguarding will be graded, and this will contribute to the grade awarded for overall effectiveness of colleges. Ofsted has also issued a reminder to inspectors to include volunteering and e-safety when assessing safeguarding in colleges. The booklet, which is free to download, gives details of the recommended safeguarding levels for Ofsted grading judgements. The Home Office produced guidance for consultation during the summer. It consisted of 150 pages of detailed notes on the vetting and barring scheme which starts to come into effect on 12 October 2009 (see also below). At the time of writing, the final version had not been published, but it is clearly the key document to look out for. The notes that follow rely heavily on the Home Office draft guidance and also on the information published by the Independent Safeguarding Authority on its website (www.isa-gov.org.uk). Its roadshow presentation and frequently asked questions are particularly informative. DIUS no longer exists, of course, and I can find no trace of the FE sector-specific guidance that it had been preparing. If it does appear, AMiE will let you know.
From 12 October 2009 the three current barring lists (the Protection of Children Act (POCA), the Protection of Vulnerable Adults (POVA) scheme and List 99) will be replaced by two lists: one of those barred from working or volunteering with children; and the other of those barred from working or volunteering with vulnerable adults. These lists will be administered by the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA), rather than by several government departments. Enhanced Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks will reveal whether someone is on either of the lists; standard CRB checks will no longer do so. There will be a new requirement on many employers and volunteer organisations, including schools and colleges, to refer information to the ISA when they have dismissed an individual, or when an individual resigns, because they harmed, or might harm, a child or vulnerable adult. There will also be new criminal penalties for barred individuals who seek or carry out paid or voluntary work with children or vulnerable adults. Furthermore, there will be criminal penalties for those who knowingly employ them or engage them as volunteers. The new registration scheme for people who are deemed ‘not known to be unsuitable to work or volunteer with children and vulnerable adults’ was due to come into force in October 2009, but this has been postponed until November 2010. This will be a much more significant change. Meanwhile, you could not do better than to study Safer practice, safer learning: A whole-organisation approach to safeguarding vulnerable adults for the learning and skills sector, published by NIACE in 2007 and available to download free at www.niace.org.uk
Article by Paul Andrews, Connexions Personal Advisor, Harrow Youth Offending Team, and Bob Vesey, Director of Learner Services, Harrow College
Inter-agency data sharing
The benefits of data sharing Data sharing in the public sector has a poor reputation because of a number of highprofile data losses in public sector organisations and government departments. Earlier this year the Government was forced to change tack on plans to share a large amount of personal data between government departments and other agencies, as planned in the Coroners and Justice Bill 2008–09. Caution in the sharing of personal data is important, as it is essential to ensure that individuals are fully protected. However, high-profile carelessness with data security should not be used to justify refusing to share data between agencies where there is a clear public interest or where there is potential real benefit to individuals.
Data sharing in Harrow In 2008, Harrow College entered into a new kind of data-sharing agreement with the Harrow Youth Offending Team (YOT). The YOT has a statutory entitlement to information on school/college progress and performance of the young people who are its clients. To be useful in enabling effective support or intervention by YOT advisers, such information on performance, attendance, punctuality or general behaviour must be prompt and timely. This enables prompt interventions before poor performance becomes an ingrained habit.
This learnercentred approach to data sharing helps to meet key performance indicators for both the college and the YOT.
11
Harrow College has given YOT advisers direct and secure access to student performance data for their YOT clients, by enabling a web-based view of each student’s individual learning plan and learner record. This enables the YOT advisers to have up-to-date information on their clients at all times, without having to ask for periodic updates.
Benefits There are many advantages to this:
1 It improves confidentiality for the student. The only college staff to see the YOT client list are those providing student data to the YOT advisers – there are no intermediaries.
1 Direct access to data enables timely and prompt interventions when student performance is not as it should be. A skipped class or a missed coursework deadline may be picked up by the YOT adviser and an early and appropriate intervention made.
1 It reduces the risk of data going astray or being lost. Through the provision of online access, there is no need for the YOT advisers to request copies of information which, judging from the well-publicised experiences of others, might be left on a train or in the pub.
1 This learner-centred approach to data sharing helps to meet key performance indicators for both the college and the YOT. From the college’s perspective, it helps to keep students in the college and improves their chances of successful completion. The YOT has its own key performance indicators to hit around engagement with education and employment, and a reduction in the reoffending rate.
1 Further, there is an obvious benefit to those young people who have a record of offending and are working with the YOT. Keeping these youngsters successfully engaged in education is more likely to result in changed patterns of behaviour, improved opportunities for educational progression and better prospects for employment. In short, there is a win for the college, for the YOT and for the young people involved.
1 Lastly, this use of technology reduces the workload for both partners by simplifying the process.
Employment matters
12
AMiE: a year of service David Green, Director of Employment Services, AMiE
A key benefit of AMiE membership is the confidential advice and professional support that members receive when they have a workplace problem. The fact that nearly 700 members used the service during AMiE’s first year of existence underlines the importance of this service to members. By the end of the summer term in July, 678 members had sought help from AMiE, including 163 school leaders and 515 college managers. Every one of these members received advice and, where necessary, representation from one of our regional officers. For many members, the problems they faced were very serious: redundancy, dismissal, allegations of bullying, child protection issues. No one wants to be fighting for their job when they arrive at work in the morning, but sadly, the reality in schools and colleges can mean just that.
Top five issues for AMiE members (percentage of cases)
30% Restructuring and redundancy
14% Grievances
7% Disciplinary problems
6% Contractual problems
5% Pay and conditions issues
Indeed, the threat of redundancy, even without the recession, has plagued our members in the FE sector for years. Uncertainty about funding streams, a fall in student numbers, a lower than expected Ofsted result, or simply a change of principal can each result in a complete restructuring of college management. But this year the added pressure of recession has also taken its toll. Members in the independent sector and in private training providers are seeing their jobs at risk, as parents and employers cut costs. The result has been not just job losses, but school mergers and even closures. Despite this grim picture, our members appear pleased with the service they receive from AMiE. We strive to offer a professional service to a very high standard, and we are proud of our record. So much so that perhaps our best recruitment tactic is by word of mouth from the members we have already helped. Fortunately, not every member calls upon us for help at the same time. That really would be a problem – and would suggest that something was very wrong with our sector! But we do deal with a wide range of issues. While one in three cases may be due to redundancy, we also deal with large numbers of grievances (mostly against our members), contract issues, pensions enquiries, discrimination issues, health problems, capability issues and so on. It doesn’t matter to us how big or small the problem is, how complicated it is, or how mundane it appears. A member with a problem is a member needing our help; and we will do everything possible to secure a successful resolution. At the end of the day, we measure our success in the feedback we receive from you.
Here are some comments from members we have helped this year: Without AMiE’s help, I would have had to leave the college without pay, due to ongoing and serious bullying. College manager in the south-west Extremely good negotiation avoiding litigation, leading to a timely and acceptable outcome. The service was excellent. College manager in the south-east I would like you to know that your regional officer has been outstanding throughout my ordeal. He has been there every step of the way, guiding me through the procedures, listening and providing legal and moral support. Without him and the speed with which he acted, I don’t know how I would have coped. School leader accused of hitting a pupil I don’t think the service I received could have been improved. I am very grateful and appreciate the officer’s professionalism and integrity. College manager off sick with work-related stress
Leadership skills
13
Emotional intelligence? You decide … Nadine Cartner, Director of Policy, AMiE
I want to challenge the contemporary acclaim for the concept of emotional intelligence. That opening sentence will already have alienated many readers, but please bear with me. Hear my reasons, write your letter of protest and we will print it in ELM. My first reservation is the implication in the modern discourse that there is this distinct free-floating capability called ‘emotional intelligence’ that exists independently of other mental capacities. In my view, this idea of an unanchored emotional intelligence does not correspond or conform with our lived experience. At any moment in time, whatever situation we are in, we bring affective, cognitive and moral resources to our engagement with work, people and the world in general, and in such a way that they are inextricable from one another.
What would you do? Consider the thoughts and feelings that go through your mind when you imagine the following scenarios.
1 You are preparing to meet a member of staff whom you line-manage and who is seriously underperforming.
Good judgements, wise responses and professional nous are built from an intelligence where cognition, emotions and values are well integrated.
1 You hear that a colleague has suffered a bereavement.
1 You come across a depressed young student, slumped in an outof-the-way corner of the college.
1 You have to make a judgement about the future of the college’s nursery.
1 You are having a hectic and demanding day at work when a telephone call brings the news that your 14-year-old son has swine flu.
To take the final scenario: of course part of your response is to want to care for your son. But woven into that thought process is an analysis of a range of factors: he’s a strong lad; swine flu is generally mild; perhaps there is someone else who can collect the medication; if you leave work now, the college won’t be able to appoint the VTs it needs for those two BTEC National courses; and, what’s more, critically important enrolment arrangements won’t be finalised. So on the basis of insightful emotions, cognitive analysis and values, you make a judgement to stay at work. If your cognitive analysis came up with different factors – for example if your son suffers from severe asthma – you might well make a different judgement. I’m suggesting that alongside your emotional response, and knitted into that response, you will find cognitive and moral considerations of equal relevance and importance. In order for you to make the wisest and most effective judgement and response, all of these situations demand not only emotional insight and reflection but also good values and intelligent cognitive analysis. In summary, good judgements, wise responses and professional effectiveness are built from a complex intelligence characterised by harmony and integration of cognition, emotions and values.
Emotional intelligence above all? I have a second reservation about emotional intelligence. In workshops or presentations on this topic you sometimes hear speakers privilege emotional intelligence, as though this capacity trumps all others. I dispute that. In the scenarios outlined above, you can see how inadequate a solely emotional response would be, and also how necessary are cognitive skills and good values for wise decisions.
14
Leadership skills
Take the example above of the decision about the future of the college nursery. All those thankful single mothers with their enchanting small children might sway you in a particular direction, if your emotions and empathy ruled your response. But college managers know they must recognise other factors that bear on such situations, particularly considerations of cost: the resources might actually add greater value for students if they were deployed differently. Please don’t misunderstand me: I am certainly not asserting that our emotional and feeling responses to people and situations are unimportant or lack value for professional and other judgements – far from it. Rather, I am claiming that they are only ever, and should only ever, be part of a more complex whole, where our emotions and feelings are in dialogue with our values and rationality. Wisdom and wise judgement, including in a professional context, depend on selfknowledge of our own emotional, moral and cognitive resources and the ability to deploy these well and appropriately and in a joined-up way. Timetabling the Diploma, for example, will make different demands than responding to your grieving colleague; and the challenge of clarifying the college’s community mission will make different demands again. To hold up emotional intelligence as a free-floating capacity and to privilege its importance over other capabilities is a serious and worrying misreading of the nature of mature intelligence, which depends precisely on the selfaware exercise of a range of complex and interrelated mental resources.
leased We are p e m b er s to offer m the f details o
/AMiE e d i a l e d A cheme. s e c n a r insu e t he e Please s nt on e m advertise details. for page 19
Head office Tel 01858 461 110 Fax 01858 461 366 National helpline Tel 01858 464 171 Email helpline@acm.uk.com or helpline@amie.uk.com Peter Pendle General Secretary, ACM and National Officer, AMiE Tel 01992 571 823 or 01858 461 110 Mobile 07810 481 467 Nadine Cartner Director of Policy Tel 020 7254 1445 Mobile 07713 267 748 Sukhi Chana Finance and Office Team Leader Tel 01858 411 543 Neha D’Souza Finance Administrator Tel 01858 411 544 Yvonne Fleming National Officer for School Leadership Tel 0191 370 9939 Mobile 07595 280 408 David Green Director of Employment Services Tel 01858 411 540 Mobile 07711 929 043 Laura Hall Office Administrator Tel 01858 411 545 Julia Pearson PA to Management Team Tel 01858 411 542 Wendy Ridolini Membership Coordinator Tel 01858 411 541 Sara Shaw Director of Corporate Services Tel 01858 411 546
School leadership
15
Delivering diversity Yvonne Fleming, National Officer for School Leadership, AMiE
At a time when the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) is keen to open up the debate on what makes a 21st century school, the issue of diversity should be high on the Government’s agenda. Data from the annual school census and research from the National College for School Leadership (NCSL) show that there is a definite mismatch between the numbers of pupils in schools from black and minority ethnic (BME) backgrounds and the staff who teach and lead them. For example, in January 2007, 17.7% of secondary students and nearly 22% of primary pupils in England came from BME backgrounds, as opposed to 5.4% of teachers. Moreover, there is even less data to be found on those in leadership positions, as the NCSL is the first to accept and is trying to put right. What can be said is that, for example, 1% of primary heads and 3% of secondary heads appointed in 2005/06 came from BME backgrounds.
Barriers Positive role models and mentors must also be created, and talented colleagues identified, supported and nurtured.
Perceived and real barriers to promotion are many and diverse. They range from the institutional, such as recruitment procedures and lack of adherence to legal codes, to the personal and individual, such as lack of confidence and a lack of positive role models. Although there might be a will to change – as seen in the aspirations of several organisations, including the NCSL itself – the lack of cohesive policies among such groups is apparent.
This issue is not confined to BME candidates; those with a declared disability and even women, in a largely female teaching profession, do not find it easy to reach the top. Although in recent years the proportion of female headteachers has increased, men are still more likely to get promoted to headship. For example, in the secondary phase, 37% of headteachers are female, even though they make up 57% of the teaching workforce. The data on disability also shows a bleak picture: in 2004/05, for example, only 4.8% of initial teacher training courses were taken by declared disabled students. This has obvious consequences for leadership positions among this group.
Practical measures There is much that can be done:
1 On a practical level, accurate baseline data, particularly at a local level, and surveys to monitor diversity are a must. This information should then be used to devise strategic and operational plans and a statement of values with clearly understood targets for improvement.
1 Practical measures also need to be taken to ensure that no bias is present in recruitment and selection interviews. Detaching personal details from application forms can be a useful first step.
1 Positive role models and mentors must also be created, and talented colleagues identified, supported and nurtured. This may mean the adoption of flexible working practices and the championing of internal networks.
1 Training and development that encourages young teachers to explore issues of race, gender and disability in ways that lead to real conversations about the complexities of school leadership is also crucial.
16
School leadership
Research shows that it is what we do as individuals that truly makes a difference in our own schools, especially if we are already in a leadership position. Progress may be slow, and changing long-held attitudes may be challenging, but with persistence things will happen. A good example of this is a BME colleague who has been head of a primary school in Birmingham for ten years. With persistence and championing of talented BME candidates, she has challenged stereotypes and now has a staff that reflects the community it serves.
Diversity panel The NCSL has formed a diversity panel to try to find ways of moving forward on this issue. The panel includes representatives from teaching unions (AMiE included), the DCSF and other government agencies such as the Training and Development Agency, as well as organisations such as the National Governors’ Association. Strategic objectives for the coming year have been identified – including targeted provision, shadowing, mentoring and coaching – and a range of local and national events are being planned. Details will be available on the NCSL website (www.ncsl.org.uk).
Tell us what you’re doing Meanwhile, if you are part of a local or individual initiative tackling the issues discussed, please do get in touch with us. Examples of good practice are needed to really start tackling this issue. It is in our schools and colleges, as leaders of today, that we can really start to make a difference in the future.
Seizing
success Yvonne Fleming, AMiE National Official for School Leadership, reports here on the fifth Annual National College for School Leadership (NCSL) Conference, which took place over three days in June at the International Convention Centre in Birmingham. The theme of the 2009 conference was ‘Seizing success’. Over 1,800 leaders and managers in education attended the conference. We welcomed an eclectic mix of speakers and commentators, whose aim it was to inform, inspire and celebrate the success of the gathered delegates.
‘Outward-facing leadership’ Speeches by Steve Munby, Chief Executive of NCSL, and Ed Balls, Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families – a role he seemed genuinely relieved to still have after the recent Cabinet reshuffle – took up similar themes on the new face of leadership in the 21st century. There was an emphasis on challenge, courage in adversity and the need for succession planning, if our schools are to be effective institutions in the months and years ahead. Steve Munby, in particular, called for ‘aligned organisations’, where consistency of practice was the key to success. He also echoed the words of the Minister, in calling for ‘outward-facing leadership’ to ensure collaboration both within and outside the school community. The emphasis was on local solutions and innovation at a time of inevitable efficiency savings. Leaders were told to be optimistic and arbiters of moral purpose – so no real pressure then! However, it was not the politicians and policy makers who inspired, nor even those whose interests and careers were within the education profession; the highlights for me (and I suspect for many delegates, given the audience response) were an inspirational panel discussion and a unique presentation.
17
What inspires success? All were clear on the need to set targets of excellence and never to shrink from these, even when times get tough.
The panel discussion was led by Sir Michael Barber. The panellists included Olympic athletes Dame Kelly Holmes and Kriss Akabusi, and film producer and politician Lord Puttnam. They were asked to give their views on a variety of topics, including inspirational mentors, challenges and how they had overcome them. It was interesting that key figures in all three lives had been particular teachers who had shown an interest, often when everyone else had given up on them. Encouragement and experiencing self-worth were paramount, as was the building of ‘pyramids of trust’, as David Puttnam put it, within organisations. All were clear on the need to set targets of excellence and never to shrink from these, even when times get tough. The other essential ingredient was a sense of humour. Indeed, as was pointed out by one of the delegates during question time, Kriss Akabusi’s laugh alone should be marketed and used as a way of motivating staff and pupils when the challenge seems too great. The other encouraging note was the fact that all three had moved on from their original careers and had gone on to do other things. As Kriss put it: ‘the past is for reference, not for residence’. So there is life after teaching!
Ethical leadership: lessons from Shakespeare The other truly stunning presentation was from Richard Olivier, Director of Olivier Mythodrama Associates. With an impeccable pedigree in leadership training and ties to the Globe Theatre, it was no surprise that Richard should turn in a polished performance. His theme was ‘ethical leadership’ as exemplified – or not, as the case may be – in Shakespeare’s Macbeth. Having discussed the main themes in overview, Richard went on literally to act out the key scenes depicting the fall from grace of Macbeth and the rise to prominence of Malcolm. The audience was left in no doubt how easily moral purpose can lead to corruption and self-destruction, when ambition takes over from reason. The performance gave much to reflect upon in terms of aims, values and personal goals. The fact that you could hear a pin drop in a large, packed hall of school leaders was testament to the effectiveness of the message and methodology employed. Indeed, it exemplified the power of creativity in action – something which government seems intent on stifling in our schools and colleges.
Time to reflect The conference gave school leaders an opportunity to take time out of their busy schedules to sit and reflect, as well as to network with others in key roles and to share their expertise and their problems. That in itself can be no bad thing.
18
Article by Reg Chapman, AMiE/ACM Council Member
Regulation: what college principals want
Researching self-regulation in FE colleges Has the penny finally dropped for New Labour that the target-driven, micro-management of public services has had its day? And if so, what do colleges want in its place? These questions are pursued in a new ACM-supported research project report, Researching Self-Regulation in FE Colleges. The report draws on confidential interviews with a cross-section of 21 college principals, half of whom were ACM members. The report explored the views of college leaders on the current regulatory regime and how it might be improved. The government view is expressed in the White Paper Excellence and Fairness – Achieving World Class Public Services (Cabinet Office, 2008), which claims that central control and targets have done the job of raising standards in public services and eliminating poor provision; colleges are now overwhelmingly rated at least ‘good’. But the next step to ‘excellent’ cannot be driven from the centre and requires empowered professionals in colleges – teachers, support staff and managers. Working with governors, they must have the energy, know-how, initiative, passion and flexibility to shape provision to local circumstances. No more one-size-fits-all. What do principals make of this analysis and how do they see regulation in the future? Principals were unanimous that the current regime was dysfunctional.
Researching Self-Regulation in FE Colleges (edited by Professor David Collinson, LSIS Research Programme 2008–09, Vol. 12, Learning and Skills Improvement Service, 2009) is available to view at www.acm.uk.com
Their main frustrations were: the extent and scale of external intervention and regulation; rigid central targets and funding categories limiting colleges’ responsiveness to local need; extensive compliance costs associated with servicing regulatory requirements; and national agencies and programmes that seem to absorb resources and offer national programmes and solutions which frequently do not match colleges’ priorities. There was a strong consensus about the way forward, based on an important distinction between ‘improvement’ and ‘regulation and accountability’. Principals believe that the sector is mature enough to take responsibility for lifting standards.
Improvement should be based around self-improvement at individual college level, with support and challenge from clusters of colleges in peer review and development groups. Colleges don’t need the army of consultants sent in by agencies, nor the intrusive audit, inspection and supervision which deflect resources and energy, and serve the regulators rather than students. But principals do not want – nor expect – complete freedom. They accept the need for some regulation and accountability. One suggested model is for a simple pass/fail system incorporating: baseline standards set by government in negotiation with the sector; and an annual judgement of each college, using published data on a few high-level performance indicators. Colleges meeting the standards pass and should be free to run their own affairs, albeit in consultation with local stakeholders. Colleges not meeting these standards fail and would receive peer and professional intervention and support to improve within a prescribed timescale. If such intervention were unsuccessful, then there would be further intervention from funding agencies and inspectors. Such a model is seen as combining the key requirements: allowing colleges the flexibility to deal with local challenges; and ensuring proportionate external accountability based on earned trust and performance. Some of the above elements are already in train – Ofsted will adopt a more proportionate approach, for example. But principals are deeply sceptical and feel that it is not in the nature of politicians and civil servants to give away power. This may be unduly pessimistic, however, as the impending spending cuts will surely lead to a culling of quangos. And then there’s the likelihood of a new Conservative government without the centralist tendencies of the present administration. The ACM way forward is for the Government to back off from micro-management and leave college professionals to do what they do best: to serve their local communities with passion and excellence.
20
The last word
What’s your label?
Nadine Cartner, Director of Policy, AMiE, on her allergy to the term ‘NEETs’ …
How would you like to be defined by the characteristics or life situations that you lack? Let’s see now … W-WOLLs: women without long legs (OK, no prizes for guessing who that would be). Then there are the MwHOWs: men without hair or waistlines (we’ve got a few of them in the sector). Don’t forget the GALs – those saddos who need to get a life. And I’m sure you’ve come across a few AMANSs – colleagues who are all mouth and no substance. Reader, what’s your label? How might you be negatively defined in terms of what you lack? Have you assembled your own acronym? Hey, how insulting is that! The term ‘NEETs’ – young people who are not in education, employment or training – has now entered popular parlance, no longer confined to planning conversations in colleges or discussions with officials at the DCFS or the national quangos. I have just Googled it and among the first ten hits are main pages mentions in the Guardian, The Times, the Telegraph, and on the BBC, as well as an article in Wikipedia (written by a GAL, I bet).
The sector can come up with nomenclature that is more positive and less insulting than ‘NEETs’.
I can’t be the only person who rebels at the notion of these young people being negatively defined in terms of what they lack, of what they aren’t. Those who associate themselves with the broad antiracist and feminist movements understand the significance of language and, in particular, its aptitude for symbolic and political – as well as literal – meaning.
This way of typifying these young people both pathologises them and implies a homogeneity that is just downright inaccurate. In reality, the category NEETs embraces many vastly different stories – ranging from those of deeply troubled youngsters struggling with damaging backgrounds to those 17-year-olds whose first stab at post-16 education didn’t work out for them and who are hesitating before committing to a different direction. Hesitation is by no means necessarily a bad call – I know plenty of people who jumped straight onto the post-16 expressway who would have done well to pause and examine their options more fully and with more care. Another common story for young people swept into this category is a history of exclusion from school. How puzzled they must feel when, after a career of listening to doors to education banging shut, they turn 16 and discover that everybody’s on their case, desperate to get them on board again. I think the sector can come up with nomenclature that is more positive and less insulting than ‘NEETs’. How about NEOs – young people in need of education and opportunities? Or perhaps the whole initiative might be rebranded ‘The COFA project: choices and opportunities for all’. If you share my allergy to the term NEETs, and have a good idea of how to improve it, please email me (nadinecartner@ amie.uk.com). ACM will campaign for the adoption of the best suggestion.
Edited and designed by thingswedo (www.thingswedo.com). Photographs courtesy of Harrow College (page 1, 2). Illustration by Keith Sparrow (page 20). Printed by Blackmore Ltd, Shaftesbury. © ACM 2009. All rights reserved.