Schools in England and Wales are inspected on a regular basis by an organisation call OfSTED (The Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills).
OfSTED costs 5,000 teachers - £207m per year and rising. Whilst that is the cost of this body, it is NOT the cost of OfSTED. Schools and colleges spend a huge amount on preparing for inspections - money and time that could be spent on teaching. One source estimated the the cost of a mock inspection at £35,000, which would amount to another staggering £875,000,000 per year. That is £1Bn per year in total - approximately the cost of having an extra teacher in every one of the 25,000 schools in England and Wales! Despite this huge expenditure there is still a debate over the quality of education! I don't know about you, but I would expect rather better for that sort of money.
However, that is not the true cost yet. The government wants these inspections to be stress free. If they think that will happen then maybe a few should try covering a few classes in a school about to be inspected. The stress levels are huge. The Head has their job on the line. Being human, they therefore need to ensure their staff are up-to-date on all the latest OfSTED fads so that their tick lists can be filled. This anxiety is then transmitted to the staff, who feel that they are in the firing line. So they, being human too, pass on the stress to their pupils. This in turn causes sickness rates for staff and pupils to go up ... and that costs too. It harms the very people the systems is supposed to help - the pupils.
I'm a firm believer in not knocking something unless you have a viable alternative. The problem is the quantity learned and that is determined by the system of education (teachers teaching, oddly spaced term, schemes of work, etc.). Maybe it is the system that needs to change?
Atoms are small pieces of learning. They are used to break subjects into small, self-contained units. Imagine each as a separate qualification. These atoms can then be mapped against current exams and qualifications. For example, a pupil might have an interest in mathematics or astronomy. They zoom ahead collecting atoms in these areas. The syllabus for GCSE for these subjects is known, so the atoms needed to cover each grade can be created. The material covered by these interested pupils can then be monitored to see whether they have met the criteria - regardless of age, social background or schemes of work. Meeting the criteria could then generate a certificate which pops through their door, another motivational factor.
The idea of monitoring the educational system is obviously correct. However, a system which measured the quantity of education, such as atomisation, would allow genuine problems to be identified quickly - and be objective rather than relying on the opinion of someone whether a box can be ticked. The quantity and range of atoms signed off by a teacher, year group, a school or a borough can be examined. Decisions can then be made about effectiveness and value added in the light of genuine statistics. There would also be an objective yardstick by which each level could be compared. How well do different teachers perform, how much value does a school add, how do the boroughs or counties compare, etc.?
However, could this proposed system invite teachers to sign off atoms which have not been earned? You could imagine a situation in which a teacher has been coasting and so decides to award random atoms just to keep their statistics up. Isn't that the sort of job for which we pay OfSTED? Maybe they could do that? If it is, then it is a very expensive form of insurance.
Maybe an alternative could be imagined that is not as expensive - or maybe even adds to the educational system. We call this Clock Inspections and this has two strands; written confirmation that the atoms claimed were completed and an external examination of the atom work. Let's take each separately.
Written Confirmation: At the moment, head teachers have to sign an on-line declaration that they have reported the results for their school accurately. The implication is that fraudulent claims would have an adverse effect on their career. For example, a head teacher found to have influenced the reported results could lose their job. We are proposing that this be extended to teachers reporting the marking of atoms. Once per year the teacher should have to declare that the atoms they have sign off as completed have met the standard required. We are not talking here of a teacher who ticks off atom PQ47 instead of PQ46 - that is just part of life and is definitely not a reason for censure. Yes, the mistake has to be corrected, but that would be a matter of unticking one box and ticking another. This sort of mistake would not alter the number of atoms being claimed. There is too much of a "blame culture" in education and that hurts the learners. It's not even worth a quiet word in the corner - unless it is happening on too regular a basis. However, a teacher who invents completions is increasing the number of atoms claimed and so may see themselves travelling a disciplinary route. The motivation may just be to see a particular student move up a classification (misguided) or to bolster their statistics (fraudulent).
This would imply a level of internal verification of the achievement of atoms. Not every atom need be checked, but a random sample generated, say, by a computer program to ensure fairness. Teachers could moderate a sample and the management of the institution could sample the sample! At the end of the process each would sign a declaration that, subject to any amendments listed (e.g. an incorrectly ticked box) the results are true to the spirit of the atom. Cases of fraud would need to be investigated more formally outside of this system.
External Examination: There should also be room for schools to verify the work of other similar schools in their area. Pairing schools would be a bad idea since it could lead to inbred failings. We are therefore proposing that a clock face of schools in alphabetic order be created in each area. For example:-
If you were the school shown in yellow then in the first year you would inspect the school after you, the one indicated by the clock hand. The following year the hand would move on to the next school, and so on.
This would require an extra two teaching days per year; one to verify the atoms awarded and the other to have your atoms verified. This would mean teachers being paid for these two days - a fraction of the cost of OfSTED. But the big benefit is that teachers would talk to other teachers. Most teachers want their pupils to achieve and so are open to new ideas which help. Another aspect is bringing new teachers up to speed with the practicalities of the classroom. Verifying the atoms of others and having your atoms verified will do more to increase standards than the current inspection system - and cost less.
But what happens if problems are found? What happens if there is a personality clash? Who has the last say?
There will always be people who don't get on. The authority funding the schools or colleges would be the final arbiter and could afford this role by viring expenditure from the current system. Whilst it would take a few years to settle down, schools or individuals making spurious problems will be shown up whilst genuine problems will be identified more quickly and with greater certainty. For example, imagine a situation where the number of atoms awarded by a teacher dips one year. This could be a problem brewing, it could be due to an illness going round or it could be a statistical anomaly - just a year that did not perform and lies outside the 95th percentile. Being required to make the verification results public to the school web site will concentrate minds and allow parental scrutiny.
Monitoring and control of large projects is essential. Self-appointed "experts" setting rules which demote education to a tick list are not.