19 February 2005
Pupils appraising teachers is an Orwellian nightmare
Here's a cute little report from across the pond, where Britain is continuing to morph into Airstrip One. This of course has been a long standing trend, so this should shock no one, at least as long as the Labor (EngSoc) government is running things.
What is of more concern to me, is this bit, which, from the Chief's perspective in the classroom, applies as much to the US as it does to the UK:
"It is hard to see how this scheme will help anyone. The two most commonly heard complaints about our schools are "too much paperwork" and "not enough discipline". The Ofsted proposal will exacerbate both problems. Not only does it tilt the balance from teacher to pupil; it also tilts the balance from teacher to state. It is doubtless well intentioned: even in these post-Woodhead days, the inspectors know that scrutiny helps keep teachers on their toes. And there is no question that some teachers are not up to their jobs; all of us know this, since we have all been to school. But there is something peculiarly modern about wanting to address the problem through more bureaucracy and more central control - and all in the name of "valuing our kids", which makes criticism seem mean-spirited."
It's also very interesting to me that this commentator talks about a limits to the effectiveness of (natiional) government programs. Viewing from within the belly of the beast, when well-intentioned acadamecians and bureaucrats come up with so-called accountability, their programs inevitably impose such a mess, that the educational process takes a real hit.
A serious change is also proposed by this commentator, which has been tried here, but so far only implemented on a small scale.
"Governments always try to raise school standards through Whitehall schemes: the national curriculum, admissions policies, literacy hours, examinations. All have failed, because no secretary of state, however pure her motives, can thrust her hand into every classroom in the land. The one thing that has not been tried is giving parents the wherewithal to pay for their children's education, and letting the schools compete for custom. Teachers would then be judged, not by their pupils, nor by an inspectorate, but by their prospective clients. Bureaucracy would fall away, good schools would expand and standards would rise. It has worked in every other field. Surely it's worth a try."
Indeed it is!
What is of more concern to me, is this bit, which, from the Chief's perspective in the classroom, applies as much to the US as it does to the UK:
"It is hard to see how this scheme will help anyone. The two most commonly heard complaints about our schools are "too much paperwork" and "not enough discipline". The Ofsted proposal will exacerbate both problems. Not only does it tilt the balance from teacher to pupil; it also tilts the balance from teacher to state. It is doubtless well intentioned: even in these post-Woodhead days, the inspectors know that scrutiny helps keep teachers on their toes. And there is no question that some teachers are not up to their jobs; all of us know this, since we have all been to school. But there is something peculiarly modern about wanting to address the problem through more bureaucracy and more central control - and all in the name of "valuing our kids", which makes criticism seem mean-spirited."
It's also very interesting to me that this commentator talks about a limits to the effectiveness of (natiional) government programs. Viewing from within the belly of the beast, when well-intentioned acadamecians and bureaucrats come up with so-called accountability, their programs inevitably impose such a mess, that the educational process takes a real hit.
A serious change is also proposed by this commentator, which has been tried here, but so far only implemented on a small scale.
"Governments always try to raise school standards through Whitehall schemes: the national curriculum, admissions policies, literacy hours, examinations. All have failed, because no secretary of state, however pure her motives, can thrust her hand into every classroom in the land. The one thing that has not been tried is giving parents the wherewithal to pay for their children's education, and letting the schools compete for custom. Teachers would then be judged, not by their pupils, nor by an inspectorate, but by their prospective clients. Bureaucracy would fall away, good schools would expand and standards would rise. It has worked in every other field. Surely it's worth a try."
Indeed it is!
