5 ms·

What is that first link saying? That teachers need LESS oversight? This must be a joke. Also what does software have to do with that case?

by vdaea 3y ago

lkdfjlkdfjlg 3y ago
> What is that first link saying? That teachers need LESS oversight? This must be a joke. Are you suggesting this is a binary decision, where the only options is choosing "more oversight" or "less oversight"?
- vdaea 3y ago
  The status quo is "the same amount of oversight". And this article seems to say that since a teacher killed herself for getting "bad grades" then we should have less oversight.
  - concordDance 3y ago
    I believe the point the parent was making is that this isn't a single axes. There are a variety of different types of oversight that can be done on different aspects of schooling.
  - ck425 3y ago
    It's not saying that. It's saying that the current oversight is highly flawed and urgently needs changed. You're falsely equating qualitative change to quantitive change.
  - edstock 3y ago
    How about "better oversight", "constructive oversight" or "beneficial oversight"? Let's not fall into a trap by restricting the space to a single dimension of quantity.
  - cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago
    This is such a simplistic conclusion to draw that I can’t help but see it as intentionally dishonest. Oversight is not a knob that you turn up or down. I speak as someone with experience in this field when I say that education like a lot of other things is complex enough that “overnight”, especially with output suitable for public consumption, is far from trivial to deliver. Again, I don’t think that you’re arguing in good faith.
  - krisoft 3y ago
    There are many problems with the current oversight system. Neither “less oversight” nor “more oversight” correctly describes the changes one can wish for. The fundamental goal is not to punish teachers and headmasters/headmistreses. The goal is to ensure good quality and safe education for the students. If the school is inadequate or even close to it that should never be a surprise to the people working in it. The expectations should have been clear enough that anyone can self-asses themselves. There should be no big surprises during the inspection. That is neither “less” nor “more” oversight, but more predictable oversight. Furthermore the headteacher was in her position for 13 years. If the problems found were indeed so outrageous to rate the whole school inadequate then shouldn’t she have been inspected earlier and more often? During those 13 years multiple cohorts of students entered the school, studied and then graduated from it. The oversight report alleges during the whole time they attended a school with serious safeguarding issues. Isn’t that really bad? How did the oversight system let that happen? This is in fact asking for not less oversight but for more frequent one. On the other hand the school managed to turn around in a few short months and become rated “good” from “inadequate”. It is alleged the problems actually were not deep and they were rectified within weeks after the inspection. There were some discrepancies with record keeping and a few protocols needed tightening up. The common understanding is that Ruth would have lost her job when the “inadequate” inspection report is published. Is that the best way to achieve our goal of high quality and safe education system? Wouldn’t it be better if the oversight system gave them an advance warning and time to improve? Absolutely no feedback for 13 years and then suddenly feedback with the most severe consequences is not a way to ensure good outcomes.
strken 3y ago
It's probably suggesting that oversight which is made public as a one word rating like "inadequate" is not a good way to fix problems in a school, since the exact same experienced teachers and principals you'd need to turn a school around are the most likely to avoid an "inadequate" school. Presumably this feels even more unfair if the computer eats the inspectors' homework.
rcxdude 3y ago
Could well be that the kind of oversight that teachers are getting in the current system is counterproductive to the stated goals of said oversight.
tailspin2019 3y ago
> What is that first link saying? That teachers need LESS oversight? This must be a joke. Here's what it's saying, literally: > An Ofsted inspection "contributed" to the death of head teacher Ruth Perry, an inquest has ruled. > The inspection "lacked fairness, respect and sensitivity" and was at times "rude and intimidating", senior coroner Heidi Connor said. > Mrs Perry, 53, took her own life in January while waiting for an Ofsted report to be published. Seems entirely uncontroversial for them to review their practices and nowhere in there is it saying that teachers need less oversight.
nonrandomstring 3y ago
> teachers need LESS oversight? They absolutely do. In fact they're going on strike in the UK over intolerable working conditions, and while the MSM report this as ostensibly about "pay" the deeper reason is that they are micro-managed to hell.
- bemusedthrow75 3y ago
  Yes. They need less oversight, more training (particularly in tech and tech-adjacent issues) and more power over curriculum.
  - nonrandomstring 3y ago
    > more training (particularly in tech and tech-adjacent issues) and more power over curriculum. Yes yes! They are crying out for this too. I was involved in an international conference a few weeks ago on attachment theory and education and all the UK and US teachers said that they want more training to become more self-sufficient in IT. They want more autonomy over elements of the curriculum that use tech. They are also uncomfortable with using Big-Tech products in schools and concerned for the children over privacy. Unfortunately I can't post the video b/c rights/confidentiality but if I am ever able I will do so.
gadders 3y ago
They're state employees. That's not how things work in the public sector. I mean we all get OKRs, objectives etc but government employees are a special case.
- Doctor_Fegg 3y ago
  Most UK teachers aren't state employees any more: they're employed by academy trusts.
  - gadders 3y ago
    Semantics. All the funding comes from the state.
    - obernard 3y ago
      It is really not semantics, because of the amount of control that academies have over the work the teachers do, and because of their freedom to hire and fire teachers.
      - gadders 3y ago
        Do they have freedom over how much they pay the teachers?
        d1sxeyes 3y ago
        Yes, academies are not bound to the “Blue Book”, and can pay teachers whatever they like under whatever conditions they like (with the exceptions of teachers TUPEd in).

What is that first link saying? That teachers need LESS oversight? This must be a joke. Also what does software have to do with that case?

by vdaea 3y ago

What is that first link saying? That teachers need LESS oversight? This must be a joke. Also what does software have to do with that case?

lkdfjlkdfjlg 3y ago

> What is that first link saying? That teachers need LESS oversight? This must be a joke. Are you suggesting this is a binary decision, where the only options is choosing "more oversight" or "less oversight"?

vdaea 3y ago
The status quo is "the same amount of oversight". And this article seems to say that since a teacher killed herself for getting "bad grades" then we should have less oversight.
- concordDance 3y ago
  I believe the point the parent was making is that this isn't a single axes. There are a variety of different types of oversight that can be done on different aspects of schooling.
- ck425 3y ago
  It's not saying that. It's saying that the current oversight is highly flawed and urgently needs changed. You're falsely equating qualitative change to quantitive change.
- edstock 3y ago
  How about "better oversight", "constructive oversight" or "beneficial oversight"? Let's not fall into a trap by restricting the space to a single dimension of quantity.
- cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago
  This is such a simplistic conclusion to draw that I can’t help but see it as intentionally dishonest. Oversight is not a knob that you turn up or down. I speak as someone with experience in this field when I say that education like a lot of other things is complex enough that “overnight”, especially with output suitable for public consumption, is far from trivial to deliver. Again, I don’t think that you’re arguing in good faith.
- krisoft 3y ago
  There are many problems with the current oversight system. Neither “less oversight” nor “more oversight” correctly describes the changes one can wish for. The fundamental goal is not to punish teachers and headmasters/headmistreses. The goal is to ensure good quality and safe education for the students. If the school is inadequate or even close to it that should never be a surprise to the people working in it. The expectations should have been clear enough that anyone can self-asses themselves. There should be no big surprises during the inspection. That is neither “less” nor “more” oversight, but more predictable oversight. Furthermore the headteacher was in her position for 13 years. If the problems found were indeed so outrageous to rate the whole school inadequate then shouldn’t she have been inspected earlier and more often? During those 13 years multiple cohorts of students entered the school, studied and then graduated from it. The oversight report alleges during the whole time they attended a school with serious safeguarding issues. Isn’t that really bad? How did the oversight system let that happen? This is in fact asking for not less oversight but for more frequent one. On the other hand the school managed to turn around in a few short months and become rated “good” from “inadequate”. It is alleged the problems actually were not deep and they were rectified within weeks after the inspection. There were some discrepancies with record keeping and a few protocols needed tightening up. The common understanding is that Ruth would have lost her job when the “inadequate” inspection report is published. Is that the best way to achieve our goal of high quality and safe education system? Wouldn’t it be better if the oversight system gave them an advance warning and time to improve? Absolutely no feedback for 13 years and then suddenly feedback with the most severe consequences is not a way to ensure good outcomes.

strken 3y ago

It's probably suggesting that oversight which is made public as a one word rating like "inadequate" is not a good way to fix problems in a school, since the exact same experienced teachers and principals you'd need to turn a school around are the most likely to avoid an "inadequate" school. Presumably this feels even more unfair if the computer eats the inspectors' homework.

rcxdude 3y ago

Could well be that the kind of oversight that teachers are getting in the current system is counterproductive to the stated goals of said oversight.

tailspin2019 3y ago

> What is that first link saying? That teachers need LESS oversight? This must be a joke. Here's what it's saying, literally: > An Ofsted inspection "contributed" to the death of head teacher Ruth Perry, an inquest has ruled. > The inspection "lacked fairness, respect and sensitivity" and was at times "rude and intimidating", senior coroner Heidi Connor said. > Mrs Perry, 53, took her own life in January while waiting for an Ofsted report to be published. Seems entirely uncontroversial for them to review their practices and nowhere in there is it saying that teachers need less oversight.

nonrandomstring 3y ago

> teachers need LESS oversight? They absolutely do. In fact they're going on strike in the UK over intolerable working conditions, and while the MSM report this as ostensibly about "pay" the deeper reason is that they are micro-managed to hell.

bemusedthrow75 3y ago
Yes. They need less oversight, more training (particularly in tech and tech-adjacent issues) and more power over curriculum.
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  > more training (particularly in tech and tech-adjacent issues) and more power over curriculum. Yes yes! They are crying out for this too. I was involved in an international conference a few weeks ago on attachment theory and education and all the UK and US teachers said that they want more training to become more self-sufficient in IT. They want more autonomy over elements of the curriculum that use tech. They are also uncomfortable with using Big-Tech products in schools and concerned for the children over privacy. Unfortunately I can't post the video b/c rights/confidentiality but if I am ever able I will do so.

gadders 3y ago

They're state employees. That's not how things work in the public sector. I mean we all get OKRs, objectives etc but government employees are a special case.

Doctor_Fegg 3y ago
Most UK teachers aren't state employees any more: they're employed by academy trusts.
- gadders 3y ago
  Semantics. All the funding comes from the state.
  - obernard 3y ago
    It is really not semantics, because of the amount of control that academies have over the work the teachers do, and because of their freedom to hire and fire teachers.
    - gadders 3y ago
      Do they have freedom over how much they pay the teachers?
      - d1sxeyes 3y ago
        Yes, academies are not bound to the “Blue Book”, and can pay teachers whatever they like under whatever conditions they like (with the exceptions of teachers TUPEd in).