3 ms·

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

by 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.

by 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.