.
Last month the headteachers of 61 state-funded primary schools and seven secondary schools in Haringey wrote an ‘open letter’ in support of their Director of Children’s Services, Sharon Shoesmith, saying that her resignation, or dismissal, would be detrimental to their pupils. They said they felt compelled to show their support for Shoesmith and they consider her “an outstanding public servant”.
They added: “Should the Child P case result in her loss from the borough, then our children and young people will lose one of their most effective, determined and committed champions.”
“Initially, in her role of director of education, Shoesmith transformed a demoralised education service, derided by many headteachers, into one with which we are now proud to be associated.
“The exceptional rate of improvement of many of the borough’s schools would not have been possible without the support of the service that Ms Shoesmith rebuilt, revitalised and led.
“Since more recently becoming the director of Haringey’s Children and Young People’s Service, Shoesmith has continued to work relentlessly and with a determination that the service she leads and develops ensures best practice in providing education, care, support and protection for all of our young people.”
Well, I don’t know about you, but when a large posse of headteachers saddles up with the intention of riding to the rescue of their leader, then I’m inclined to pay attention to their views. After all, these are all people who are appointed and maintained in their posts on the basis of having a track record of good judgement, clear thinking and concern for children’s well-being.
Or at least that used to be the case . Further study is needed on the degree to which the new generation of headteachers has been appointed on the basis of their commitment to reaching arbitrary academic targets and their expertise in cramming children for mind- and spirit-deadening tests, first and foremost. As far as the culture of classrooms and schools is concerned the achievement of targets has become synonymous with well-being.
But hold on - where’s the open letter of support for Shoesmith from senior managers in the social services part of her empire? What are their views? Do they not consider her an outstanding public servant? Could this be a case of someone who has great vision and leadership skills as far as education is concerned, but NOT having any relevant experience or any great understanding of social work, and therefore no ability to impact on the quality of that part of the council’s service?
Similarly there are many instances of Directors of children’s services departments coming from a social services background with no experience or expertise in education. What makes such people equipped to be the head of a huge empire of schools and associated service departments? What real responsibility can they exercise when they are utterly reliant on the information they receive and the views they are presented with from their junior managers and their senior colleagues who do have a background in education? Are they not susceptible to having the wool pulled over their eyes? Do they even know the right questions to ask?
And was it such a great idea anyway for the government to create mega-departments for ‘children’s services’ in an attempt to ensure ‘joined-up thinking’ within local councils? I myself was privileged to witness at first hand how one of these departments came together within an inner-city LA. It was pretty obvious to me that the person who was being groomed for the top job had no real clue as to how schools should be led and managed, and no independence of judgment on pedagogy and curriculum, for example, let alone anything to say about creating quality learning environments.
But then that person didn’t need to. All that was necessary was to sign up for the government’s ‘standards agenda’ and away we go! Government thinking has been and still is that generic management skills of a high order are all that matter when it comes to leading bureaucracies. MBAs rule! OK?
But it’s interesting to consider what the curriculum might consist of on a course for the National Professional Qualification for Directors of Children’s Services. What would you need to know and to have done in order to get a place on the course? Possibly some experience of teaching as well as social work could be an advantage? Experience of team building within both a state school and a social services department? An understanding of pedagogy as well as therapeutic practice?
No matter - the government was in a rush to force all local authorities into creating huge departments of ‘children’s services’, whether or not individuals could be found who were qualified to lead them. And lord knows there were plenty of ambitious and willing candidates lining up to take on the top positions, whether or not they’d paid their dues and had at least SOME experience within both the relevant disciplines and professions.
And let us not forget - generic management and leadership skills are what we’re looking for! We’re all realists now - are we not? After all, we don’t expect the Prime Minister to be an expert on economics, education, health, social services, defence strategy, and the whole damned caboodle, do we? Not any more, at any rate.
There was no time to waste, apparently - and no time to prepare council departments properly, let alone to train and prepare people appropriately, for the huge amalgamation of departments that was proposed. And so it came to pass that a new generation of super-managers was put in place, with very interesting consequences throughout the land.
Meanwhile, the well-qualified Ed Balls, the minister for balls-ups in schools and families, has his own ideas about competence and leadership ability within Haringey council, and it turns out he has no regard at all for the views of the 61 Shoesmithite headteachers in that part of the world. So either he’s right to have dismissed Ms Shoesmith, in which case the 61 headteachers are all idiots for trying to keep her in post, or he’s wrong and Ms Shoesmith should not be slung out on the very day that an inspector’s report on the malfunctioning of her department is delivered. After all, if she’s not been in post very long, and she’s not yet up to speed with the social services part of it, is that her fault?
And what about Ofsted, which reported quite recently that Haringey provide ‘good’ children’s services? Christine Gilbert, Ofsted’s head honcho, witters on, with her tight little mouth and her pursed lips, about the need for unannounced inspections, but of course she’ll escape any blame for the death of Baby P, even though she’s ultimately responsible for the council in question being put into the second highest category for children’s services and therefore viewed as a successful local authority.
“Lightning Inspections” are what she now wants, but did it really take a hideous death like this to tell us that the system for carrying out inspections of children’s services has always been a total waste of time and money, in that it gave those departments months and even years to prepare for scrutiny - to put together all the bullshit statistics in the world to cover the backs of the top bureaucrats? At enormous public cost in terms of distraction from the proper task, and in officer hours spent on compiling huge dossiers with which to deceive the Ofsted inspectors and persuade them that targets were being hit, or at least addressed effectively.
Oh yes - it’s been OK to give the poor bloody schools 2 or 3 days’ notice of an Ofsted inspection - but bureaucracies are a completely different matter, are they not? Well Ms Gilbert, it’s fine being wise after the event, but it was YOU that’s overseen the introduction of a system for inspecting schools on the basis of data and statistics, and it’s YOU that’s gone along with the same approach for the inspection of children’s services.
“We can’t rely on statistics”, she now bleats, but that’s exactly what she and her Ofsted buddies have been happy to do, until now. And she now agrees that inspectors should talk directly to children and young people about their perceptions of what’s being done in their name.
More bullshit. It wouldn’t have made any difference to Baby P, and it won’t make any difference to those poor bloody schools that have been given the bullet and put into Special Measures under her regime, in spite of inspectors being told by the pupils that they enjoy their school, in many instances, and they believe that they achieve well in spite of all the adverse factors, like recruitment and retention difficulties, which so often impact on their schools and their well-being. It seems Ms Gilbert may no longer be so enamored of the ‘targets culture’. Now that the game’s almost up she may as well just come out and say, “I was just doing my job”. Carrying out orders, you see. Well aren’t they all?
So we may now be heading back towards a culture of inspections where human observation and actual analysis of what’s happening within schools and local authorities is the basis for judgments, rather than data and statistics. We may no longer need to tolerate Gestapo methods whereby headteachers are put in a chair and ordered to explain their lack of productivity and failure to hit targets, with a firing squad awaiting those who refuse to play the game or fail to satisfy with their answers. “Why is zis Value Added so bad!? Why is your school not reaching Floor Targets in Englisch? Answer me!!”
Sorry Germany, I mean you no disrespect. I’m just trying to draw some parallels with the methodology that’s been adopted by New Labour (and its running dogs like Ofsted) in its “refusal to tolerate low standards” or indeed to tolerate, let alone support, those who have tried to offer real education to their children rather than focus exclusively on the “outputs” demanded by the system we now have in this country. As I once heard a senior bureaucrat say, “Level 4 is the be-all and end-all”.
One thing’s for sure though. As of today there are going to be a lot of Directors of children’s services and their senior management colleagues who will be tearing around like the proverbial blue arsed flies in a frenzied determination not to have the double act of Ofsted and Balls do a Shoesmith on them at the drop of a hat. Lightning inspections will demand lightning and unceasing pre-emptive preparations.
I’d suggest that people in children's services departments who detect public money being wasted on this sort of self-preservation activity should do some whistle-blowing - but maybe we need to bear in mind what’s happening right now in the Damian Green affair, and consider that this might not be a wise move. Maybe someone should set up an anonymous call line, like Childline, for distressed civil servants and all those who work in the public services, who truly care about the public good, and in particular care about the wellbeing of children.
Maybe it’s time to think the unthinkable, to say the unsayable, and suggest that it’s only when people at the grassroots become activists in pressing for systemic change and in insisting on proper involvement in running our public services, that we’re likely to see a curb put on the wasteful and self-serving activities of the top bureaucrats, with their incessant conferencing and awaydaying and senior management huddling and cuddling.
But whilst you might get 60 or more people to speak out in favour of someone they like and think is doing a good job, just try getting even 6 people to put their heads above the parapet and publicly say something critical of those who hold the levers of power and who appear to be in a position to make their lives difficult.
--------------------------------------------------
Whassa Matta You? Itsa Not So Bad!
There’s an incredible centre-page photograph in the Guardian today of St Mark’s Square in Venice flooded to the level of café table tops, with the water flowing over the steps of St Mark’s Cathedral and the Doge’s Palace. Apparently 99% of Venice is flooded.
A high tide and strong winds have created a water level that’s a meter and a half above normal - the highest level in 22 years.
The conservation society Italia Nostra said that the flooding was proof of the inability of politicians and officials at all levels to manage Venice’s serious problems. This event would seem to be the equivalent of the failure of British weather forecasters at the time of the great gale of 1987, but given that the whole world’s been talking about rising sea levels it’s a bit much to say “we had no way of knowing”.
The Guardian reports that the city’s mayor, Massimo Cacciari, ‘ a philosopher by profession’, has shrugged off calls for a declaration of emergency. He’s reported to have said, “There were no deaths or injuries, and none of the buildings fell down”.
----------------------------------------------------
Given the grimness of what’s happening in the world it’s good that we can still turn to people and places where a good laugh is guaranteed.
From the current edition of Private Eye:
A cartoon of a grinning Sir Ian Blair walking to the bank carrying a massive kiss-off cheque for £400,000, over the caption The Laughing Policeman.
An old tramp warming himself next to an open fire by throwing on to it copies of Heat magazine.
A speech bubble coming out of Obama’s mouth saying, “Can the media hype me up any more?”, with another speech bubble at the side saying “YES WE CAN!”
2 skinny aliens standing in front of a flying saucer saying to an enormously fat guy, “Take us to you larder!”
--------------------------------------------------
Chris Rock’s latest show was broadcast on Channel 4 this week, and was, as expected, brilliant. He’s a complete original, pacing the stage for two hours, totally in command and never once resorting to comic cliché. His only ‘catchphrase’ is “There - I said it!”, which is what he says when he says the unsayable. Which he does on a regular basis. I love this man. He focuses on the topical, the real and the relevant, and makes people laugh till they cry at the outrageous absurdities we see around us every day.
He does a brilliant bit about rap-friendly white folks who rap along to the lyrics of the great rap artists, but choke when they get to the word ‘nigger’ - whenever they’re with him, that is.
Chris says it’s actually OK to yell it out in that context, but as to whether white folks can copy their black friends who use the N word in other contexts, the answer is “Not really”.
Not unless they’re saying, “Fuck me harder, nigger!”
Though he agrees that if you’re getting into a fight with someone it’s fair enough to pick on their defining characteristic, like being one-legged or black, since it’s unreasonable to expect someone to show respect for someone they’re in a fight with.
Sorry, Christine. That really is a horrible wrinkly little cat’s arse of a mouth you’ve got there.
--------------------------------------------------
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article5161092.ece
.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please leave a comment